Review Rating Criteria for Potentially Offensive Books

[Daniel Ramalho]

I'd like to be the first to open this little Pandora's box in this forum because I believe it to be of the utmost importance for that which Scott very adequately called "the art of reviewing books". As any artistic endeavour, it is necessarily subjective, but it must nevertheless be guided by rules that aim to keep each review as unbiased as possible, so that even if a given reviewer's literary palate is not attuned to an author's choice of palette, that does not taint the review of the author's work in itself, which is all that should be under scrutiny.

I have a penchant for satirical dark humor. I find it to be a precious, hard-won conquest of civilization and a powerful weapon against tiranny and bigotry. I choose to use that weapon to expose the practical dangers and philosophical pitfalls of religion in all its forms, and that is where the waters become murky for reviewers. Religion is a very delicate subject, and since a great many people are bound to be offended by this kind of writing - no matter how good it is from a strictly literary point of view -, reviewers may find themselves pressured to take that into consideration when rating a book.

So, the questions that need to be asked to the powers that be at OBC (as well as to everyone in general who loves literature) are these:

1) Is a reviewer entitled to deny a book a perfect rating because its content is potentially offensive to the beliefs of a certain group of people, even if the book is in itself deemed worthy of the four stars?

2) Is this a choice that should rest on the moral consciousness of each reviewer, or should explicit guidelines be created on this matter?

And let us be clear about what's at stake here. This issue has been widely covered regarding literature (e.g. Rushdie). We have all seen it debated regarding cartoons. It's high time we address literary reviews.

[Scott]

Thank you for opening this topic, Daniel Ramalho.

I am curious to see the different ideas and feedback of other members.

1 star - poor, recommend against read it
2 stars - fair, okay
3 stars - good, recommend it
4 stars - excellent, amazing

In that regard, there is a lot of ambiguity about what differentiates a 4/4 from a 3/4. I personally (and I think most) use it to reflect which books are my personal favorites. Most of us have read hundreds if not thousands of books, a lot of which are either 3/4 or 4/4. But surely each reviewer is different in exactly how they see the difference between a 3/4 and 4/4 book. I can understand considering how other people would see the book in the rating.

As for the more specific question, I imagine it is generally not going to be black and white. To illustrate, we could hypothetically ask a reviewer or rater, why would you not recommend this book to these people? Whatever the answer is could be taken itself as criticism that prevents a perfect rating. The reviewer could still give it 3/4; and a 3/4 is ironically by the descriptions I originally gave of the ratings not only a good rating but also means the reviewer or rater still generally 'recommends' the book.

I am very interested to see what other members think about this aspect of the art of reviewing.

[gali]

First I would like to say that I think that rating should be based on the reviewer's own opinion of the book. I agree that both 3 and 4 stars are good rating. I give 4 star rating for a book I loved very much, highly recommend it, and couldn't put down. I give 3 stars for a book I still enjoyed very much but it had some flaws, I wasn't in a hurry to get back to it, and there wasn't anything unusual about it.

[bookowlie]

Good points everyone!

For me, I try to approach a review book differently than a non-review book. A review book may very well contain subject matter that is not something I would read on my own or don't necessarily agree with. In these cases, the rating should be based on the writing style, the layout/flow, the pacing, how well the author presents the plot, etc. I have read many review books where the writing style is wonderful and the book is interesting; however, the story drags and there are plot holes or the story gets off track too often. I might love the writing style, but would not give the book 4 stars because of other factors. Here's the other side of the coin - the topic is controversial and contains opinions I don't agree with, but the writing is excellent, the layout flows well, and the content is presented well. I may not love the content or agree with it, but I would give the book 4 stars from an objective standpoint.

The Official Reviews are subject to an evalutation/score and approval by the Editor Team prior to publication. If a review has flaws, that doesn't always mean the review won't be published. It may sometimes be reflected in the private score the reviewer receives which, in turn, affects their overall Review Level along with other factors. That's why you might see reviews published with a few grammatical errors, reviews that look like book reports rather than opinions, etc. Of course, reviews can get rejected, but it depends on how serious the problems with adhering to the guidelines are.

[gali]

Good points everyone!

For me, I try to approach a review book differently than a non-review book. A review book may very well contain subject matter that is not something I would read on my own or don't necessarily agree with. In these cases, the rating should be based on the writing style, the layout/flow, the pacing, how well the author presents the plot, etc. I have read many review books where the writing style is wonderful and the book is interesting; however, the story drags and there are plot holes or the story gets off track too often. I might love the writing style, but would not give the book 4 stars because of other factors. Here's the other side of the coin - the topic is controversial and contains opinions I don't agree with, but the writing is excellent, the layout flows well, and the content is presented well. I may not love the content or agree with it, but I would give the book 4 stars from an objective standpoint.

The Official Reviews are subject to an evalutation/score and approval by the Editor Team prior to publication. If a review has flaws, that doesn't always mean the review won't be published. It may sometimes be reflected in the private score the reviewer receives which, in turn, affects their overall Review Level along with other factors. That's why you might see reviews published with a few grammatical errors, reviews that look like book reports rather than opinions, etc. Of course, reviews can get rejected, but it depends on how serious the problems with adhering to the guidelines are.

I do the same as you regarding rating.

[bookowlie]

I'd like to be the first to open this little Pandora's box in this forum because I believe it to be of the utmost importance for that which Scott very adequately called "the art of reviewing books". As any artistic endeavour, it is necessarily subjective, but it must nevertheless be guided by rules that aim to keep each review as unbiased as possible, so that even if a given reviewer's literary palate is not attuned to an author's choice of palette, that does not taint the review of the author's work in itself, which is all that should be under scrutiny.

I have a penchant for satirical dark humor. I find it to be a precious, hard-won conquest of civilization and a powerful weapon against tiranny and bigotry. I choose to use that weapon to expose the practical dangers and philosophical pitfalls of religion in all its forms, and that is where the waters become murky for reviewers. Religion is a very delicate subject, and since a great many people are bound to be offended by this kind of writing - no matter how good it is from a strictly literary point of view -, reviewers may find themselves pressured to take that into consideration when rating a book.

So, the questions that need to be asked to the powers that be at OBC (as well as to everyone in general who loves literature) are these:

1) Is a reviewer entitled to deny a book a perfect rating because its content is potentially offensive to the beliefs of a certain group of people, even if the book is in itself deemed worthy of the four stars?

2) Is this a choice that should rest on the moral consciousness of each reviewer, or should explicit guidelines be created on this matter?

And let us be clear about what's at stake here. This issue has been widely covered regarding literature (e.g. Rushdie). We have all seen it debated regarding cartoons. It's high time we address literary reviews.

You bring up valid points. I once read a review book where the author was angry at God and religion. The book was a series of essays about his disillusionment with religion. You can't get more controversial than that! Some sections of the book were well-written and thought-provoking, regardless of my religious beliefs. However, the overall presentation was very disjointed and many essays were extremely long-winded and rambling. The rating reflected that. On the other side of the coin, I read another controversial review book where the author gave clear justification about his views on abortion rights, gay rights, civil rights, environmental rights, etc. Very controversial opinions, but the main problem was that many of the opinions were presented as fact. I did not agree with many of the opinions presented in the book, but my rating wasn't about that. Instead, it was about the way the opinions were presented and, in some cases, the long-winded writing style.

I believe the current review guidelines state that a review should be objective and not based on the reivewer's private thoughts about the topics in a book. For example, a reviewer can certainly evaulate the way a topic or theme is presented. For example, a book might contain graphic sex scenes, but the scenes don't fit in well with the rest of the story, drag the pacing, throw the plot too much off track, etc.

I just checked and the guidelines don't explicitly say that, although I always assumed a review should be objective.

[MsMartha]

This has been an interesting read for a new reviewer. Bookowlie, I agree with your comments. There is a way I want to do reviews, and each one I've done has been part of a learning process. The information we have for how to review, and the comments that the editors make about the review are very helpful. My goal is to do better over time. Wish me luck!

[Mellient]

This has been an interesting read for a new reviewer. Bookowlie, I agree with your comments. There is a way I want to do reviews, and each one I've done has been part of a learning process. The information we have for how to review, and the comments that the editors make about the review are very helpful. My goal is to do better over time. Wish me luck!

------------------------
Right there with you MsMartha, this is all new information for me, and very much useful. I often read books for class, and yes sometimes, I rate these books in my head as I am going through them (between my highlighting and notes). If it were solely up to me, most would be at a 2 star rating because of how boring they can become. Thank you all for the posts!

[Daniel Ramalho]

Though I obviously have a horse in this race, I tried to frame the questions in my initial post as objectively as possible, and refrained from commenting further because I wanted to know other people's thoughts on this issue before I offered my own. Having read the subsequent comments (and others made elsewhere), it seems we have reached something of a consensus.

Scott, you seem to be the exception. I believe your position can be easily proved to be completely untenable and ultimately self-contradicting. You wrote: 'To illustrate, we could hypothetically ask a reviewer or rater, why would you not recommend this book to these people? Whatever the answer is could be taken itself as criticism that prevents a perfect rating.' This argument does not work for a variety of reasons. Let's stick with my genre of choice, which is religious satire. By the rating standard you argue for, a book belonging to this a genre could only get the perfect rating if you could recommend it to religious people. However, the point of religious satire is to criticize religious - and in my case, sometimes quite ostensibly. So, the only way you could recommend a book in this genre to religious people would be if it failed the point of religious satire completely, which would actually make it a bad book. This means that by your proposed criterion, we arrive at this curious paradox: the better a book is in an "offensive" genre, the lower the rating it should get.

A second point is that when you pander to the feelings of people who are offended by literature, you are in effect defending intolerance. As an atheist secular humanist, there is no such thing as a book that "offends" me. I can read a book defending creationism and intelligent design, criticizing the ignorance of people like me, and I won't get offended. I will discard it as wrong, and that's that. If you cannot recommend a book to someone because she will find it offensive, it is the person that is not recommendable, not the book.

As others have pointed out, there is no such thing as a book you would recommend to everyone. This does not mean that no book deserves a perfect rating. If you want to rate a great book that makes an excellent case against the Republican Party, you will not base your rating on the opinions Republicans might have of it. Yet this is what you're doing, mutatis mutandis, if you withhold a star from an otherwise excellent book of religious satire because you would not recommend it to religious people. The question is whether you would recommend it to people who appreciate that genre or not. If you would, there is no reason not to consider it perfect for its target audience. In a word, reviewers should rate books based on the opinions of those who you would recommend it to, not those you would not.

This seems to me to be common sense but bookowlie wrote that 'current review guidelines state that a review should be objective and not based on the reviewer's private thoughts about the topics in a book.' I would like to know if this is so, because it impacts me directly.

Also, if it is the OBC's policy to leave this specific criterion as loose as apparently it is now, I would like to know that too. I am a prolific writer, and the fact that you will only find two books with my name on them is due to the fact that I have been writing under different aliases for the past decade, up until recently. I am always working on a new book, and if OBC reviewers retain the freedom to punish writers for their choice of genre by taking away stars from potentially offensive books if their conscience so dictates, I wish to be informed, because that being so, I will never submit another book to this site again, and will advise other "offensive" writers I know to refrain from doing it in the future too. It will be a pity because I chose to have my work reviewed here based on the general quality of the reviews I read. However, I will not have the quality of my writing being questioned by potential visitors who are unaware that my book did not get the four stars solely because a reviewer believed some people would feel offended by it. It would offend me if that happened.

Apologies for the long-winded comment but I don't want to leave any loose ends. It's too important a subject.

[Scott]

Scott, you seem to be the exception. I believe your position can be easily proved to be completely untenable and ultimately self-contradicting. You wrote: 'To illustrate, we could hypothetically ask a reviewer or rater, why would you not recommend this book to these people? Whatever the answer is could be taken itself as criticism that prevents a perfect rating.' This argument does not work for a variety of reasons.

Hi, Daniel Ramalho,

I think it is important to note the sentence I wrote immediately prior to what you have quoted: "it's not black and white". I'm not sure what you mean when you mention my position. What is my position?

I think my position was and is one of curiosity. I want to see the different thoughts, opinions, and feedback of all the members, and consider how we might want to clarify or adjust the review team guidelines.

My position certainly is not that any time a reviewer believes a book would offend some certain other group that they do not give it a perfect rating always. I am not thinking that the hypothetical reviewer's hypothetical answer to the question--"why would you not recommend this book to these people?"--would absolutely in a black-and-white sense always justify giving a book a less than perfect rating. But I do think it is generally less than unlikely.

I'm sorry I was not clear. I hope my comments now are clarifying.

One other note, I made a mistake in my first reply. I posted a quote of the rating system used in the book of the month polls since long before the review team or Bookshelves ever existed, which is where the current 4-star rating system comes from, and I meant to introduce it as such, but in my reply is was an un-introduced quote. I did not even realize I made that mistake until I re-read my original reply now.

Daniel, in the rest of the most recent reply you made a lot of interesting and good points. You used the words you/your a lot in it; I'm not sure if that is meant to be me specifically or is the universal you.

I look forward to reading your comments and ideas and everyone else's comments and ideas about this interesting subject.

Thank you!

[PashaRu]

First, let me state that I think it is both unnecessary and impossible to be “objective” in a review. It’s not a requirement for reviews on this site, nor should it be. Additionally, it would be quite impossible to enforce. Because stamping a review as unobjective is of itself a subjective judgment.

And trying to be objective would defeat the purpose of the review; after all, a review is meant to critique a book, not just relate facts about it. It’s much like the difference between the story on the front page of the newspaper (sorry for the near-obsolete reference) and the editorial page. Reviewers write editorials, not “just the facts, ma’am” news stories. To think that we, as reviewers, can approach a review “objectively” is simply a fancy bit of self-deception.

Writing style, character portrayal and development, plot, pace, description, setting, dialogue, narrative structure – these are the normal areas for critique, and they are necessarily all open to the opinion of the reviewer. This is because there are simply no concrete criteria for any of these aspects of a book. One reviewer says “I loved the nice, steady pace of the book. The dialogue was natural and realistic.” Another says “The pace was slow and never changed. It wasn’t exciting. And the dialogue was trite and uninteresting.” Who is right? It’s not a matter of being right or wrong, because it’s an opinion. A “long-winded” discussion could be positively viewed by another reviewer as a thorough examination of the subject. (Ever look at restaurant or hotel ratings on Yelp? Then you know what I mean.)

So if every other aspect of a book is open to (and, in fact, cannot escape) a subjective verdict, why should the content be any different? Are we saying that it is okay to be subjective about every other aspect of a book, but we can’t give an opinion about the content? That makes no sense to me. If a reviewer did not like, or was offended by, the content, s/he is free to say so, and rate the book accordingly. But the reviewer must clearly state this. It would be dishonest on the part of the reviewer to either ignore the content in his/her rating or not explain how the content affected the rating given.

Finally, this is why the criteria for reviews on this site require both a recommendation and a rating. These are not the same, and serve different purposes. The rating should reflect the reviewer’s own opinion, not what s/he thinks other people’s opinions will be; the recommendation considers those who may like the book. It’s entirely possible that the reviewer doesn’t like some aspects of a book but recommends it to those whom s/he thinks will.

The standards for reviews on this site are of a higher caliber than, say, Amazon or Goodreads. There is a 400-word minimum requirement, and there are other requirements as well. This allows for - and demands - a more thorough, in-depth discussion of a book. This is a good thing. But because other sites are mostly about "how many stars," I think for many the rating is too closely associated with a recommendation in reviews here as well. But these are not necessarily the same thing. I also think the 4-star rating system is quite poor; given the fact that many associate the rating with a recommendation, this limited scope in rating also becomes a poor system for implied recommendations. It’s both imprecise and ambiguous on both counts. (My attempts to get the rating system changed ended in a fiasco, with nothing being done, for reasons which are still unclear to me since the vast majority of users were in favor of a change. I won't pick up that torch again, but if anyone else cares to, I'll get behind it.)

[gali]

First, let me state that I think it is both unnecessary and impossible to be “objective” in a review. It’s not a requirement for reviews on this site, nor should it be. Additionally, it would be quite impossible to enforce. Because stamping a review as unobjective is of itself a subjective judgment.

And trying to be objective would defeat the purpose of the review; after all, a review is meant to critique a book, not just relate facts about it. It’s much like the difference between the story on the front page of the newspaper (sorry for the near-obsolete reference) and the editorial page. Reviewers write editorials, not “just the facts, ma’am” news stories. To think that we, as reviewers, can approach a review “objectively” is simply a fancy bit of self-deception.

Writing style, character portrayal and development, plot, pace, description, setting, dialogue, narrative structure – these are the normal areas for critique, and they are necessarily all open to the opinion of the reviewer. This is because there are simply no concrete criteria for any of these aspects of a book. One reviewer says “I loved the nice, steady pace of the book. The dialogue was natural and realistic.” Another says “The pace was slow and never changed. It wasn’t exciting. And the dialogue was trite and uninteresting.” Who is right? It’s not a matter of being right or wrong, because it’s an opinion. A “long-winded” discussion could be positively viewed by another reviewer as a thorough examination of the subject. (Ever look at restaurant or hotel ratings on Yelp? Then you know what I mean.)

So if every other aspect of a book is open to (and, in fact, cannot escape) a subjective verdict, why should the content be any different? Are we saying that it is okay to be subjective about every other aspect of a book, but we can’t give an opinion about the content? That makes no sense to me. If a reviewer did not like, or was offended by, the content, s/he is free to say so, and rate the book accordingly. But the reviewer must clearly state this. It would be dishonest on the part of the reviewer to either ignore the content in his/her rating or not explain how the content affected the rating given.

Finally, this is why the criteria for reviews on this site require both a recommendation and a rating. These are not the same, and serve different purposes. The rating should reflect the reviewer’s own opinion, not what s/he thinks other people’s opinions will be; the recommendation considers those who may like the book. It’s entirely possible that the reviewer doesn’t like some aspects of a book but recommends it to those whom s/he thinks will.

The standards for reviews on this site are of a higher caliber than, say, Amazon or Goodreads. There is a 400-word minimum requirement, and there are other requirements as well. This allows for - and demands - a more thorough, in-depth discussion of a book. This is a good thing. But because other sites simply rely on "how many stars," I think for many the rating is too closely associated with a recommendation in reviews here as well. But these are not necessarily the same thing. I also think the 4-star rating system is quite poor; given the fact that many associate the rating with a recommendation, this limited scope in rating also becomes a poor system for implied recommendations. It’s both imprecise and ambiguous on both counts. (My attempts to get the rating system changed ended in a fiasco, with nothing being done, for reasons which are still unclear to me since the vast majority of users were in favor of a change. I won't pick up that torch again, but if anyone else cares to, I'll get behind it.)

Well-said! I agree (and wrote as such) that the rating should reflect the reviewer’s own opinion, not what s/he thinks other people’s opinions will be.

[bookowlie]

Pasharu - I think you make some valid points about a reader's objective vs. subjective opinion of a book and a recommendation vs. rating. I also disagree with some of your comments. It's true that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. So...one person's criticism of writing style may be another person's compliment. That also goes for too much/too little description or other elements in a boo. One person might think an author's raunchy humor pushed the plot off track while another reader might find it enriched the story.

However, in my previous comments, I was referring to the subjective view of an overall topic or genre. For example, I don't care for sci-fi so I can't see selecting a sci-fi book and giving it a low rating and criticizing the content. By the same token, what if I read a political non-fiction book where there were comments about political beliefs - if they don't reflect my own beliefs, should I give the book a low rating? If a character in a novel is a psychopath, should I criticize that and lower the rating because I hate psychopaths? I do see your point that reviews are subjective in certain respects and people will often view the same book differently, but the types of examples I just gave are what I was referring to when discussing this issue.

[moderntimes]

Thanks for inviting me to this thread. I'd also recommend an earlier thread from the Writer section, "What constitutes an unfair review?" in which many of the things here were discussed.

By way of intro to Daniel, I enjoyed the little wordplay in your opening para, with "palate" and "palette" both used correctly. I'm what you might term a mid-level writer. I've written short stories, articles, essays, book and movie reviews for years, most of which have been published professionally in magazines and newspapers ("professionally" meaning that I was paid actual money, ha ha). My recent work has been a series of modern American private detective novels, the first two of which, "Blood Spiral" and "Blood Storm" were reviewed on OBC, the 3rd book coming out later this month, and the 4th in progress. Again, these novels were contracted to a "legit" for-pay publisher.

I also write book reviews for a mystery website, at least 150 of them thus far, and a couple years ago, a member of PWA (Private Eye Writers of America) I served on the award committee for "Best New Hardcover PI Novel" and our little group read and judged 58 novels!

So I know the biz.

I often use as an example a typical mystery novel. It may be the more sedate "Miss Marple" style, a paced and reserved story. Or it may be of the more slam-bang action style.

Were I reviewing such a book as the former, I would be very disingenuous to rate the easy-going book less just because I prefer the latter style (which in fact I do). But as a reviewer, I cannot let this influence my rating.

I can only comment favorably (or otherwise) on whether the author was skillful in creating and presenting that story. If it was disjointed and spotty, if the dialogue was clumsy, and so on, then I can downgrade the book accordingly. But NOT if I preferred the general genre or subgenre of that book.

Likewise, I cannot judge the book whether it might appeal to "everyman". In reference to Mr. Ramalho's individual persuasion, a book which I really enjoy is "New Proofs for the Existence of God" (by Philip Spitzer, an astrophysicist and cosmologist, and yeah, SJ) and which, for me, verifies my personal rationale of being both a scientist and "believer".

Now I would have no problems recommending that book to Mr. Ramalho, because I think he'd find it well written and intriguing even though he may disagree with the premise. This particular book isn't a rant or stump evangelical sermon, but a careful appraisal of various scientific factors in the existence of the universe which the author feels indicates the hand of a supreme being. But no one likes to be preached to, nor have his/her own personal opinions belittled or slammed. However, as this very rational book does neither, I could in all good conscience recommend it to a rational person of the other side of the fence.

I might not, however, recommend the book to a young person of either persuasion. That's simply because it's written in a very elevated and somewhat advanced and technical style, with some fairly complex math in the footnotes. I can read it fine because of my lengthy "day job" career in scientific research and engineering, but it's definitely not a "pop science" book and so it might fall on somewhat deaf ears of someone whose education wasn't of the collegiate level or who was very bright.

But again, this would not disparage the book, and no way would I downrate it because it was difficult to read due to its inherent complex subjects (the mass of a proton, the charge of an electron, the expansion and quick slowdown and then further expansion of the universe following the Big Bang, etc).

When I review mystery books, I will definitely mention if the book is particularly bloody or violent, or contains strong sexual situations. This is a caveat for more sensitive readers and my due diligence as a reviewer. However, if that violence is not egregious and if it "fits the story" properly, I won't downrate the book. Only if it's "tacked on" for gratuitous effect would I criticize it, and then, not for the fact that it's violent, but because the violence is poorly joined with the book's theme and seems to have been shoved into place to sell more copies.

Let's face it, if I were to decide on whether to downrate a book because my Dear Aunt Edna would pale at the exposition, then perhaps I would disparage maybe the finest novel of the 20th century, "Ulysses" (my favorite novel).

We reviewers also have to recognize that this isn't a game. Regardless of whether a book under review is from an indie author and self published or perhaps from someone like me, whose novels are professionally published, the rating and judging we proffer to a book in our review affects the livelihood and reputation of the author. Bad reviews can influence sales and recognition unfavorably, and perhaps unfairly.

[Rachaelamb1]

I find all the responses interesting and think I agree with PashaRu's statements the most. Although I do try to be objective when writing a review and clearly list why I do not give a full rating. However I do not think you should be worried, Daniel, because we reviewers have explicit directions not to choose a book for review that we know we will not like. That protects the authors from getting bad reviews based on the reviewer disliking that genre.