My monthly Romantic Times e-newsletter just arrived, and Carol Stacy, the publisher, refers readers to the RT blog to see the new review format they're adopting as of the September issue. The reviewers will be putting their opinion up front, in bold, with the plot summary provided afterward. I suppose it's good for consistency's sake, and it forces reviewers to provide adequate amounts of both plot and commentary, but the format looks weird to me - almost like it's backwards. The plot summary feels like an afterthought, even though it's longer. It doesn't allow for much creativity on the reviewer's part, either.
When you're reading reviews, do you scan the entire review first to see what the reviewer's opinion was, or do you read the whole thing through as written? What do you think of this format?
About Me
- Sarah Johnson
- Collection management librarian, readers' advisor, avid historical fiction reader, NBCC member. Book review editor for the Historical Novels Review and Booklist reviewer. Recipient of ALA's Louis Shores Award for book reviewing (2012). Blogging since 2006.
I usually read reviews straight through (unless they're very long, in which case I might look at the end first).
ReplyDeleteI don't really like the new RT format. Looks as if reviewers are being pressured to give either totally positive reviews or totally negative ones, instead of considering different aspects of the novel in turn and weighing the good against the bad.
Usually as written, but very occasionally I'll zip to the end first.
ReplyDeleteThe new RT format is odd. I'd prefer that blurb-worthy content to come last. Tell me something about the book first, please.
I suspect the first part of the review will be a convenience to authors and publicists. The second part, presumably, is to assist readers who want background on the plot and characters.
I seldom see RT, so don't rely on them for buying info. Back when I did read the mag regularly, I found their reviews somewhat predictable.
I'm another who usually reads reviews through as written. The format wouldn't attract me, but I don't think it would especially annoy me either, as the example is so short that it's a matter of seconds to read the whole thing anyway. It reminds me of 'call-outs' in marketing material, or the 'hook' paragraph you get in bold text at the top of some newspaper articles.
ReplyDeleteI get RT mostly to read the articles and to stay informed about new books, since there are many that I know I'll never see in the local Borders/B&N. I read the reviews mostly for details on the storyline and setting... I often don't agree with their opinions. Historical accuracy seems not to matter at all.
ReplyDeleteOnce the Sept issue comes out, I'll be interested to see if what Susan wrote is true. And Carla, you're right, the reviews are very short. And with the new format, it makes them seem even shorter. I am wondering if they believe people find it easier to read reviews in this sound-bite format.
Hi Carol,
ReplyDeleteThanks for stopping by and replying to my comments.
I think my biggest concern was that the new format gives the appearance that the plot summary is less important than it used to be. (You're right that I'll probably read it first! Looking at the comments on the RT blog, I may be unusual in this respect.) But I'll see how it works in the magazine when there are more reviews to judge by.
I do like that reviewers will be obliged to say exactly why they liked/didn't like certain parts of the novel - that will be helpful. This is something we've been discussing here recently, in a general sense (not specific to RT). I started subscribing to RT again several years ago, when the reviews became more critical, and the magazine started covering a wider variety of novels.
I'll be sure to email you my thoughts after I've seen a few issues in the new format!
Sarah