I often don’t read reviews until after I have read the book. I don’t want any spoilers and I want to make up my own mind. But, after, I’ll look through to see if other readers had the same reaction I did, or didn’t, and/or brought up points that I didn’t consider. All very cool. But, lately, I’ve been noticing two rather irritating trends: the Pollyana review, and the Karen review.
What’s a Pollyanna review? One that doesn’t offend anyone, not the author, any readers, or anybody. There is not one jot or tittle of anything that could even be vaguely misconstrued as a criticism of any element of the book. They’re not very long, maybe 4-5 sentences, and usually start off with a lilting phrase or two along the lines of “oh, this started out a little slow and then, boy oh boy, did it take off!” That’s about as harsh as the review gets. It’s more like a publisher’s blurb than a critique. They are always five-star reviews, rarely four-stars and never, ever anything less than that.
The Karen gets into high dudgeon over any of the infinitely long list of words, situations, attitudes, and stances over which a substantial portion of the population these days has the vapors. Doesn’t matter how well the book is written, it’s trashed because someone or something in the book did or said something wrong. They are always one-star reviews, maybe up to two if the reviewer is feeling generous.
Both are diametrically opposed to each other, and I would love to see a Pollyanna and a Karen go at each other in the Goodreads comments. While that would be entertaining, both do a major disservice to the people they are intended to reach: readers.
The Pollyanna can’t criticize anything about the novel, not one thing. They give 5-star reviews because they like the author’s photo. The Karens rage against every violation, actual or perceived, of every fad, trope, political sensibility, social posture, or current Marxist thought found in the book. One-star reviews because, in a historical fiction book set in the 1880s west, cowboys don’t treat Indians very nicely.
Revisionism much?
The purpose of any book review is to let other readers know if it’s worth their time. It is not to make the author feel good about themselves. That was the job of their mom or their writing group. Once the author makes the decision to publish, then he has announced to the whole world that this particular novel is prime-time ready. When you read it, you let other readers know if that’s true or not. If you like it, tell us why. If you don’t like it, tell us why not. But that needs to be limited to the craft, the style, the story’s continuity and believability and not some politically incorrect stance/attitude/stance by anyone in the book to which you take mortal offense. It also needs to be honest, not hidden behind weasel words so sweet you can get diabetes from them.
This is why you cannot trust star ratings anymore. If you see a lot of five star-reviews, be wary, especially if it’s a check-listed book: you know, woman author, strong female protagonist, straight white male patriarchy oppressing both the strong female protagonist and the required sympathetic gay character, non-threatening males who do everything the female protagonist wants without her ever having to say anything, check, check, must be good. If you see a lot of 1-star reviews, pick it up because it’s probably excellent, a book that the New York Times doesn’t want you to read. Which is the highest of recommendations.
Better than that, pick up a book based on its blurb, not its stars, nor the glowing recommendations written on the back by other authors paid to do so. Pick it up because it sounds like your kind of story. And when you’re done, give it a review. Not a Pollyanna, not a Karen, but one that lets us know if the book is worth a real reader’s time. Or should be tossed like a Frisbee.