The community of middle-aged ladies (and men - I see you out there) who consistently publish useless or obvious throwaway reviews on Amazon and Goodreads don't seem to enjoy it when I slap single stars on a (usually) light-hearted, relatable, but very poorly written book.

To no surprise, mom-books [1] are universally beloved by much of the reviewer community.  The usual suspects (Jodi Picoult, Sue Monk Kidd, Ann Patchett) boast a below-two percent share of  one-star reviews (SMK's Invention of Wings fared the best, with only 0.76%).  Interestingly, I found that poor Elizabeth Gilbert had a shockingly high number of haters, with one-star ratings of her seminal novel Eat, Pray, Love comprising a sad 8.32%; her later novels didn't fare much better.  

Are wamen now turned off by Gilbert's boho-free-spirit soul-searching trips to Bali when there's so much Leaning In to be done?  Or disillusioned by learning of her subsequent divorce (sorry for the DailyMail link, but just think, at least it isn't Buzzfeed) from the 'Love' portion of her travels? The second-highest percentage of one-star reviews (among the random selection of books I chose) didn't come close to the now-despised Eat, Pray, Love - and amusingly, the second-place award went to what could safely be described as EPL's complete opposite: Bret Easton Ellis' American Psycho, at 4.9%.  

For a very-unscientific control group (but hey, at least I thought to include a control group!), I calculated one-star percentages for: SS's Lean In (2.54%), Ian McEwan's Atonement (3.14%), Dan Brown's Angels & Demons (3.74%), and DFW's The Infinite Jest (3.85%).  Weird to think that Infinite Jest is proportionately more disliked than Lean In, but then again I'd imagine that the the type of people who care to write glowing reviews for Lean In are more active on Goodreads than fans of Infinite Jest.  Also Lean In is much easier to justify like/disliking than is Infinite Jest.  All in all, the main thing I took away from this science experiment is that members on Goodreads really like Sue Monk Kidd.  Congrats, Sue!

Just as I am made to appear at the only curmudgeon slapping one-star reviews on books with pleasant endings, I'm equally disappointed to often find myself in the minority by DARING to award a full FOUR STAR RATING! to a novel which the aforementioned community views quite poorly, in most cases due to disturbing subject matter.  

I completely understand and sympathize with emotional distress caused by reading of the grisly murders and disembowelments in American Psycho, or being subjected to heroin- and amphetamine-fueled downward spirals of pretty much everyone in Requiem for a Dream. (Except, perhaps, the unnamed man in the film adaptation with exactly three seconds of screen time but whose single cry has left an enduring mark on Hollywood memedom: Mr. ESS to ESSS!! [at right, highly NSFW])

But content, language, or characters that a reader may find 'disturbing' (itself a vague, somewhat prissy word - is it perhaps more accurate to admit that you're simply creeped out, or saddened, or frightened?) isn't alone reason to publicly give a writer's work a poor rating, as ratings are understood to represent the quality of work, not the level of pleasant feelings the work elicits. 

To use the movie industry as proxy, the responsibility of the reader-rater is to be Roger Ebert, not the MPAA.  I worshipped Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel [3] growing up, but I certainly didn't agree with 100% of his ratings and opinion.  I respected his writing and opinion, and I could never imagine Ebert or any other critic being taken seriously if they doled out four-star reviews to every feel-good movie, while panning films that are 'difficult to watch'.  And this is what really grinds my gears:

If that were the expectations of readers and audiences, what use would a true critic serve?  How interesting would it be to read only about a movie being 'disturbing' or 'uplifting and relatable'? (And unless you're living in a bubble, you're even likely to relate to find some disturbing events relatable.)

It's obviously possible for an author to do a poor job writing about a difficult subject (Elizabeth Wurtzel of Prozac Nation fame is often accused of this).  But I do think it possible to genuinely dislike an otherwise well-written book - and I'd imagine it would take a clever, logical, genuine and humble person to articulate this in a review, given that they would have to acknowledge and establish the author's skill, but also find a way to put emotions (dislike) into words.  And at least I find that conflict between the logical and emotional is the most difficult to articulate, much less in a way that people besides you can understand. And while I certainly couldn't stand a world in which every online book review were a Michiko Kakutani or Susan Sontag-level sophisticated piece of critical literature, it'd be nice to just see more nuanced, thoughtful, and genuinely interested readers out there on the internet. 

I know there are good readers and writers out there.  I want to encourage the readers and reviewers who aren't putting in the same caliber of thought and effort into their published critique to set the bar higher; to think of what a review means for the writer and for other readers.  If you don't feel you have the capacity or time to write something of substance, I'd rather you not submit anything at all.  If you get books for free under the guise of writing a review, and yet have more interest in getting a free book than anything else, unsubscribe from that program and put your time into getting other things for free.  I promise you that books aren't the only thing.

I plan my next review to in fact be a highly critical one, justifying and offering criticism behind a one-star rating for Daniel Magariel's One of the Boys, an MFA-debut novel about the impact of addiction on a family.  Am I the only one who's been unimpressed with the ridiculous hype and consequent disappointingly mediocre quality of work coming out by MFA programs these days? I found Stephanie Damler's Sweetbitter (New School MFA) cringey and contrived; Jardine Libaire's White Fur (Michigan MFA) just...beyond words for bad; and now Syracuse is producing One of the Boys-level drivel? I'm sincerely hoping to be blown away by the next one, or else will be utterly convinced that good writing simply cannot be taught, which will put a good number of English professors out of jobs.  I'm tempted to reveal some of the more ridiculous gaps, logical quandaries, and sheer pretension in Magariel's novel, but this post has obviously gone on long enough and I'll do you the favor of writing a standalone review shortly. 

Relative to a publicly traded behemoth and a popular app owned by the behemoth (I just learned this), a small blog like this affords TOTAL INTERNET FREEDOM, and I humbly choose to wield this power by publishing bad book reviews (as in, reviews of books I consider poorly written).  True and total internet freedom is what blogs and neckbeard Reddit subs were made for!

 All that to say: I plan to include some fun 1-star reviews, doing you the dual favor of providing an entertaining, possibly scathing (and therefore even more entertaining! [4]) read AND letting you know which books are not worth your valuable time.  

Footnotes:

[1] Mom-books are equivalent to mom-movies - you know, the ones starring [2] Diane Keaton, Helen Hunt, or Jack Nicholson; set in the South of France, Napa, or Italy; featuring a heavy dose of montages of convertible car rides and wine tastings, and a paper-thin plot that usually involves marriage complications.

[2] A user-created (and last updated in 2015, but otherwise seems thorough) IMDB list of "Romantic Comedies with Middle-Aged Couples" proves my point that mom movies have really been paying the bills for the Keaton, Hunt, and Nicholson households.  See below. But hey, whatever works.

[3] What about Michael Phillips, you might ask? Well, when I was a young PR intern with a prominent Chicago film center, MP had "his people" immediately phone my director to let her know that I made some forgettable error, like being off by one year in a part of his bio at the end of a press release.  I honestly don't remember what it was, and I doubt he does either.  When I hung my head and slunk into the director's office - all but certain Michael Phillips had ended my so far one-month-long career - she told me not to worry and turned back to her desk, muttering that "Michael Phillips needs to get off his high horse." It ended up a wonderful internship and I would have gladly gone back, had it actually paid any money.

[4] You know the negative Yelp reviews are always more fun to read (ESPECIALLY when the proprietor responds and starts a back-and-forth...or when the owner believes in a Yelp conspiracy against his awful restaurant - see below) than the good ones that are just, "loved the food! dessert was so yummy! Hubby and I will definitely be back!"