There are so many books and so little time. Usually this cliché is cited when readers lament that they are unable to read everything that comes out. Less often, it’s used to explain why a lot of readers don’t get a chance to re-read and thus reconsider a book. Book reviewers are under even more pressure to get through as many books as possible. When we review we give our first impressions of a book (at least, most of us do this). Reviewers for Kirkus, I feel, are especially rushed because they review a staggering amount of books in a year.
I bring all of this up because Kirkus recently responded to a media furore about their initially glowing review of American Heart, by Laura Moriarty, by pulling it. Nathan Heller writes about this incident and “problematic” reviews over at The New Yorker. In this case, the staff at Kirkus were forced to reconsider a book review because readers pointed out all the things the reviewer overlooked. Of course, some reviews should be recanted because the reviewer completely missed the mark. Recently, Robert Gottlieb wrote a particularly tone deaf roundup of romance novels for The New York Times. (Amanda Diehl wrote a hilarious and pointed take down for Book Riot.)
The difference between these two incidents is that, while Gottlieb was flat out wrong and a terrible choice of romance book reviewer, the reviewer for Kirkus just didn’t seem woke enough to spot the problems of American Heart. Another reading might have helped them realize that the book was another “white savior” story with problems with its representation of Muslim characters. But, because that reviewer probably has to read dozens of books in a month, they wouldn’t have had the chance to think about the book in much depth.
What worries me most about all this is: which books have I been wrong about? I don’t often have a chance to re-read books and I tend not to reread books that I didn’t really enjoy the first time. A really great book, like To Kill a Mockingbird and The Poisonwood Bible, reveals more layers with each re-reading. But books that confuse me? Bother me? Annoy me? I will not re-read them, because there is so little time to read all those books.
Re-reading books definitely requires some time and you can usually uncover layers in a book that an initial reading will not reveal, but can we really say that any opinion on any book is actually wrong (apart from certain extreme cases where the reviewer/reader has truly misunderstood the book)? Everyone has their own way of perceiving things and I think it’s not always possible for one reader to be able to uncover all possible meanings a book may have.
I don’t think ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ really come into book reviews, especially amateur ones, except perhaps over technical stuff like not mentioning poor grammar, etc. I’d never judge a book on the basis of one review – I’d always look at positive and negative ones and see what things are pleasing or bothering reviewers. My own reviews are purely my own reaction – I might hate a book that someone else loves or vice versa, but I don’t think that makes either of us wrong.