deborah: Kirkus Reviews: OM NOM NOM BRAINS (kirkus)
[personal profile] deborah
Let me talk briefly about one of the many reasons I love Kirkus Reviews and my editor.

I've reviewed for many journals over the years, but Kirkus is the only one I've stuck with. Kirkus is also one of the only two major review journals with anonymous reviews. Kirkus claims to have an editorial voice, which is why the unsigned reviews, but while the Children's and YA Editor, Vicky Smith regularly grooms my words, she almost never modifies the thurst of the content without discussing it with me first. Sometimes she asks me for a clarification, a polish, or -- if I've crossed the line from the necessary honesty of which Kirkus reviewers are proud, to the brutality of which we're sometimes accused -- textual support to justify a surfeit of negativity. Sometimes she gives me context I didn't have (such as a publisher's indication they've changed some wording) and asks me to rewrite. Maybe once or twice in my years at Kirkus, at most, she's simply disagreed with me and rewritten in that light.

All of which is far more than she need do, because I am a writer-for-hire both legally and artistically, and while I craft reviews of which I'm proud, my job is to create reviews in the Kirkus editorial voice.

Years ago, I reviewed for another source which did have the reviewers sign the reviews. Each of those reviews was signed with my name. And every one of those reviews was edited extensively. Those edits were comprehensive in word, tone, and thrust, sometimes completely changing my judgement and analysis. As one point I wrote to the journal asking for more feedback about what they wanted me to be writing in the first place, explaining that I felt uncomfortable having my name on "work which has been so greatly modified from my original as to be scarcely recognizable," which was putting it mildly. They misunderstood, explaining they were grateful to get the sense of the reviewers' opinions, even on reviews they just then rewrote.

I began to get very uncomfortable when I realized how often they were mellowing out my negative reviews (or flat out making them positive), which happened most frequently when I complained about racial stereotypes in books. Tonight, I happened across one such review from many years ago. It was one of the only reviews I ever wrote where they kept the word "stereotype," though they made the assessment of the book much more positive than I did. I assume they kept the word because I provided textual support: six quotations, including awful representation of Native Americans, East Asians, and indigenous South Americans. One of those quotations was a massive othering of the protagonist of color starting from the book's opening pages, while several others were repulsive depictions of a non-Western country's everyday elements as being nasty, superstious, and like unto gothic horror.

Eventually I realized that I was simply unwilling to have my name on the reviews as they were rewritten. Honestly, there was a part of my brain that said "if Debbie Reese critiques something said under my name, am I willing to stand behind it?" [1]

So here's why I love Kirkus:
  • If I can provide textual support for an assessment, my editor has my back.
  • Vicky has never once suggested I'm too sensitive to representation issues in fiction; she's only asked me for textual support.
  • If the judgement is changed in a review, she usually tells me why and I trust her decisions.
  • She's asked me for a second opinion when she wanted a confirmation on a review that mentions a group I'm a part of, and I assume she does it with reviews I write as well, which adds to my confidence.
  • My name's not on the reviews anyway, woohoo


In short, Kirkus++.




[1] I second-guess my reviews all the time. I still regret reviews in which I was, in retrospect, overly concerned with a social justice analysis which was inappropriate for the length of the review and the depth of the problem. I also regret reviews in which I let deeply problematic elements of a book slide. It's a perennial balancing act. To anyone who thinks reviewers shouldn't address social justice concerns in their reviews, I obviously think you're profoundly mistaken, and I can write about that later if anyone wants, but that's another story for another post.

I also second-guess my reviews for other reasons. Was I too kind to a bland waste of paper? Was I overly influenced by an author's fame? Did I conflate my taste with quality (in either direction)? Did I ignore the value a book would serve to its readers despite all its problems? Do I need to stop reviewing when I'm battling migraine aura? That's why I recommend trusting more than one professional review source, especially if you're buying on a budget for a collection (eg librarians, teachers). Personally I recommend Kirkus and PW, but YMMV.

[back]

Date: 2015-03-17 07:23 am (UTC)
From: [personal profile] diceytillerman
I second-guess my reviews too, both that night and way later. It comes with the job, if you're thinking hard.

Vicky has never once suggested I'm too sensitive to representation issues in fiction; she's only asked me for textual support.

This is true even with critique of fatness representation, which makes me feel especially grateful because it's so rarely included in representation categories (or even heard of).

Date: 2015-03-17 08:20 am (UTC)
jesse_the_k: Two bookcases stuffed full (with books on top) leaning into each other (books)
From: [personal profile] jesse_the_k
Civilian reader here; thank you for context on reviewing, the inside story.

Date: 2015-03-17 12:01 pm (UTC)
brainwane: spinner rack of books, small table, and cushy brown chair beside a window in my living room (spinner)
From: [personal profile] brainwane
This is cool to know!

Date: 2015-03-17 06:47 pm (UTC)
ayelle: Art by Katherine Dinger, pocketmole.com  (Default)
From: [personal profile] ayelle
Lots of thoughts, especially as I suspect I am reviewing for the source you describe above. And I have also read some public conversations between the editor in chief of that source and people calling him out that made me absolutely cringe. But I have not yet run into the particular problem of having my reviews changed such that I could not ideologically stand behind them. Might just be a question of volume/luck...

Date: 2015-03-18 02:32 pm (UTC)
From: [personal profile] jazzyjj
Good to know indeed. I've recently become an avid reader thanks to the Library of Congress, and I joined a listserv specifically devoted to reviews of books that the National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped has put on BARD. It's a fun list and I've thus far contributed a few reviews. But it would be awesome if I could get these and other book reviews up on a website for the world to see. Does anyone here know if the Kirkus website is accessible with VoiceOver and/or any of the other screen readers? I'm also wondering if Dw has any book-review communities. That would be really cool.
Page generated Oct. 20th, 2017 03:21 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios