Some reviews read more like diatribes than reviews. The term hatchet job is often bandied about when a reviewer really doesn't like a book. Today's post is about what sounds like a groundbreaking UK lawsuit: an author was awarded damages for a bad book review. This sounds like a dangerous precedent. A basic tenant of reviewing is that the reviewer is allowed to have an opinion and to express it.
However, if you read about the suit in this post in Slate, you will see the author's victory wasn't because the review was bad; it was because the review was inaccurate. The book was nonfiction, and the reviewer noted that her own name was listed as being interviewed. She claimed she had not in fact been interviewed, and thus cast doubt on the author's veracity and research. It turned out the reviewer had been interviewed, but she had forgotten about it.
So, the answer to today's post subject is: A bad review goes too far when the reviewer states an absolute fact that turns out to be totally untrue. Opinions cannot be proved wrong, but facts can. Reviewers have an obligation to be right if they state something as fact and not merely opinion.
I have to say I agree with the judge. What do you think?
However, if you read about the suit in this post in Slate, you will see the author's victory wasn't because the review was bad; it was because the review was inaccurate. The book was nonfiction, and the reviewer noted that her own name was listed as being interviewed. She claimed she had not in fact been interviewed, and thus cast doubt on the author's veracity and research. It turned out the reviewer had been interviewed, but she had forgotten about it.
So, the answer to today's post subject is: A bad review goes too far when the reviewer states an absolute fact that turns out to be totally untrue. Opinions cannot be proved wrong, but facts can. Reviewers have an obligation to be right if they state something as fact and not merely opinion.
I have to say I agree with the judge. What do you think?
Profile
karen_w_newton- karen_w_newton
- Website
Comments
Two very different things, and if Wyche were so inclined, he could have cleaned the guy's clock in court.
*Okay, so it was twenty years ago. At least they were good back then.
I was once in a restaurant when George Will was eating there. So I guess I can claim to have had lunch with him, right?
Reviewers are giving advice on a book. People make buying decisions based on reviews, and reviewers know that. If you say "Don't bother with this book because it's twaddle," readers can see you didn't like the book. But if you say "Don't bother with this book because it is full of mistakes," they're going to assume you know what you're talking about. To me, the obligation is to be sure your opinion is given as opinion and all facts given are true.
I agree there are gray areas; statements like "a lot of experts disagree with that theory" are probably something that would be hard to prove either way. How many is a lot, for one thing.