Read on Twitter
I'm going to say a few things, then have to leave for work, then probably say a few more things, okay? About reviews and reviewing. yeah.
So first off, I have no problem with a reviewer covering work where they have not read the preceding instalments. I am asked to do this all the time.
in my experience, authors/editors still prefer the work be covered, and only in retrospect decide that was a bad idea. bc it doesn't mean the review is going to be negative, doesn't mean the reviewer isn't going to like the work.
it's a question of context and what the reviewer is going to do with a lack of context. for me, treating lack of context like it's the fault of the text/author is often...the mark of an authoritative style of reviewing that i bristle at.
if i read a story and know or suspect that it's not the first in a series, i still read it, and until January I'd still review it in full. and maybe mention that i suspected that i was missing some context that might have helped my reading. but. But.
I'd still engage with the text that i had. and I wouldn't assume that any context i lacked was a *failing* of the text. there are so many reasons a person can lack context for a story/work.
reviewers bring their mess with them. their history. a lovecraftian story is going to hit a reader who has read a lot of lovecraft different than someone who hasn't different from someone who has read a lot of complications/critiques of lovecraft
a story with a foreign language that isn't translated is going to hit a reader who reads that language different than someone who doesn't and would have to translate that language.
treating these kinds of lack of context as failures of the text is...dangerous, imo. bc the playing field is not even. bc playing with context can be a brilliant way to push back against systemic prejudices
(and here alas I must go to work so back in 30)
(back!)
The issue here as I see it IS NOT that a reviewer would choose to cover a sequel where they had not read the first book. IS NOT that a reviewer would not like a sequel where they had not read the first book. Those are completely legit and ppl should accept that.
Because it's important to not subtweet people into silence when those things are not *inherently* bad or wrong or invalid. And that tends to get lost in the noise of these kinds of discussions (Discourses?)
what I would LOVE to talk about instead is how authoritative reviewing styles are valued, especially at paying, "professional" reviewing venues, and how that props up genre gatekeeping and institutional power, bias, and injustice.
And how within authoritative reviewing styles, lacking context is a failing, pushing to reward works only that fall into the canonical lines of SFF, only that remain so married to the "standard" tropes and practices that book 9 is as accessible and comfortable as book 1
That first paragraph of the review that people are sharing, to me, should have been the entire review and no, wouldn't have been super useful to many, but would have represented at least an honest accounting. That the review goes on...that to me is the heart of the issue.
Because the review is admitting a lack of context *but then still claiming to be an authority on the book*. Backed up by the editorial and publishing power of the venue, which is not insubstantial.
What I wish we'd normalize is people being able to admit their own failings to engage with/get into a text, examining that, and having a discussion about that. But that's not a "review" as most understand it. Which is to me a shame.
Reviewing is always more about the reviewer than the text. Which can still be wildly useful. Which is still an art in itself. But which IS NOT a statement on the merit or value of other art.
As I say as much as I can, reviewing is writing. It produces a text that is not above the very same discussion and reaction that it itself engages in. Reviewers are not Authorities above the works they review
which doesn't make them not valuable. They are incredibly valuable. But they are not objective and often a lot more introspection should go into that to start to dismantle the gates that try to limit the field and the critical discourse we have within it.
anyway that's all for now but yeah, just please also be careful about saying who should be allowed to review what, bc that almost always will first silence those already vulnerable and marginalized whose voices are most desperately needed.
you don't NEED context to review a work. but that lack of context isn't something that should just be waved away. it should be examined, poked at, and explored—especially before rendering some kind of verdict wrt artistic value of a text. The End.
