As an avid reader and constant seeker of new material, I have perhaps a morbid fascination with reviews (particularly one-star reviews) on Amazon and Goodreads. Some of these reviews, while I may not agree with them, are well-written and well-argued. Most, however, seem to have been hurriedly written with little regard to who is going to read them. Perhaps the morbid part of my fascination lies in finding out which reviews actually offer anything useful. Now I don’t expect reviews on these websites to be as well-written as the ones in The New York Times, but I still expect them to be informative–and most quite simply, are not.
I’m going to assume I’m preaching to the choir when I say I ideally would like to read reviews that can help readers make an informative decision when buying a book. It is true a review is an opinion and can offer whatever opinion the writer pleases; yet, especially as a writer, I feel writers (published or aspiring) are even more obligated to write informative reviews based on the virtue that we write what we critique. Now I’m not going to spend this entire post explaining how to write a good book review and what makes a bad one, as Michelle Kerns already does a good job of doing that. But what I am going to talk about is critiquing character in YA literature–protagonist mostly–since characters seem to be the sole reason why many reviewers rate a book poorly.
First, I want to establish there is nothing wrong with a reader disliking a protagonist. Admittedly, I have rarely read a book where I dislike the protagonist, but when I do, I often find at least one endearing trait about that character but do not let my overall dislike affect my judgment of the book. However, there are many reviewers who will allow this dislike of the character to consume them so much, they insult the book with a blitzkrieg approach (calling author’s morals into question, cruelly insulting writing ability, ect.) that does not dissuade me from reading the book but dissuades me from ever trusting them as reviewers again. What is even worse is a lot of them are writers themselves.
What conceivably bothers me the most though is when people choose to tear both book and author apart for the choices their characters make. Granted authors write the choices for their characters, but I am not arguing about whether or not protagonists should be good role models in YA literature because that is an entirely different debate. What I am arguing though is that when reviewers do critique characters, better character analysis needs to be employed that does not have to be at the level of a university research paper, but should demonstrate the reviewer realizes the character is a separate entity from him/herself and the author.
Twilight is perhaps the best example of overly critical character analysis where Stephenie Meyer’s morals are called into question because of the type of character Bella is. This review is an analysis of the movie, but a lot of the points stand true for both my argument and the novel. The writer has even gone so far as to title the review “Twilight’s Bella Swan is a Feminist’s Nightmare” as though Meyer is somehow anti-woman for creating Bella and didn’t write her saga for teenagers seeking escapist reading material, or even just a different perspective for the various trials Bella faces. The rest of the article is rather self-explanatory in the context of my post.
In any case, Bella Swan is Bella Swan. What I mean by this is she is not the reader. She is herself with her own personality, her own flaws, and her own quirks. Certainly Meyer chose to write her this way, but shouldn’t all perspectives be represented in literature, whether or not readers agree with them? Reading, after all, exists to provide readers with a broader perspective of the world.
Now the choices Bella makes throughout the novel are realistic for her character. They may not be choices the readers would make, but readers should not put forth what they would do in a given situation and instead need to first assess if what the character is doing is realistic based on how the author has developed said character. Even if readers don’t like what the character is doing, if the actions are realistic, then the author has done well developing the character’s personality. Thus, there should be no reason for reviewers to insult the author’s writing ability based on the disagreeable choices a character makes. Nonetheless, how well an author has characterized someone is based on opinion too, but my point is that the reader is not the character. Read again: the reader is not the character.
The author is also not the character. I always challenge myself to write characters with different perspectives from my own, but that does not mean I agree with what they’re doing. This only means I want to delve into how others apart from myself would react in the situations I write.
Lastly, readers can claim all they want they would do such-and-such action in a hypothetical situation they’ve never been in, but they truly don’t know what they’ll do until that situation presents itself. Henceforth, they shouldn’t insult both character and author based on something they’ve never experienced. Even if they have experienced the situation the character is in, that character is not the reader.
Generally speaking, if reviewers are going to critique the character in a negative way, this criticism should stem from the way the author has developed the character, not the unfavorable choices a character makes–unless these choices are unrealistic for this particular character. A book’s rating should be contingent on character development, plot development, the writing, and all of the other elements listed in Michelle Kern’s article. The review should not be contingent on a character’s disagreeable personality.
Renaissance Writer 