Does writing reviews still make sense?

Lately, I've been thinking quite a bit about the current relevance of reviews in printed magazines and genre websites. That's what this article is about. I should warn you upfront that this is a subjective view, and others might see it differently. I'll focus on book reviews, but I believe what I say below applies to reviews of any medium with minor adjustments. And we're talking about fantasy and sci-fi.

Everyone is informed as they deserve

One of the factors that led me to these thoughts is my age. I don't feel old, but I do remember a thing or two. While before the thousand-times-repeated "fall of the Iron Curtain" I read mostly adventure books, children's stories, and classic Jules Verne, after that "fall," I dove into fantasy, which immediately enchanted me. I knew a few titles that were published within the "socialist library," but the real breakthrough came later. Plus, it was a time when I was gaining some sort of perspective. And I certainly wasn't alone in that back in the seventh or eighth grade.

We shared insights, borrowed books, and tested out different genres. We devoured knowledge wherever we could. One of the main sources was unforgettable visits to the Gerald bookstore, which was still operating on the dark Stodolní Street in Ostrava at the time. This was back when the now-popular Ostrava entertainment hub was still waiting for the restoration of its former glory.

Anyway, Mr. Pilch recommended a respectable number of books to me throughout the existence of his shop, and I must admit that in a large percentage of cases, he hit my personal taste. In a way, he even shaped it. Thanks for that! You'd stop by Gerald for a few minutes before your tram arrived and leave two hours later with several books in your bag. And there would have been many more if your pocket money had allowed it.

Another source of information was definitely Ikarie magazine. And we are getting to the heart of the matter. In Ikarie (and later, for example, in Nemesis), reviews were published that not only showed that their author was infected with the proper perspective but were also expertly written. If you liked a reviewer because you found out from your own experience that their opinions told you exactly what you needed to know, you often followed their (non)recommendations. Back then, there wasn't such a flood of books as there is today, but the market was gradually growing. I simply couldn't keep up with reading everything that was coming out, and I had to choose (also with regard to the aforementioned financial aspect).

And I really miss such reviewer authorities and their well-founded opinions today. It's not that there aren't any contemporary reviewer personas for me, but either their taste is too identical to mine—meaning if they review a book, I don't really care what they write about it because I want to buy it anyway—or our literary tastes are completely mismatched. When I look into our own ranks, there are even reviewers where I know well that if they praise a book, I absolutely won't like it, or vice versa.

Objectivity as a dirty word?

After the golden era of magazines, genre-focused websites appeared with the boom of the internet. And a few years passed, and the authoritative media, where passionate discussions often took place under articles, turned into something diluted… You'd have to search hard for proper journalism and reflection on current topics. Moreover, the reviews themselves are often published with, let's say, a slight delay. But here, we must also say B. Most of these media are fan projects—meaning everyone does everything voluntarily and, above all, for free.

If any contributions are paid somewhere, they don't serve much as a source of livelihood. Therefore, we must, without discussion, appreciate everyone who puts their skin in the game this way and does it for us, the fans. And I'd rather not talk about the time that someone is always stealing from us. I see the problem with current reviews elsewhere. It's clear that if you write with enthusiasm and for free, you want to review at least something that will theoretically be fun for you. Therefore, you choose a title that will be close to you in focus, author, or perhaps publisher. As for the focus, fantasy in any of its forms definitely prevails in the Czech Republic. Personally, I don't like it much, but that's another matter.

If there's a rumor that some fantasy is good, and the publisher supports it with proper marketing, it's quite likely that a review of it will appear in most genre media, and reviewers will even fight over it among themselves. It will be similar if a new release from some "top" author appears. The problem in both cases is that fans will buy such a book anyway. For the exact same reason that the reviewer writes their review. And if it's a really "big book event," the review will also appear in some mainstream media. In short—we are going in circles of names and titles. But tons of books are being published. Books we turn our backs on without giving them a chance. Sure, they might not be good, but they also might be. Who will find out, though? Where does a beginner author get feedback? How do they find out what works and what doesn't?

Hand in hand with this approach goes another thing. And that is the objectivity of the evaluation. If I read reviews somewhere that have point, percentage, or other ratings, I can't shake the impression that, in the end, only absolutely great and commercially successful books come out objectively well. And even that doesn't always have to be true. Many times I've come across a bestseller and a critically acclaimed book by a famous author and couldn't stop wondering. I'm not talking about what marketing can do, nor about the fact that everyone has different tastes (I still stand by the fact that a review is the subjective opinion of the reviewer and to each their own). I mean something that could be called craftsmanship. The author's ability to work with characters and their personalities, with dialogue, plot, pacing, graduation, narrative style, the genre as such, and the form they chose for writing. Simply put, when I start reading a praised work, I don't expect to blink in disbelief at what is happening on the lines; how someone can utter such dialogue, or why the characters suddenly act incomprehensibly, etc.

Are we repeating and ripping off?

One of the things that totally fascinated me when I discovered sci-fi was the fact that it was capable of coming up with something new all the time, with fresh approaches and ideas. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, but even the effort is appreciated. This criterion is something I really miss in reviews. On the contrary, x-th copies of something that was, of course, originally groundbreaking are praised, but a thousand-times-repeated idea really doesn't shine anymore. And it doesn't matter if we are talking about ripping off Tolkien, Lovecraft, Rowling, or Orwell.

A reviewer should also take this into account and should also put things into context. Because if a slogan like "The Filipino Stephen King" on the cover is enough to guarantee sales for a book, we are getting back to the point that reviews are completely useless. If fans want to read something where progress is a dirty word, the craft doesn't make sense. But again, be careful, I would approach it proportionally to age. If the sales of young adult literature among teenagers increased this way, it would ultimately mean that at least some percentage of them will become passionate readers in the future regardless of the preferred genre, and that makes sense. I'm just saying I don't understand why we should keep reading the same thing. For me, it has the same meaning as revival bands.

However, if someone wants to compete in who is a better Herbert, Asimov, Eddings, Gaiman, Simmons… I cannot stop them. Every fantasy genre has certain boundaries built over the years, but for me, it's better to cross them a little than to copy mindlessly.

Testament of new generations

Another factor that is beating up written reviews is actually the modern era itself, which we as sci-fi fans dreamed of. There are vlogs, podcasts, and honestly, I don't know what else, because I'm not particularly well-versed in this. Occasionally I come across something that interests me, so I play it, but I don't seek it out purposefully. Podcasts dedicated to literature are nice. You can listen and do other activities. Some are at a very high level, but honestly, I don't know any domestic podcast focused specifically on fantasy (I'm open to recommendations and broadening my horizons).

And then there are video blogs of young fans. Again, I don't know them all, but I've seen a few, and honestly, some of them scared me. They lack any deeper message and personal opinion. A five-minute video about someone unpacking a comic book from the foil and sniffing it? Like, it's a ritual, and more people sniff fresh printer ink than you'd expect, but why film yourself doing it? As I wrote, I remember a thing or two, so I'm a conservative conservative, but my head can't wrap around it.

Once I came across an unnamed vlog of an unnamed young lady where she was discussing titles from my favorite (of course, unnamed) publisher. It's a small publisher, and I've already had the honor of reading about half of their production. The young lady laid the books on the table and focused on what was written in the blurbs and also on what users of Databáze knih wrote about the book. From what she was lovingly uttering there, I would bet my boots in winter that she had barely read a tenth of those books. The point was often somewhere else than she claimed. Let everyone do what they want, but again, I don't see any deeper meaning in it. I can read the book blurb and comments in the database myself. But here it wasn't some lost young lady. She seemed intelligent, and her show has over six thousand subscribers. So I wonder if it's better to do it this way today than to read those books…

Actually, I often don't even know if we are still readers or just collectors. Even I have unread books piling up at home. And I have trauma from it. But what can you do—something catches your eye, you want to support the author, the publisher, etc., and the book is already lying on the shelf next to other dead weight. I read books because I like it, and writing reviews is just a pleasant bonus. Overall, however, it leads me to thoughts about the formation of taste, as well as consumerism in literature. And also about whether such videos on social networks aren't actually a much bigger promotional jackpot for publishers than some written reviews? And don't readers themselves want such an approach much more? And do we, the classic reviewers, actually still have any weight with publishers?

Does it still make sense to write reviews or talk about books that aren't trendy?

There are more than enough questions, but when you start such a brainstorming session, more and more pop up. For example, who are we actually writing these reviews for? Which is an interesting question, because sometimes I have the feeling that it's for a very narrow group of like-minded conspirators who might be trying to see more in fantasy than it can give us. We separate the wheat from the chaff, but the masses will gobble up anything anyway. We might be becoming arrogant snobs who select authors. I don't want to use weird phrases like "refined taste" at all, but by having read something, your expectations increase. Nothing more. Logically, you should compare with what you already know. And most importantly, you should be able to justify it to yourself. If, that is, you are also reviewing for others who will read your review.

In no way do I want to cast reviewers in the role of misunderstood martyrs whom few appreciate! It's simply a drudgery. Generally, you don't have feedback on your articles, which often results in a certain feeling of futility, but the moment you make a mistake somewhere or hit a nerve, it comes back to you faster than a hobbit from his travels. I've already encountered the opinion a few times of how I could allow myself this or that. Well, I simply could, because that's how I feel it. And if it offended any of you and you didn't just wave it off, then there might have been something to my opinion. It's also called criticism to review something, and it can be positive or negative.

So, to summarize. I think reviews in genre media still make sense even today. They just don't have the weight they once did. We live in an age where even books and the ideas contained within them are becoming consumer goods. Marketing and social networks sell; content and creative art have been pushed to the imaginary siding. There are still great books here that deserve their place in the sun, but there are just as many books that are in that sun and bring nothing new.

And there are still reviewers here who put the best of themselves, their experiences, and knowledge into their summary of a work. Just as there are reviewers (and media) whose contribution is at least questionable. There are also plenty of world-renowned authors who implement elements of fantasy into their work but stubbornly resist labeling their work under the genre header. We live in a strange time, but I'd rather be burned at the stake than walk on eggshells around some things. I believe that a good review still has something to say. But I am, in my pure essence, a dreamer, a fantasist.

author: Roman Bílek