the ask@AAR: What’s your least favorite thing about AAR?
Last week I asked what works for you at AAR and your answers were lovely and useful. Thank you. This week, I’m curious what we could improve.
I can’t promise we will fix the things you wish we would be we’d like to know what they are. And if you don’t want to comment publicly, feel free to email me at dabneygrinnan@allaboutromance.com.
I look forward to your insights!
Depressing individuals think AAR’s honesty about cash flow and how to run the place is selfish when it’s clear it is the opposite. When the site shuts, all those who complained endlessly, hope that’s what you wanted.
Yes, how dare people express their negative opinions in a threa titled…um…”what’s your least favorite thing about AAR?”
If Dabney didn’t want to know, she didn’t have to ask.
Right. But she did. To do good for the site.
Again, you’re going to be dancing when the site gives up. The rest of us are going to be losing out and will be sad.
Then she should have braced herself for the notion that people would give her negative comments if she asked for them.
To say I’d be ‘dancing’ is quite the overstatement. I’ve said what I said in the hope of the site improving. There’s a reason I haven’t given up on it.
Before anybody says, “Ugh, here comes Nan De Plume again,” I want to assure you that I’m not posting an argument (this time ;-)). I have been following the comments here with interest and wanted to share my opinion as to why the Agora isn’t gaining traction. The way I see it, there are two problems in the design:
1) Unlike the regular comment section, the Agora requires a password. I know this is a nitpicky point, but when most internet users have umpteen passwords to keep track of already, the idea of creating and remembering yet another darn password is probably enough to make a lot of users write, “Forget it. I’ll just comment on the rest of AAR.”
2) More importantly, unless I’m misunderstanding the rules of the forum, the Agora does not permit users to reply directly to other commenters, just the topic itself. To me, and probably a lot of other people, that defeats the whole purpose of having a discussion. If the topic is reissued romance novels, for example, and X makes a comment about Y book, I want to be able to say, “@X, I agree with your assessment that the typos and woefully outdated cover of Y should be fixed, but I disagree about the other content changes you would propose [etc.]” And even if such discourse is allowed, a popular thread might force readers to look twenty comments back to find the person addressing them directly, if they could even find it. It’s like Chrisreader has said in praise of the regular comment section at AAR: you can clearly see who is writing to whom. That puts AAR above most other romance review sites by a wide margin.
In short, the Agora does not strike me as user-friendly or discussion-based in the same way the regular comments sections do on the rest of AAR. If the Agora were revamped to permit comments directly to posters- or at least allowed a section devoted to a more freeform commenting style- I think it would be a lot more attractive to potential commenters.
I think both of those things can be fixed. Hang on….
You can definitely reply to a post. And I’ve removed the password requirement although commenters are required to register at AAR so I’m not sure why that’s a problem. I’ll have to see what happens to spam.
Last time we ran the forums, they continually crashed the site due to spam. It’s not a stretch to say AAR is constantly under attack. We get thousands of spam attacks a day.
Ah, thanks. Yeah, I can see where you would be getting trouble with spam.
One other thing: where is the Agora? I’m stumbling around on the site and can’t find the main page.
https://allaboutromance.com/the-agora-at-aar/
Thanks!
Here’s what confuses me though: one of the rules directly states: Respond to the post, not the poster.
Does that mean we’re not allowed to write back to a specific person? Or is the rule different now? That’s what prompted my original comment in the first place. Please advise.
I was a regular contributor on the old message boards for years, then got out of the habit after they crashed and were down for months. I somehow managed to miss seeing the new incarnation as the Agora.
Nan, I read the post, not poster injunction as saying to stay on topic and to not indulge in ad hominen attacks.
Those kind of posting rules are common in forums, so I’m assuming this is the same. It means, “Stick to the argument/discussion, and don’t make it about the person.” You address the content, not how you perceived the poster meant it. If you are confused about how something was meant, don’t assume, ask for clarification. “It sounds like you’re saying…..Is that what you meant?”
Thanks Mark and Carrie for clarifying that. That’s why I asked those questions instead of just jumping onto the Agora and fouling up everything there. :-)
Don’t cut off comments on the blogs. Reviews, I can see. But reason for the blogs is to discuss things.
Perhaps a suggestion might be made that blogs should stay romance centered topicwise and moderated to avoid reeling far off the path of discussion.
I’ve been following this discussion with great interest and have always appreciated the wide range of views at AAR. My own view is that you can please some of the people sometimes, none of the people often, everyone probably never. A site like AAR exists in its apparent popularity and regard because it does not try to please everyone but welcomes all POVs. I tend to agree with those who say that the comments debates are sometimes prolonged and go way off topic so concur that sometimes they would be better re-located at agora. Sadly, it seems that this is not happening. I did put something up there but it didn’t spark much interest which is fine. But other than a recent posting about audio book narrators, nothing else has been put up. These forums used to be such fun and some great slanging matches occurred that were fun to read. So, yes, I dislike the inaction at agora but that’s not the fault of AAR but those who come here.
I don’t get involved in discussions here that are pointedly political or are focused on race relations. These are topics that I discuss with a very few of my closest friends because you never know what someone thinks, believes or finds very hurtful unless you know them very well so this sort of discussion needs extremely careful moderation and, in the past, it has had just that. Also, as Lieselotte points out, those who come here are from many countries and cultures and I have found that the politically and racially focused discussions nearly always pertain to the USA and therefore are not always relevant to those from other places. So, I do dislike some of the topics that have arisen here and even though I have disliked them, I read them because everyone is entitled to their POV even if I personally don’t care for it and making the effort to express it here is noteworthy. Romantic fiction is about the human condition so topics that superficially appear not to relate to romance are a deep part of the over all lives we lead and so are relevant – it’s just a case of where they are located here. At least we can all take comfort that AAR is a safe place to say what’s on your mind.
I’d like to see more of those who visit to comment or contribute in any way they can. This would prevent discussions appearing to be amongst a small group which I do dislike because I think that more opinion is to be welcomed. I wonder if Dabney has data to tell us how many people visit here, say per month/year, and what percentage of them in that month/year make a comment. That would be interesting.
Finally, I do have to disagree with the idea that “there is no moderation culture at all”. I think that it’s not always apparent up front what may go on behind the scenes when our editor and publisher may actually be doing rather a lot of it. I have submitted reviews here myself so I also know that they are scrutinised carefully before they are published. I just wish more folk here would submit their own to add to the mix. The more voices the better! And, to Disco Dolly Deb, I could not agree more about detailed reviews – I am a dedicated reader of the last chapter/page/sentence FIRST!!
I would suppose that the moderation and directions are very much an active choice by the persons doing them, and that they do their best according to their own high standards.
Actually, I do not suppose, I can see this in the details of efforts made, regularly.
The moderation seems Laissez-faire, and patient, and kind, most of the time, there is no harsh cutting except in personal attacks.
To me, it has a set of underlying values and views that come across – indirectly, often only in hindsight – those values do not need to be exactly mine, I just need to respect them, which I can, at AAR.
When I say “there’s no moderation culture,” it’s not a commentary on the quality of reviews. I’m talking about the way discussions are moderated on the website only.
got it, I see what you mean more, by reading the views and examples here, and also realizing I got good at skimming and tuning out some stuff, when it got too much for me.
in essence, doing my own moderation.
To put my complaints simply: AAR’s attempt at being an “everything for everyone in the romance community all the time” website has a tendency to result in uneven moderating standards and results in the site almost tearing itself apart . Threads go on for ages and ages and make the participants look worse and worse as time goes on as moments of transphobia and racism leak out – the historical accuracy thread and the Bridgerton thread and two examples I can think of. What’s supposed to be open-minded fairness often allows space for views that are less than kind and narrows both the commenting culture and reduces comfort among said commenters.
There is no moderation culture at all. If someone complains about something – the site reviewing leaning too “contemporary” or the dislike button being a problem – it’s immediately removed to please the person in question without a single question or a moment of pushback.
To sum up – it would help if those running the website were less wishy-washy.
Okay.
Wrong, but okay.
Because here we get to say what we think which you do while?
Okay.
I think there’s a difference between “I can say what I like about the romance genre” and “trans children should not be allowed to make informed decisions with their lives because (poorly researched transphobic dogwhstle).” These conversations should, perhaps, not even be happening in the discussions but on the message boards.
You come here to talk about how alpha romance and rapemance gets you off and complain about how Romance Is These Days because you don’t seem to want anything to change in the industry, from fat heroes to more complex heroines, because it seems that to you this is a violation of what YOU enjoy about the genre. I come here to read the reviews, and generally ignore the comment section until one of you raises my blood pressure to the point of me having to make a comment. Even then, we have to be aware that Freedom of speech is not an internet guarantee, nor does it mean what you think it does – your words are protected from governmental censure, not repercussions or moderation by the person whose website you’re using.
There is a logical flaw in the site and the moderating decisions that it is “fair” or “neutral” to allow both, for instance, transphobia and recognition of trans personhood. It isn’t. It is not “equal” to allow both comments like “Rege-Jean Page is hot!” and “I just want Bridgerton to be historically accurate, and it’s not historically accurate to have a black duke.” One is an opinion about the work; the other is a transparent dog whistle (if you are concerned about historical accuracy in Bridgerton and the only concern you have is the race of the characters… you’re not concerned about historical accuracy).
I appreciate that the site has a policy against personal attacks. I wish the site understood that an attack on your identity is ALSO a personal attack. “I just don’t buy an HEA for gay people in regency England” IS a personal attack on ALL gays, and should be moderated accordingly.
We commenters cannot fix this. Stepping up for each other and saying “Hey, trans people deserve love!” does not erase the trauma of a trans person having seen and read the attack on them in the first place. Only mods can do this, and they need to.
I don’t agree. Should AAR shut me up?
No, but if you go so far over the top that you’re making hurtful and/or inaccurate statements you should be warned. Or the thread should be frozen.
As many commenters here can tell you, I warn people routinely. Just not on the thread.
Many readers have gotten an email from me requesting that they desist in comments that AAR believes stifle conversation, attack other posters, etc….
As one of those many readers who has been admonished (rightfully, I might add) via email, I think this a good policy. It’s just good manners to pull someone aside rather than to lambast them in front of everyone else. That goes for real life too. :-)
Then perhaps thread freezing should be employed more frequently, because those private admonishments don’t seem to quell off-the-rails threads from spinning into trainwrecks If you’re warning certain members then those warnings aren’t sinking in, because the same things happen over and over again and usually with the same bad actors at the helm.
I do not believe AAR has any bad actors, only people who see the world in different ways.
I could not judge about good or bad actors – I surmise good and would call it “heat of the moment”…
I second xxx idea – freezing a thread for 24 hours / even just 12 hours or just a couple of hours – would cool things down a lot, and let everyone reflect if that is the debate we really want to have.
As you can tell from the votes my comment has gotten, the readers of this blog seem to disagree with that point.
dear xxx,
I support your suggestion, and probably am one of the clicks of approval to your post.
It does not mean I fully align with every word you write, I just support your suggestion.
I am willing to give people the benefit of the doubt, and often feel validated in doing so, when I can truly deeply talk and understand positions. I cannot do this in this medium, and very very rarely do this in real life, so will mostly abstain from judgment on good person / bad person. What I feel ok doing is “horrible comment” or “beautiful comment”.
Hope you can live with that, if not, I am very sorry.
Of course, no person is an island. But a like is generally an agreement with a statement.
On the other hand the “frownie” was withdrawn so no one has an opportunity to disagree without coming forward with a comment. Some may have a strong feeling of disagreement or disapproval but don’t feel comfortable entering the fray. So none of us really know the actual reaction to any comment.
That’s why I miss the frown emoji.
And here is why I don’t really miss them. It felt to me that frownies were being used at times, in heated debate, almost as bullying, a bit of cancel culture and functioned as somewhat of a dismissive devaluation of someone’s opinion. If you click a smiley you are conveying agreement or making endorsement which should be obvious based on the content of what you are smiling on. If you were to click the frownie without explanation then that seems rather rude and unfriendly to me. I prefer that those who disagree with me, or anyone else, explain why in a polite way – that’s what I believe fosters a good environment and generates positive feedback and further good quality interaction.
“Last July, a poll by the Cato Institute found that 62% of Americans agreed that the political climate prevented them from expressing beliefs because others might find them offensive; one-third worried about missing out on career opportunities or losing their jobs if their political opinions became known. Only those on the far-left felt safe expressing their opinions, and even among them, the share who did not feel safe rose from 30% in 2017 to 42% in 2020.”
Wow xxx!
I can only like a statement if I approve 100% of each word said?
I cannot second a suggestion even if the reasons it is made are not 100% my reasons?
We have different rules of engagement.
I stop reacting now, since by now, I feel like I am not bringing out the best in myself by participating, but get focussed on scoring points of detail on your comments here – thanks, our conversation was worth it to me for a while.
…I certainly didn’t mean for you to stop posting your reactions to this thread. I only know that when I like a post, I agree with its general list.
Some do, yes. Others don’t. I get letters and donations every week from readers who share how much they love the discussions and independent perspectives at AAR. In the time this post has been up, we’ve had 10K users whose average visit to the site is almost 4 minutes. Most of them don’t comment here although they occasionally email me.
If these lurkers “love the discussions” but are only here for four minutes at a time and don’t participate in them and don’t give feedback to your reviewers and yet give you money (which you say isn’t a driving factor in running this website), and at least six people in this thread who participate regularly on your website’s comments and interact with your reviewers and have informed you that improving the culture of your comment section will make them feel more comfortable, whose opinion do you think should be more valuable to the site’s health?
I wouldn’t go as far as to say that those who do not comment at AAR do not participate in the site. A lot of people are lurkers for a number of reasons, including just wanting to keep a low profile. Speaking out to a crowd is not for everyone. Some prefer to observe, listen, and contribute on a personal level whether that’s writing to Dabney directly or contributing donations. I would argue both types of participants are valuable to the site’s health.
Perhaps these people enjoy the website, but do not comment because they do not have the inclination to deal with people who cannot accept alternative points of views, so instead of disagreeing with someone who isn’t demonstrating having an open mind they self censor.
You know what they say about open minds – keep it gaped wide enough and they fall out.
Yup. This. i lurk, but rarely comment. I like the reviews and the sales info, but have no desire to get into it with the regulars who dominate the comment threads. And, honestly, I never use the links from AAR to buy books because at best I don’t really care if it stays around because so many of the comment threads leave such a bad taste in my mouth. This is probably the most commenting I’ve done in a year, after one comment a while ago in which the regulars piled on about why I was wrong, and I gave up.
Thanks Ellie M for doing it again.
I am relieved to see that there are more people out there and that they speak out on opinions and preferences, we are not in such a small echo chamber as it sometimes seems.
I am currently in lockdown alone in front of a computer all day, which has made me much more willing to be part of discussions, they may be the only “exchange” I have during a long day, where I write/research by myself.
Once my life gets less computer-bound, I will undoubtedly revert to less activity here.
Well, depending on what is being said, yes. If someone posts that trans people shouldn’t exist, I think that should be shut down immediately. I think we can be so “tolerant” that we allow intolerant ideas to take over.
Lisa, sorry for coming in, but I cannot follow your argument:
I do not believe that it is a racist commentary to say a Black duke is not historically accurate. I love the idea of Bridgerton doing what it did, because the whole show is playing with history in many ways, and the Black duke is a super cool way of doing that. I am all for it, and find RJPage very sexy, but if I wanted historical accuracy, I could not watch Bridgerton. But some people found it upsetting, and not only for black dukes, but for a lot of other details, right down to some debate on whether the paintings on the walls would have been in England at the time – at least, that is how I remember that debate. I may be wrong, you may be right – I am not going to reread that whole endless debate: if someone said their only problem with Bridgerton was a ton having PoC, that would be a racist comment, or so close to make no difference.
On your other point:
I do not believe that it is homophobic to say that 19th century England a HEA for gay people was close to impossible. You went to prison for homosexuality, and people like Oscar Wilde got their life ruined by being convicted for it, in a case that, according to some recent research, was a childhood grudge by the prosecutor or judge (I forget which). A HEA means FOREVER and looking over your shoulder all your life whether a nasty neighbor is going to snitch on you is not a HEA to me. I mourn and regret this truth, but in which way am I homophobic if I say that historical times were brutal to gays? Whom am I personally attacking in their identity?
You might enjoy this article. This paragraph resonates with me:
What a fantastic article! Thanks for sharing.
While one shouldn’t expect literature to fix societal problems, it should, perhaps, be used to assuage the individual’s feelings of loss or alienation.
Would you mind expounding upon what you mean about literature being used “to assuage the individual’s feelings of loss or alienation?”
Ahh, I should perhaps have said “could” be used to assuage – etc.
By this, do you mean literature can provide mirrors and windows, as the phrase goes today? I’m not saying this as a criticism or argument, by the way, I just want to make sure I understand. Because if you’re saying that literature can be validating to those who are not normally seen, I actually agree with that point. But I think it is better to have validation through well-developed characters rather than cameo appearances or flat portrayals of X kind of character. Does that make sense?
You weren’t around for the whole “I can’t watch the show because I can’t accept a Black man as a romantic lead because Muh White Headcanons” conversation that went on in that thread, were you?
Apologies, I may have tuned out parts of it – it went on too long. sorry!!
It’s all right- but that proved the exact point I was making above.
I think in the fight between “historical accuracy” and what an audience might want to see, the HA side needs to realize that nuance exists. People like Belle Dido existed, and not every queer person was Oscar Wilde. History is not a monolith and it’s possible to get your character a HEA if you research your time period.
I don’t think the problem is recognizing that historical times were brutal for gay people. The problem would come when a person says something to the effect of “I hated this (book,movie) because it showed a gay couple getting an HEA in historical times and that’s not accurate! That shouldn’t have been allowed.” Those are the kind of responses that were being posted about the black duke.
Thank you, exactly what I was getting at.
“There is a logical flaw in the site and the moderating decisions that it is “fair” or “neutral” to allow both, for instance, transphobia and recognition of trans personhood. It isn’t.”
This is my concern as well. This has been my point in asserting that it isn’t cancel culture to allow for safe spaces for maginalized groups. I would like the moderators to be able to say that “This isn’t the place to discuss whether trans people have the right to exist. It’s a place to let trans people exist without the need to defend their existence.”
As always, you put it perfectly.
My hat is off to you for being open and courageous enough to even invite this discussion. (To me it feels like being invited over for a lovely meal and then having the host ask you to tell them everything you think was bad about it, Lol.)
I appreciate the site and the people who put all the work in here very much. I am sure there will be disagreement but I like the format, the reviews, the work and the people.
It feels ungracious to comment here when I have gained so much enjoyment from books and authors I discovered through this site. (Thank you!)
However…
I would like to see reviews of books from a greater range of authors, rather than frequent reviews of books from prolific authors. I’m always looking for new authors, and if several of an author’s books have recently received good reviews here, I’m likely to have decided either that I should follow that author, or that her/his books are not for me. The exceptions to that would be if the quality of an author’s work is variable or if the author starts a new series or writes in a different genre from previously.
I’d like to see reviews of series or an author’s body of work, particularly for authors who have been writing for many years. That would be a way to discover new-to-me authors and to be reminded of authors I’ve forgotten.
I was disappointed when the format of the Books Out This Month blogs changed. I always looked forward to reading those blogs, and discovering why reviewers followed particular authors. The new format doesn’t give me information I can’t get elsewhere.
I agree with you about the format of the Books Out This Month. I preferred the previous format as it was nice to get just a little inkling of why a book was anticipated and I could pay particular attention to the reviewers that I know tend to like the same type of books that I do.
Agree, I preferred the former version too.
Adding a third voice of disappointment to those who are upset about the format change for Books Out This Month.
I would like to add that despite these items on my wish list, AAR remains the best romance review site I’ve found.
The thing I like least is really not relevant, as in:
„This is a fact of life, not a problem.“
Living in German speaking Central Europe, some of the topics just do not work for me, or I do not get a cultural reference or a crazy enthusiasm for some things. Then, I feel the distance we cross to be together.
I only mention this in a kind of reverse praise.
I enjoyed being asked the question, felt happy that you want to know, thought it over like a gourmet at a buffet („Is there something I do not want here“) happily decided I am good, („cannot blame them for serving marshmallows and peanut butter, there is so much other good food“), and hope we will go on as we are.
Lots of hugs to all!
One thing that may exist but I may have missed is ‘if you like X you might like this book’ in the reviews. I don’t read all the reviews by a long shot but an early-on cross-reference to writing style would be useful to me as someone who’s been reading romance for a long time.
If an author has several different series going, it would be useful to see how Book 2 in Series A compares to Book 3 in Series B (e.g. if one series leans more to romantic suspense and the other to romantic comedy), and does the author handle both sub-genres equally well, and if not why not.
If an author is actually writing mystery or suspense with romantic elements, I’d like to see that called out in the first line of a review, because those books are not actually romance novels.
Notes on editing are particularly useful to me. I see plenty of poorly-edited books, and not only those that are self-published. I am more apt to try a new author if I think the book is going to be well-constructed. Grammar, syntax, word choice/usage; things like distractingly descriptive dialogue tags (or use of adjectives as dialogue tags, which I forgive in some writers but not in others); etc. It is rare for me to see a truly well-edited book that is not also strong on character, plot, dialogue, and setting.
Nothing truly ‘least favorite.’ I’m here for my own reasons; what I get out of it is up to me. :-) That said, a ‘D’ review doesn’t strike me as useful. It’s not going to inspire people to buy a book, so it’s not going to add revenue for the site; it’s also likely to prejudice readers forever against an author, which might scare authors away from engaging with the site. If you hate something, let it die in peaceful obscurity. We all have limited time and space; use it to promote the things you really love – and things that will help pay for the site.
Agree on your wishes. would be nice to have for me. Happens some of the time, but not in the depth you mention. I imagine it would only make sense if one reviewer had read most of an authors work.
Other opinion on the D:
A well explained D might actually make me read a book – if my triggers or “not acceptable” were different than the reviewer’s.
A D for the reasons you mention: poor plotting, poor editing, poor dialogue, would stop me wasting my time.
I would trust a site less that never gave bad grades, so ultimately, AAR would earn less.
And not publishing reviews for books people read for review seems somehow wrong to me – since they do not know upfront that it will be a D::
Disrespectful of the reviewer’s work, and depriving us of their professional opinion.
I know it’s a catch-22. Balance is important. There’s a personal element* to my comments on the D grade, but in fact if I see a grade that low I’m very unlikely to even read the review (unless it’s a book I had my eye on), much less buy the book.
*The D on my own book actually led me to unpublish that title, but the grade remains on record and will be forever linked to my name. Since it’s the only review I’ve had here, I sympathize with other authors who may be in my position – trying to get eyeballs. Getting a bad review is intensely demoralizing. And may well tarnish everything else by that author.
Those of us who are not on NetGalley (it costs money) have to pitch our books for review; I’ve pitched multiple titles to multiple sites and getting any review at all is difficult. (Even finding a beta reader is difficult.) Part of the reason is that review sites want to cover books that are recognizable i.e. likely to sell i.e. to make money for the site. For affiliate links, only a click-through purchase results in revenue to the site host.
I can’t speak to the value of the reviewer’s time; I’ve assumed all the reviewers here are unpaid and doing it for love + free books. :-) That may be erroneous and I’d be happy to be corrected.
Anyway, that’s the understory to my comments on D grades. Obviously I did not flounce away from AAR in a huff but it’s a thing I felt personally so I mentioned it. I knew I was taking a chance with the book I pitched, c’est la vie.
You’re correct – we’re all volunteers and none of us gets paid.
I’ve been in the position of getting a review that blasted my first book to kingdom come. The reviewer went so far as to call me a “dirty old pervert” (me? old?), and that review is on Goodreads for anyone to see. I was, shall we say, not thrilled about this, but it’s part of the risk of being an author. You put your book out there and you take your chances.
I agree it’s depressing to get such a review, and sometimes it’s frustrating too. Another of the bad reviews I got for my first book, a fantasy romance, was from someone who entered a contest for a physical copy and then said in their review that they didn’t like fantasy. But… I’m not sure there’s any reasonable alternative we have as authors than to take this risk when it comes to getting reviews (short of only sending books to sites/reviewers whom we know will enjoy our work).
I am sorry for your experience. I can relate, I have changed my path in major ways a few times when a first costly* try got rejected by respected counterparts .
I see no good way of squaring that circle, all interests are important and valid.
Personally, for entertainment, I like D and F reviews more than C and B. The reviewer tries harder to tell me why she has that opinion, and that makes her analysis more stringent. As I said, I may disagree, some examples: heroes who are aggressive, also sexually, may work for me although they are not acceptable in newer books. Adultery is not a no-go for me. Hard women may have my sympathy, although their moral choices may condemn them for readers, especially if they do not reconcile with everyone in their family during the book. I have a different take on mother’s who leave their children, in some circumstances. So Ds are more interesting to me.
Fs I only read as a spectator sport, but love them for that (which is harsh to authors, and I feel slightly guilty about enjoying them.)
*Both my costly above and my comment on worth of reviewer’s time referred to investment in the sense of spending time and effort, not money. I know that I read a book differently if I have to give comments on it, than if I just read for fun. So that would be a cost to me.
Personally, although I’m unlikely to buy books with D or F grade reviews, I enjoy reading those. Same reason I bought a copy of Roger Ebert’s Your Movie Sucks and Michael Medved’s The Hollywood Hall of Shame, I suppose.
I also agree with you that if this was a site which only gave good grades, even if this was done to promote books we loved, I wouldn’t trust it as much. I would not be interested in reading the reviews, let alone reviewing books for the site, because I would suspect the main purpose of the reviews was to please the authors (hence all the reviews being good) rather than to honestly inform readers.
I think it’s more important for reviewers to be honest, versus guarding the feelings of the authors in question.
I don’t have any complaints about AAR itself. This is a great website for all the reasons I mentioned last week: the community, the freeform discussion spurred by a mutual love of romance, the recs, the layout, everything.
What I don’t like is how AAR admins have been treated unfairly or even abusively in the past by irate third parties quick to hurl ugly, unfounded accusations at the site and those who maintain it as a labor of love because they stick to their guns about allowing diversity of opinion. For the record, I’m not referring to anybody here by stating this. But there are definitely past incidents that are fresh in a lot of people’s minds.
While I think things like that survey by The R**pped Bo**ce that came out and denigrated the site were unfair and even inflammatory, the site’s biggest enemy continues to be lax moderation. That “historical accuracy” conversation should have never have gone on for as long as it did or be allowed to get as heated as it ended up being. The site seems to love to court controversy but hates it when controversy actually happens.
There is something I dislike about the comments here: the conversation is overwhelmed by a few voices. I appreciate that some commenters can be relied on to pitch in with knowledge of similar books people might like, or with a kind word to support the reviewers. However, when commenting shifts to a discussion, there’s just no point in engaging, because they seem to have a nearly infinite amount of time, and they post accordingly. I’ve seen threads of 50 posts where 35 or 40 of them are from just a couple of people.
Before I even bother to comment at AAR, I ask myself, “What does X think about what I’m about to say?” and if the answer is that they will disagree with me, I won’t even bother to post. I know they’ll be back in ninety seconds with a rebuttal and if I try to turn their monologue into a dialogue, they’ll post me into the ground.
I feel especially frustrated when X, or Y, or whoever, has said something that I feel contributes to a hostile environment (like “historical accuracy” conversations) and I want to rebut it, but… I know they’ll exhaust me. There are real-world hills to die on, and I don’t have the time.
“Before I even bother to comment at AAR, I ask myself, “What does X think about what I’m about to say?” and if the answer is that they will disagree with me, I won’t even bother to post. I know they’ll be back in ninety seconds with a rebuttal and if I try to turn their monologue into a dialogue, they’ll post me into the ground.”
I’ve written my share of long-winded posts, so I’m aware I can be part of the problem, but yes, this is true for me, also.
I could not agree more. I also prefer that people stay on topic. I am not here for anything but discussion of romance novels or media. OK, a little humor does not go amiss either! I do not appreciate conversations that veer off into anything political or launch into diatribes only tangentially relevant to the main topic. Since I am fairly new here, I am not quite sure what the norms are for the site. However, sometimes I feel I am at a social gathering where there are a few dominant people who talk a lot, on subjects of their own choosing, and are quick to dispute others, and frankly, that makes me reluctant to read their posts or enter into the conversation. That being said, there are many, many more commenters who are lovely and insightful and helpful, and I do appreciate the insights I gain from them.
I agree and disagree.
I am sometimes exhausted, and feel the might of others‘ arguments heavily.
But I prefer more lively discussion that I may have to select and avoid, than less discussion that becomes bland.
I treat this like a family gathering where Auntie Agnes and Cousin Prue are always pushing their love of fiery discussion on everyone. I love them, but I try to avoid getting trapped in their corner. I might sometimes even love the strange long winded argument on some detail, and sometimes scroll over them – or dip in and then realize „oh, better not“. Easier on the internet than at that imaginary family gathering.
So the rare short moments when I feel „oops, should have stayed out of it“ or the more frequent moments when I think „I will not go there“ are fully worth it to me.
and:
Anytime I feel misunderstood/ strange/negatively seen and say so, everyone is utterly lovely, and that makes it even better than never getting into debate.
If I were made to choose, I would want each and everyone of our passionate commenters to stay, and keep nursing my occasional overwhelm.
I agree, but I would like to see the “lively discussions” moved out of the comments sections and into the forums. That’s what the forums are for. If we move the discussions there then interested people will follow. But if they don’t, then it seems there isn’t really enough interest to continue anyway.
I’d like the comment section to be on topic, and the forums used to go deeper into the political, cultural, or social issues that pop up on the side. Not too long ago there was a hero with a tattoo that some felt was cultural appropriation. That led to a much wider discussion about cultural appropriation that then veered into cancel culture. At the point the discussion left talking about the specific book,it could have been politely moved to the forum for more.
For some reason, the forums never became as lively as years ago.
If they did, I would agree with you.
If they do not, I would rather have those discussions that went all over the place (I remember the one you mention, and I had to do massive skimming and finally bowed out for a couple of days) than have very little interaction because we all step back.
I think that if the discussions are interesting enough to enough people, they will engage in them even in the forums. I mean, if people can’t be bothered to visit the forums to discuss the topic, then is it really very important?
And it seems encouraging the discussions to move to the forums instead of allowing the comment section to be used as a forum would be a worthy goal. It would breath life back in the forums. Why visit the forums if all the discussions take place in the comments section. If that was no longer the case, then perhaps people would use the forums more.
That’s why people should be encouraged to take their off topic opinions there. If they are, resultant conversation will move.
Good points.
I am willing to go along with this, fully.
I just keep worrying that making things complicated will make people talk less.
And in my experience, the less vocal, middle of the road, middle level of engagement become quiet first, they are the ones who rethink, or just shrug, while those who love the fun of a good debate will find their space.
I am already slightly worried about taking too much space in this debate, and maybe others are, too.
On the other hand, yes, I have been successfully driven out of any debate here on race, cultural appropriation, inclusion, let alone politics and such. I will be silent on those topics, not because I am afraid, but because it costs me too much energy and I nearly* never actually learn anything by contributing, since I am often made to feel that I should know these things already, or go, read up myself and leave the informed at the table.
*I completely loved the research on tattoos significance through the ages that someone posted – that was worth that whole exhausting thread to me :-)
Apologies, I am truly on the fence, and cannot know what would be best for us all, down the road. As said, I am willing to give anything a try.
And I am sorry that people left – the more the merrier, and there is no resource like AAR out there that I found, so any loss of participation feels like a threat of greater loss to me.
I think there’s a simple line between, say, someone clearly not being interested in the review itself and what it says and going on an off-topic tangent that results in a 20 comment thread about My Freedom of Speech Being Impugned and people commenting about the review, the genre, the cover, etc.
Well said.
Also the uneven moderation style and all-sides-ism inherent in the site’s moderating policy has resulted in driving away more liberal or moderate voices, resulting in an echo chamber.
I’ve noticed this too.
A couple of weeks ago in the “what do we like about AAR?” conversation it was amazingly obvious.
I too worry that more liberal or moderate voices are being driven away. There were a few commentators in particular whose takes I really enjoyed, and they have now left the site. I know that the moderators are keen to ensure that AAR remains a welcoming site, so if people are leaving because they feel that AAR is becoming a hostile space, isn’t that a problem?
Like Lisa, I have frequently felt tempted to enter into problematic threads (particularly in relation to race and transphobia) but have felt overwhelmed by the constant back and forth. It makes me feel guilty because I feel like I am not defending those who are challenging problematic views, but equally I feel like engaging in these conversations are unproductive. It is also exhausting to explain sometimes why certain comments are racist/transphobic, when sometimes they are clear dog-whistles that POC/non-binary people hear day in and day out. The historical accuracy thread is a perfect example of this.
I think Carrie G’s solution strikes the right balance. There is only so many times we can rehash the same conversations in the comment space re cancel culture/freedom of expression/historical accuracy. If people are interested in exploring these issues more deeply, they can continue their discussions on the forums. If those forums are not lively, surely this indicates that not many people are interested in this conversation?
I have been debating with myself whether I should post this, but since Dabney has asked the question, I’m assuming she wants honest feedback. First of all, full disclosure: despite being a white woman in my sixties, living in a very red area of a very red state, and who, prior to covid, spent every Sunday morning in church, my politics are left of center. I do try to avoid bringing politics into romance threads—not always successfully, I’ll be the first to admit. That being said, over the past year or so, I find myself looking at a comment thread and, if it is over, say, 50 comments, not bothering to read through it since I feel sure what might promise to be a lively discussion on the surface of things has undoubtedly devolved into a series of right-wing talking points, dog-whistles expressed as fact, and verbatim repostings from dubious Wikipedia articles. Last year when Dabney asked about politics in the threads, I had said then that there were plenty of places to debate politics on the Internet, but not so many places where we can exchange thoughts (yes, sometimes in a spirited fashion, but generally staying on topic) about reading romance. I think it’s unfortunate that where we used to be able to—regardless of our political leanings—talk about books, authors, themes, tropes, and all things related to reading romance, we now have to gird our loins and prepare for a political battle for suggesting something as radical as, say, color-blind casting in a 21st-century adaptation of a series of books written in the 21st century is perfectly fine.
/Dismounting soapbox now.
Yep, this addresses again the website’s braintrust’s hunger for attention combined with its inability to govern the comments that result – and quick tendency to shut down every time they get dragged for the difference – is the problem.
That being said, over the past year or so, I find myself looking at a comment thread and, if it is over, say, 50 comments, not bothering to read through it since I feel sure what might promise to be a lively discussion on the surface of things has undoubtedly devolved into a series of right-wing talking points, dog-whistles expressed as fact, and verbatim repostings from dubious Wikipedia articles.
Precisely.
“..the website’s braintrust’s hunger for attention combined with its inability to govern the comments that result….” I find I strongly disagree with the comment and the language used.
I’m sorry you feel that way.
Is this condescending? or is it patronizing? Which ever it is, it is unhelpful to the topic, unnecessary, and disingenuous.
See what I said below!
Please refrain from writing so rudely about the AAR staff. We are all volunteers.
If you’d like to make constructive criticisms of the policies, please feel free to do so. If you’d like to tell me how much I can improve, I’d prefer you email me at dabneygrinnan@allaboutromance.com rather than making sweeping generalizations about those who contribute to AAR.
Thank you.
While I’m sorry you feel that my comment was rude, and I truly didn’t mean to offend you or the rest of the staff, I believe that the truth is the best policy, and thus I will employ it.
The fact that you and your staff are volunteers does not excuse the fact that the conversations on the blogs and in the reviews have a strong tendency to become inflammatory if an inflammatory subject is posted, or when certain guest posters drag the conversation off-topic and continue to do so. Just because you work for free doesn’t mean you don’t have a responsibility to marshal the conversation taking place there in a constructive manner.
Saying the website contains blogs that “hunger for attention” wasn’t intended as a rude remark, but a factual one. I’m no dummy, I run an account on social media as well, and I know why blogs like the “Can you forgive this rapist hero?” and “what do readers owe authors?” and “AAR is dying financially, should we change our whole identity to make more money?” are intended to do – foster a sense of engagement and get the reader’s attention.
But if those subjects are to be posted, then the comment section should be cared for, and frequently it feels as if they’re not, and the like votes here seem to agree with me. Look what the other people in this thread are saying to you. 21 people feel the way I do. I’m not alone
I will not be emailing you, because I’ve said what I needed to say in public. In closing – if you didn’t want people to inform you about what they dislike about your website, perhaps you shouldn’t have posted a blog called “What’s your least favorite thing about AAR?”
Again, we are looking for constructive criticism and I’m happy to take that.
It’s always a risk, inviting criticism, and it’s one I’ve always been willing to take so that AAR–and me–can improve. You are of course right that there are those that agree with you that we should do more stringent moderation. Just as there are many who don’t. I get emails every week from readers saying how grateful they are that AAR is a place where things can be discussed. I strive to do what I think is ethically right just as you do.
AAR isn’t, actually, for any other reason than that we–and the long line of volunteers and reviewers who’ve come before us–love romance novels and want to share that love. That’s it. There’s no money in it, the work is often frustrating–site crashes are the worst–and all of us have busy lives outside of AAR. The people who publish here are from all over the world and are a diverse, independent group. We don’t have a shared politic, approach, or background–we just all were drawn to the idea of writing about books we love or don’t.
Thank you for all your feedback. As usual, our readers give me thing to consider.
I promise I’m only going to make one more comment (“If only I could believe that,” sighs Dabney) and then retire from the fray. I’m trying to be diplomatic and not a romance-novel snob here—because all of us were new to romance reading at one point, if it was when we read our first Victoria Holt at age 11, or when we read 50 SHADES a few years back, or somewhere in between—but I feel that recently the comment threads at AAR are being hijacked by commentators who not only know very little about romance novels/themes/stylistic conventions/history/and tropes, but also really aren’t interested in learning more about them. One of the reasons comment threads seem to run off the rails with alarming regularity these days is because the threads are no longer being used to share and exchange ideas and opinions about specific books and tropes (“Here’s why I like the enforced proximity trope…” “And here are reasons why I don’t…”), but are being used as a hobby horse for certain commentators to express political opinions that are only tangentially related to the subject at hand or to twist every debate into support for a series of right-wing talking points. It’s one thing to have a lively debate about Sierra Simone’s PRIEST or Julianna Keyes’s TIME SERVED (two books that tend to rouse strong opinions, both pro and con), quite another to know that any comment thread—no matter how specific to a particular book or theme—will eventually be used to express dog-whistle appeals. It becomes exhausting after a while and I can understand some of the previous comments from people who say they no longer want to engage with those type of comments.
Thank you, DDD. You say this so much better than I seem to be able to. Yes, almost every comment section where any topic is being debated turns into right wing talking points hidden behind calls for free-speech, and disagreements silenced with lectures that present a narrow view of cancel culture.
There is something called the Paradox of Tolerance, and looking that up might help people understand how unfettered “tolerance” leads to being ruled by intolerant voices.
Thank you, Carrie. You, DDD, xxx and others on this thread capture my thoughts so well. And I applaud your courage and persistence in trying to articulate these, despite the fact that AAR will not change.
Romance and discussion of romance are what initially drew me to this site.
But I find that I no longer enjoy these because of the racist and transphobic comments, covid deniers and other right wing talking points that spring up like minefields.
Discussions are fruitless and depressing — the opposite of why I am attracted to romance in the first place.
So, I will look to other sources for romance.
Thank you and I wish you the best.
Here here!
“Discussions are fruitless and depressing — the opposite of why I am attracted to romance in the first place.” :-(
I’m sorry to read that you are thinking of leaving AAR. But I want to assure you that the discussions are not fruitless. Just speaking for myself, I learned a lot from our conflab about the tribal tattoo in A Rogue of One’s Own. Without the ability to engage in that discussion, I probably wouldn’t have been able to see the other side of why it was so hurtful to a lot of readers. Sorry, but other websites that just award an “F” to the book and become hostile to commenters who want to parse nuances are highly unlikely to win converts or at least empathy from those who disagree.
Discovering romance itself was an enlightening journey for me, one that I have been continually learning about by engaging with others at AAR. Yes, I could do a heck of a lot of work on my diplomacy skills. Believe me, I’m not clueless about my often emphatic nature. But to shut down the conversation entirely or in a one-sided fashion would not allow such discourse and growth to continue. Not just for me, of course, but for other AAR participants as well.
If you are interested, I have started a thread on the Agora about diversity in HR. So far, we are all being polite and behaving ourselves. Thank you to everyone who suggested we move tangents to the forums. Maybe they will get some more use now instead of inundating the review threads.
Thank you for saying what I wanted to say. You, Carrie G and Sol have been bulwarks in this thread.
I am dismayed that arguments from people who actually participate and lurk here are being overlooked in favor of email supporters who consume the site passively.
YES. During the pandemic, I discovered a tiny used bookstore just outside my city that has a huge romance section. When I’ve talked with the owner at check out, it’s obvious she’s a big romance fan herself. It’s also clear that we have really different political/religious beliefs so I try to avoid commenting on those topics because it’s really fun to chat with her about the genre. She’s quite a bit older than me and knows more about the early gothic romances, Regencies, etc. and I’ve enjoyed learning so much. AAR used to be like that for me too, but that sense of commonality or community has been gradually eroded. The diatribes about cancel culture, “social justice warriors” on Twitter, wokeness, trans identity, etc. have replaced it and…yeah, that’s not why I’m here and if I wanted to learn more, I would turn on Fox News.
Yes, this captures how I feel as well.
When that occurs, I also sometimes feel as though it is the same thread and the same talking points repeated ad infinitum.
I too worry that more liberal or moderate voices are being driven away. There were a few commentators in particular whose takes I really enjoyed, and they have now left the site. I know that the moderators are keen to ensure that AAR remains a welcoming site, so if people are leaving because they feel that AAR is becoming a hostile space, isn’t that a problem?
Perfectly well said!
This how I feel as well. I wouldn’t be the romance reader I am today without AAR but when I see how extreme and vitriolic some of these conversations are allowed to become, I second guess my enjoyment of the site.
Totally agree and it’s a big part of why I only pop out of the woodwork for the fun fluffy stuff. I found out about so many books I love through here (and I’ve been lurking for the better part of 15 years!) but there seems to be a major disconnect between the inclusive tone of the reviews and the much more uncomfortable tone that some of the comment threads have spiralled into.
Thank you for your feedback.
It’s hard to regulate readers which is why many sites are increasingly limiting comments or banishing them all together.
That’s an option here too although it’s one I’ve resisted. There is no way to have comments and make both those who love the comment threads and those who don’t happy. The ethics of free speech are hotly debated all over the world and, currently, there really isn’t any consensus about what works best.
It is, of course, important to create a site for one’s readers. But AAR’s readers are so diverse and come from all over and do not have any shared consensus about what speech should or shouldn’t be allowed. I’ve gotten five emails in the past 48 hours from readers saying they love the openness of conversations here.
I’ve, despite the strongly worded criticisms, found the feedback here very helpful so thank you to all who’ve commented.
Have you read about the Paradox of Tolerance view? You may not agree with it, but it gives an insight into why tolerant societies need to be intolerant to intolerant views. It postulates that since intolerant people don’t believe in being tolerant of ideas they disagree with, they can use the tolerance of everyone else to hijack and dominate the conversation.
There is a way to do it, and it’s to either deep six political commentary unless it’s related to the blog or book being reviewed (and then moderate the comments) or encourage a no politics/no transphobia/no anti vaxx discussion policy.
You can’t please all of the people all of the time, but a romance review website shouldn’t be a place where a discussion of a historically anachronistic Netflix series dead ends in a discussion about transphobia and ends with several drive-by comments from upset people really mad that their white faves are now Black characters.
No one has advocated for limiting comment threads as a rule or banishing discussion altogether. To me, it’s been very clear that people are asking for more sensitive and responsive moderation.
When I’ve seen this issue with inflammatory comments discussed in the past, the defense usually revolves around “the ethics of free speech” and an argument that the people who are discontented are upset over exposure to “diverse” political beliefs that might be different from their own. But that’s really not what this is about and that rebuttal only serves as a distraction from the specific problem people are experiencing here.
And, if you or the other moderators don’t want to moderate the discussions any differently, that’s fine too, but perhaps it would be helpful to state that clearly and discontinue asking for input on what could be improved?
More work for Dabney and co.
Asking a lot from a group of unpaid types, aren’t you?
As I said, if the moderators want to continue moderating the discussion in the exact same way that they have in the past, that’s their prerogative. That option wouldn’t involve any more work than what they are already doing. But, if that’s the case, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to continue to solicit advice or feedback for what the site could change or improve, unless they specified that they were not interested in changing the perimeters of discussion or comment threads.
Their status as volunteers has little to do with a discussion of what could be improved, unless someone explicitly says that they do not want to do more sensitive or responsive moderating because they’re not being paid. And from what I’ve seen, Dabney and others aren’t making that claim, but if they did, that would be perfectly understandable. It would also clarify the issue of whether or not the comment culture would change here on AAR.
Not at all. We are actually responding to questions the staff asked us about improving the site, which is what they wanted.
You realize volunteering here is a choice and if they don’t want to do the extra work they can just close down comments altogether?
Excellently said!
I am immensely grateful for the reviews which alert me to the existence of books I would otherwise never find. But I have an issue with the way romance reviews are constructed here and on other romance sites. They tend to contain far too much plot detail for my tastes.
I know reviewers will defend their work by pointing out that nothing is revealed past a certain point of the book. But whether it’s 10%, 25% or whatever isn’t the point; it’s the description of the initial setup that often contains lots of details that could be skimmed over so the reader still gets a good idea of the general scenario but is left something to discover when they read the book themselves. With any book I already think I may want to read, I only dare to glance at the review and then skip to the end for the reviewer’s overall judgement, but there are often reviews of books by unfamiliar authors that I read properly and then realise that the book seems like something I would enjoy but it’s too late now because the review has given away too much of the story. Maybe I’m wrong about that and the reviewer did leave a lot out, but I’m discouraged from buying the book anyway.
I feel that romance readers in general like to know exactly what they’re getting and woe betide if something unexpected pops up that wasn’t in the review. So the reviews concentrate more on plot rather than writing quality or depth of characterisation. But I wish for reviews that do more to evaluate the quality of the storytelling and the connection between the characters rather than giving me a blow-by-blow account of the first few chapters. If I was worried about triggers I could skim reviews at Amazon and Goodreads to reassure myself; from AAR I want to know what the reviewer liked or felt didn’t work but I want to find out most of the story for myself.
Sorry this turned into a bit of a rant. I really do enjoy visiting this site and sharing opinions with other readers. I just feel like it should be safe to read the whole review without worrying that you’ll find out something you wish you hadn’t.
Many other book review sites publish the book blurb with their reviews – and you can often find lots of really big spoilers in blurbs! – but we don’t do that, so we always include a plot description and we do have a “no-spoiler rule” which generally says that anything in the blurb or the first third of the book is fine to talk about and after that, discussion has to be vague. With mysteries obvously, that tends to be a bit different and those of us who review them are very careful as to what we put in our plot discussion. Very occasionally, there will be something in a book that happens after that cut-off point that we feel readers would probably like to know, and we now have the option to put that under a spoiler tag. As the person who edits all the reviews you read here, I will always check with a reviewer if I think that maybe something is a bit spoilery.
Our reviewers do a good job of writing a review as opposed to a book report – and I’ve seen plenty of those on Goodreads and Amazon that discuss the plot from beginning to end. We include discussions of characterisation and comments about writing, and our reaction to the book overall, so I would disagree when you say that our reviews focus more on plot than on evaluating the qualities of the storytelling – because we do both. (I will admit that perhaps some or our shorter/mini reviews are not so in depth as the longer ones).
I will be interested to see what other readers feel on this issue.
Finally – and this is me speaking for myself as a reviewer rather than with my editor’s hat on – I would find it very difficult (impossible!) to write a review without reference to the plot/set-up – and I always include discussion of writing, character, storytelling etc. in my reviews.
I know everyone is different, but I like detailed reviews—especially regarding a story’s set-up, the development of the characters, and the author’s writing style, which (beyond favorite tropes) constitute my reasons for reading a romance. Yes, I suppose I could get an idea of the book’s basic plot if the review were something like, “Antagonists-to-lovers, with enforced proximity in a snowbound cabin” (and I’d probably put that on my tbr!), but I really prefer a meatier review that gets into the elements that the reviewer thinks makes the book worth (or, in other cases, not worth) a reader’s time.
I love the amount of detail that you give in your reviews. It doesn’t spoil my enjoyment when reading the book. That’s why I am checking out the reviews that look interesting to me, a few times each day. Thank you AAR.
Ditto! I love the detailed reviews. In my opinion, it is AAR’s unique selling point.
Thank you :) There is definitely a trend towards shorter reviews in many places now – courtesy of social media I suppose – and that’s fine, but I still like to give an overall picture of a story without giving away too much. Again, speaking only for myself, I wrote a review yesterday (which has yet to run) where I hardly gave any plot details; if you look at my review of the Jay Hogan book today, I’ve only really ‘spoken’ about what happens in the prologue in any detail, and the rest of the review talks about the characters but necessarily references some of the events in the story. I’m honestly not sure I could write a review any other way…
Please do not shorten!!
I have seen this trend towards shorter reviews, but I think review writing is a skill that AAR reviewers have managed to hone perfectly. It is a joy to read your reviews because they contain a great blend of humour, wit and insight. Perhaps it is just me, but I am not overly worried about being ‘spoiled’ for romances because I know that there will be a HEA. In any case, I think all AAR reviewers are careful not to wade into spoiler territory.
I do go into some detail about plots in my reviews, because I feel the review should show why the grade I give is justified. And sometimes the only way to do that is to give specifics of the plot. When I read the review for Simple Jess, it showed how what seemed like a foolish action on the hero’s part was actually good sense which proved he was a great deal more than the slow-witted child people treated him as.
The reviewer could simply have said, “people write him off, but he has valuable ideas”, but providing a specific made the book memorable for me. I also felt that even if the review “spoiled” that particular moment in the story, there were plenty of others left to discover.
I think it’s also possible to show characterization through what the characters do, so a focus on plot doesn’t necessarily mean that characterization is shorted. I do try to include anything noteworthy about the writing and my personal reaction to the story, but like Caz, I would find it difficult (and perhaps even boring) to avoid plot details when writing a review.
I completely appreciate you doing this Marian. I also like to see why a reviewer was put off by a particular element of the story, because sometimes it may be something that I am not particularly troubled by. I also think that shows that the reviewer is being fair to the writer, as they are explaining why that element of the book did not work for them personally. One thing I love about AAR reviews is that you get a real sense of the characters. Romances are usually completely character driven, and if the hero/heroine is not someone I can root for, I would like to know that before I read the book.
I read so much romance that I need a bit of description of setup and plot in a review to know whether I want to read another HR heroine whose quest is sex but no marriage, and why, or whether I might get overwhelmed by a crowd of interfering family members in a small town romance. Mostly, AAR gets it right for me.
Sometimes, I read para 1 and then slip down to last or second to last para, because I know and trust an author and want to „unwrap all the goodies“ in the book myself.
So I get oceanjasper but only very rarely feel that way.
I really like things as they are, including the predictable structure of reviews.
I read AAR reviews for 2 reasons. One is to find new authors/books to purchase and the other is to compare my opinion of a book to the reviewers and commentators. For finding new books, I think the review length is just right and that the reviews contain an excellent mix of plot revelation and analysis. I gravitate towards reviewers with similar tastes to mine and it is pretty easy for me to tell at the end of a review whether I should take a chance on a book/author. For books that I know I am already going to buy, I am like Lieselotte – I will skim the beginning and the end of the review and avoid the middle as I don’t want to be spoiled. After I have read the book I will then go back to the review to read it in detail and see if there are any comments. This works great for me and I hope AAR doesn’t change a thing!
If a book is by an author that I have enjoyed reading before – for example, Nalini Singh – I will look at the reviewer’s grade but often will not read the review until after I read the book. This way, I know I will not be spoiled or tempted to read spoilerish comments. (The exception to this is that if a review grade is unusually low for that author, for example, “C” or “D+”, I am likely to read the review.)
Otherwise, I like the amount of detail in your reviews. I especially like that I can start reading a review and get an immediate sense of whether the reviewer liked the book and whether the book is going to work for me. But I can appreciate how some people don’t want to know more than whatever is contained in the book blurb.
I guess it’s just a matter of personal taste. I have to admit there are lots of reviews I don’t read because I’m not interested in the subgenre or the author has previously disappointed me, and it’s human nature to remember the annoying rather than the unobjectionable reviews, so my complaint only applies to some reviews but it still happens often enough to keep me very wary of reading reviews of books I already think I want to read. Some of the commenters below have given examples of plot summaries that are ridiculously vague; I don’t want that but neither do I want a straight recount of the first part of the plot. And including specific examples of illuminating incidents or conversations is fine too, if they are relevant to a reviewer’s point about characterisation or writing style. I just feel that romance reviews often start with plot descriptions containing a level of detail that doesn’t serve a useful purpose (like a blow by blow account of how the main characters come to be working together or how they end up on a date, etc.) and this sometimes actively deters me from seeking out the book.
But most romance readers seem to get the style of reviews they want from AAR. And I agree that Goodreads and Amazon reviews are for the reader who wants definitely no surprises and doesn’t mind being spoiled or who wants to compare their own impressions with others only AFTER reading! I’m not saying there are better romance reviews out there anywhere else…. I just seem to be a bit out of sync with the romance reading community in some things.
After reading all the comments here for the past decade, I’d say there is no shared sense of what the romance community writ large is looking for. So I don’t think you’re at all anomalous!
I disagree. I think there is a fine line on the amount of plot detail that should be in a review and AAR handles that fine line very well. Too many other sites that claim to review books give reviews that go something like this: “5 Stars!!! This book is fabulous!” You never see an explanation of why the reviewer thought the book was fabulous, what works, or what doesn’t. They seem more like promotional pieces than book reviews. When all the books get five star reviews, I tend not to trust the reviews or the reviewer.
While I don’t want spoilers, I do appreciate a thorough analysis of the book. I want to know whether I can trust the author, what their writing style is, and how they handle plot and characterization. Are historical details just window dressing or are they integral to the plot? Does everything in the story make sense or is it just a mad jumble? Will I be entertained, maybe educated, or will I be bored? Is this a lighthearted romance, or am I going to be drawn through an emotional wringer? I want all that and more in a book review, so I appreciate the reviews that I read on this site.
Details revealed in reviews are rarely a problem for me because I rarely remember them. I add a lot of books to my tbb list based on reviews here, but due to many ebook prices that I refuse to pay, a lot of those tbb titles stay on the list for months or years. By the time I buy the book & move it from the tbb list to the tbr list, then find time to read it, most review details are long forgotten.