Repeating Myself, with added eyerolling

[neadods]

There are now apparently six comms dedicated to critiquing the nominees for the Children of Time awards, so many run by sock puppets that the latest stakes its claim to fame specifically as the non-sock comm. (Why does CoT continue to soak up this nonsense? It's not like there are multiple comms SMOFing about calufrax recs.)


I'm going to take this opportunity to repeat myself: by openly posting reviews under my name, I have gotten work. Semi-professional work. (Reviewing the Evidence, I Love a Mystery Newsletter) Paying work. (Once Written, Firefox News) Even the stuff that doesn't pay in cash or goods (Unreality SF) is adding to my portfolio so I can get more work (and things are being negotiated for future lines).

Four years of negative reviews in Reviewing the Evidence, and I have yet to be spit on or run out of (or even shunned at) Malice Domestic or Bouchercon. It hasn't been six days since I looked a professional author right in the eyes and explained why I gave her next-to-latest book a partially negative review. Mary Stanton was amazingly cool about it. We had a long conversation about those points in her series and her plans.


So frankly y'all, I have LESS than no sympathy for anyone who thinks that they "have" to hide their identity to "honestly" give an opinion.

Comments

[spiralsheep.livejournal.com]

I don't rly agree with your first example. I think I'd be more likely to google for additional facts than take someone's word for X because even acknowledged experts tend to have personal biases that don't necessarily coincide with mine. But I understand that many people are swayed by personalities and rhetoric as much or more than facts and also that many people would dismiss anons in those circumstances out of hand.

WIth reviews, the only way for me to assess the fairness of a reviewer is to go out and read the reviewed fic and then evaluate the review -- which defeats the purpose of a review, which is to guide people toward fic they might want to read. (At least, that's my purpose in reading them, and I imagine many others as well.)

::nods understanding::

I can see how that might be especially true inside a community context, such as fandom, where a reader might know more of a reviewer than merely their reviews.

I have yet to find a reviewer who reliably likes the same fiction as me, in any context, so I tend to favour description in reviews over opinion reviewing if I'm seeking fiction to read although I do enjoy reviews which critique too when I'm engaged with the critique in its own right (whether or not I've read the work being critiqued).

Thank you.

[stoplookingup.livejournal.com]

I think I'd be more likely to google for additional facts than take someone's word for X because even acknowledged experts tend to have personal biases that don't necessarily coincide with mine.

I think in many cases it's a combination. You try to inform yourself as best you can, but in the end, some issues are too complex for the layperson to judge. But at that point it becomes a stupid analogy for fic reviewing because fic reviewing is not global warming. So....never mind. ;-)