Not My Responsibility

So I'm here again.  Not to review anything, exactly.  Rather, more or less, to educate people (or incense my many rabid followers, hardy har har) about what exactly a review is for.

Now, as I've said before, I love GoodReads.  I even adore and aspire to be as critical as some of the most reviled GoodReads "bullies" out there.  (And yes, even I admit that they tend to jump down someone's throat right quick when they comment things the major band don't agree with.  Yet, with some of the Trolls they've been through, not exactly sure I'd be very lenient either.)

This, of course, does not mean I encourage bullying or even would want to be as aggressive in the threads of my reviews as they have been.  In fact, my very worst reviews have never been written (see previous post: Bad Reviews).  All of which is beside the point when I give you the very straight fact:

I have every right to write the most vitriol, disgusting review on the planet … with no basis for it.

I do have that right.  I retain that right.  And to say that my review is meant for anything other than my own reminiscences later on is absolutely ludicrous.

My review is not for the creator's benefit.

My review isn't even for other consumers.

It is especially not meant as an instruction manual or a vanity script.

The only purpose of my review is to remind me what I thought of a product after experiencing it.  Either so I know to keep tabs on a wonderful author, or steer clear of one that whines like a spoiled child not yet taught to hold its tongue while the adults are speaking.

I suppose now you may be wondering why I am ranting about this … again.  (See: Opinions Reside Here)  Well, I was traversing that wonderful verse called GoodReads and came across a response that struck me as odd, rude, and utterly false.  Without naming any names, here is what the comment consisted of:

"I have no comment on your judgment regarding this book; whether you like it or not is irrelevant.  However, a review should provide useful information about a novel and a basis for determining its worth.  Your review is nothing more than a foul-mouthed rant which gives the reader neither.  Try using the intelligence you claim to possess in your next review"

I was first struck by that opening sentence.  My first thought: Excuse me?  Bitch say wha-?  How ignorant is this person that they think that whether or not a reviewer likes the product is irrelevant?  In a consumer-based society, whether or not you actually like something is all that matters!  And what possible consumer wants to look at a review and basically read another summary?  Because that's all this commenter believes to be acceptable as a review apparently.

Secondly, a review should provide the honest thoughts of the reviewer.  Anything else (quotes, memes, praise and criticism) is all extra padding.  A review could be three paragraphs, three pages, or a single sentence.  That still makes it a valid review.  Anyone who doesn't understand that has no business even reading them.

Lastly, if a foul-mouthed rant is called for, then by all means: unload the fucking barrel.

This person, like many others I've happened upon across the GRs universe, seems to be under the delusion that reviewers are under some form of obligation.  That it is our responsibility to give only clear, concise reviews that briefly highlight what the book is about, and whether or not we add our personal stamp of approval.

Some people are under the impression that it is a reviewer's responsibility to critique the works of others and give only constructive criticism in our reviews.

Many think we owe it to the public to leave only watered down versions of our passionate responses to these works within the public eye.  (Omitting, of course, all those "foul" words which so sting their delicate senses.)

Well, please allow me to remove the veil covering those sensitive eyes:

It's not my responsibility.

I am under no obligation, whatsoever, to write a review that merely offers constructive criticism.

It's not my intent to make my reviews G-rated so that those with their panties in a bunch may rest a little easier.

And it is certainly no help to anyone to simply restate a summary.  It quite defeats the purpose of a review, wouldn't you say?

Nothing in that comment can be considered accurate.  Why?  Because it is not our job as reviewers to do anything for the publishing industry, or even our fellow consumers.

It is not our responsibility to point out authors' triumphant points or their failures.  But we do.

It is not our responsibility to write reviews that are filled with direct quotes, criticize plot choices, mention errors in editing, or applaud astounding characters.  But we do.

It is not our responsibility to create reviews meant to be engaging and witty, or even filled with distaste and foul language.  But we do.

This thing that we do as reviewers … it is not a job.  It is not an obligation.  It is not our responsibility.

It is a choice.  Something that we decide to do whenever we bloody well feel like it.  And the results will be our honest thoughts and opinions.  Whether or not others wish to hear them.

So to say that a review is only meant for a certain reason … is complete rubbish.

There is only one reason to write a review: to remember how we felt about the subject.  To document our experience and to one day go back and look again at all the lives we have lived, be they full of greatness or sorrow.

Whether we can do that in a single sentence, a couple of paragraphs, or even a few pages … that's for us to decide.

But it is certainly not our responsibility.