One of the items that popped up on my Bloglovin feed yesterday was a piece from the Guardian entitled "Has William Boyd spoiled Henning Mankell?" It noted the grumpy letters to the editor written to the New York Times following the appearance of Boyd's spoilerific review of Mankell's A Treacherous Paradise.
"William Boyd’s review of Henning Mankell’s new novel, 'A Treacherous Paradise' (July 21), ruined my reading of the book," wrote one angry reader.
"I have not read Henning Mankell’s book, but I certainly feel little need to now that Boyd has revealed the entire plot," declared another.
I'm always curious to know what other reviewers think about books I've read, since no two people experience the same book in exactly the same way. Boyd's review was highly positive, and I thought it was great to see a deserving book get good press... but, as I wrote in a comment to my own writeup, the NYT review gave away "most of the plot, including the ending, so those who want to appreciate the suspense should steer clear."
In reading the letters to the editor, I was glad to see I wasn't alone! I also found it ridiculous to criticize (as some Guardian commenters did) those who "read for plot" and don't want the twists and turns in a suspense novel told to them in advance.
I've written for several review publications that had "no spoiler" policies, and when I edit reviews for the Historical Novels Review, I check with the reviewer if some aspect of their writeup looks potentially spoilery. If I haven't read a book myself, it isn't always easy to tell for sure. On the other hand, if I have read the book in question, and I know a key plot point is being disclosed, I carefully edit the review to blur the details and leave the big reveal for the reader to discover on her own.
This is one of the responsibilities and hazards of editing reviews; sometimes I learn a little too much about books I'd planned on getting to. Fortunately this happens rarely, and this is an extreme example... but I still remember one time when a brand new reviewer, not being used to the job yet, turned in a review of a WWII thriller that told me the protagonist would be killed at the very end, his airplane crashing to the ground in a huge ball of flame. I still haven't read the book (and no, I'm not going to say which one it is).
What are your thoughts on spoilers? How much do you want to know about a book, plot-wise, when you read a review?
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.
As a reader, I hate spoilers. I really want to experience the book fresh; not knowing and being led by the author is the one of the most wonderful parts of the experience.
ReplyDeleteAs a writer, I loathe spoiler-filled reviews of my books. Reviews are not book reports; and though I don't write ultra-plotty books, it doesn't really matter. I want readers to experience the twists and turns on their own.
It's good to hear this from an author's viewpoint, too. It must be very annoying to have spent time carefully crafting a storyline only to have it summarized in full by someone else.
DeleteI agree Julie. Book reviews are not book reports and so many people seem to have the two confused.
DeleteI don't like spoilers either. I often summarize the plot of each book I review, but I try to keep the summary to the events already mentioned in the book's blurb to ensure I don't give anything important away. It can sometimes be a fine line though, as some readers don't like to know anything at all. It can also be difficult with historical fiction because not everyone is necessarily already familiar with the history they are reading about, and events the reviewer might consider common knowledge might in fact not be.
ReplyDeleteI like the general plot to be included in reviews, but don't really like reviews that spend paragraph after paragraph rehashing the plot and spend little time discussing the merits of the book itself.
I'd been pondering that too, in reference to historical fiction specifically. There are some events reviewers can assume their fellow readers will or should know (the fate of each of the wives of Henry VIII, for example) but details on the lives of lesser-known historical characters may not be so obvious. With biographical fiction, though, I don't find spoilers as bothersome, even if I'm not familiar with the person's story, but I'd still rather come to a book without that added knowledge.
DeleteKeeping your summary to events already mentioned on the book flap isn't playing it safe. Many of us don't read book flaps for the same reason we're afraid of many bloggers' reviews.
DeleteI'm one of those readers who you think don't want to know anything. In fact, though, if we didn't want to know anything, we wouldn't even look at your review. We DO want to know something. We want a GENERAL outline of the plot and the blogger's opinion of how the author did. Period.
Don't write more than that just because you feel you need to fill up the page.
I had figured that different readers would have different preferences on how much they want to know in advance - it's good to hear everyone's thoughts.
DeleteBook flap summaries almost always have authors' approval, if they haven't written the blurbs themselves, and avoid mentioning aspects of the plot that the authors prefer to keep hidden. Whether the reader would prefer to stay away from even that much information is another story, of course. I agree that it can be a fine line, so reviewers have to carefully judge how much to reveal.
There's been the occasional time when I've seen a blurb reveal too much or even get something wrong (oops), both of which make me look at the publisher with suspicion. But I haven't seen that very much. More often, the blurbs serve as teasers for me rather than deterrents.
I think the idea when reviewing is to give readers something of the flavour of the book so they can decide for themselves whether it sounds like something which will appeal or not, as the case may be. A blow-by-blow recounting is counter-productive.
ReplyDeleteSometimes, of course, the end is already a given before you start- for example Hannah Kent's "Burial Rites" (my review here), which we are told, as part of the blurb, is the story of the last woman to be executed in Iceland. Kent does a great job of ratcheting up the tension as time runs out, but obviously we know before we start that things are not going to end well for our heroine!
Sometimes, too, you would think it safe to assume that everyone knows the ending of a classic novel which has been around for years. I was taken aback after a radio discussion about "The Great Gatsby" to hear a listener respond with the complaint - "Jay Gatsby dies? Spoiler!" Good grief :)
This is a subject I rant about often, and many book bloggers are guilty, some more than others.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, there is no shame in reading for plot. I prefer a literary novel, meaning that it contains character developement, but it also needs plot. A good writer can write a character-driven novel. A good AUTHOR combines that with plot so that the novel is not character-driven, alone.
So, when a book review contains too much plot, I'm unhappy. Most of the entertainment is discovering the plot. A book without plot isn't much of a novel.
When I read book reviews, I usually read the first two and last two paragraphs. Those are the paragraphs that usually contain the information I need, a minimum of the plot and the reviewer's opinion.
One book blogger ALWAYS writes long, detailed reviews containing every bit of the plot, all the twists and turns. She always begins with a paragraph of how she was so excited to read this book and how she jumped at the chance. Who cares? That's not book review. (A lot of bloggers do this.) She always ends with how she read the book in one sitting. I just read her second and second-from-last paragraphs.
If I were the author of a book she reviewed, I'd have a fit.
Yep - and too many librarians are guilty of this during booktalks. Annotations etc. are NOT plot summaries.
DeleteSarah OL
Spoilers are spoilers whether you're talking about books or movies. A popular reviewer revealed the only twist in my book, and I was so disappointed. Like Julie said, it wasn't meant to be some intricate mystery, but at least let people read it themselves!
ReplyDeleteToo many reviewers simply recount the entire plot, and yes, it's annoying. As a reader I want to know what kind of writer the author is, and if s/he successfully pulled off an engaging plot, and good characters - I don't want any plot points revealed. If that's necessary in some way, the reviewer should state a spoiler alert; and most good reviewers do.
ReplyDeleteA lot of reviewers are simply readers who love books and start a blog. Reviewing is a learned skill, and as someone who has only been reviewing online for a little over two years, it takes time to figure out how to do it right/best.
Nice post on an important topic!
I am one of those for whom so-called spoilers do not matter. What matters is how the plot is plotted, since the plots per se are pretty much the same.
ReplyDeleteAnyone who tries to write out every twist and turn of the plot treatment -- well, that is very dull reading! A lot of want to be reviewers think that's what a review is: outline the plot events. There is nothing to make this reader run away faster from a book than reading one of those: not because the events have been revealed but because it is so boring to read.
To say that such and such a character dies or whatever is not at all necessarily a spoiler to me -- but giving the details of how it happens would be considered a spoiler, and then, of course, that is tiresome reading. To say something like "The death of such-and-such created ripples of conflict within the community," sparks interest and to me is no spoiler at all -- but for others it would be a spoiler.
Love, C.
I would like to add that sometimes it's impossible not to be a bit spoiler if one's brief is to provide a critical assessment of the book. An example, a book that is set in the Caribbean, has musicians as primary figures and gets all the music and the way musicians behave wrong -- Imma gonna say that, as writer, a reviewer and a reader. If the writer gets such matters so basic to the premise and location of the book so badly wrong you cannot trust the writer in anything else either. Moreover, it throws the reader right out of the immersion that so many of read historical fiction to experience.
DeleteLove, C.
I completely agree with that. In cases like this, I try to word my critical remarks so that the problems are made clear while not giving away too much plot-wise. It IS possible to do this, but as Cynthia mentioned above, it's a learned skill.
DeleteAlso, I just want to be clear--I am VERY grateful for every review of my books. I just get frustrated with spoilery reviews.
ReplyDeleteToday's Washington Post has a review by Michael Dirda that some readers have labeled as spoiler-dense.
ReplyDeleteI, at least, would be interested to see if this site's Host and her guests agree, and why.
Here's the web address for Dirda's review of THE RAVEN’S GIFT By Don Rearden, which Dirda obviously admires and enjoyed reading:
It's a long and thoughtful review.
Love, C.
I always enjoy Michael Dirda's reviews. They're entertaining, insightful, and worth reading regardless of whether the book he's reviewing personally interests me or not.
ReplyDeleteSpoiler-dense? I haven't read The Raven's Gift, but I would say no, it isn't. He outlines some plot developments (up through p.38 of a nearly 300-page book; no big deal) and gives just enough hints of later happenings to pique readers' curiosity. I don't see a complete plot outline there, and he's left plenty for readers to discover on their own - plus he gives ample reasons why they should. This is the type of review I like.
That's what I thought also -- and I like that kind of review too.
ReplyDeleteLove, C.
When I write reviews I typically try to steer clear of discussing specific plot points. I don't even summarize the book myself because my view of a spoiler and someone else's view could vary. I stick with just posting the cover blurb because that is readily available on the book itself. When I'm reading a review I'm not looking for the plot, I can get that on the books website, I usually already know something about the book if I'm even reading the review. I'm focused on whether they liked the book and why/why not. That's the same take I try to have on my own reviews.
ReplyDelete