Spoiler City

Reader D.K. writes in with an interesting question:

I am a huge mystery reader and like to read reviews.  There is one reviewer, however, who drives me insane.  He is Patrick Anderson of The Washington Post. I don't understand why he feels the need to include so many spoilers in his reviews.  They often read more like a condensed version of the book rather than a review.  I have stopped reading them because of this.  I know that you include links to his reviews in your blog.  I have written to him asking why he includes so many spoilers in his reviews. He answered that he felt his reviews were along the lines of other reviewers.  How do you feel about reviews that contain major spoilers or that exceed what is necessary?  I will understand if you are hesitant to address this question.

I'm not hesitant at all, but I will take care to say that most of the time, I don't believe Anderson's the worst offender on the spoiler front by a longshot. His review today of J.D. Rhoades' debut noir novel THE DEVIL'S RIGHT HAND spent too much time for my liking on Anderson's explanation of why he likes redneck noir (making me wonder if he was just filling space) and probably went into a little bit too much detail on plot but are they spoilers per se? I'm not exactly sure.

For me the ultimate in spoilers occurred when mystery reviewers tried to critique Michael Connelly's THE NARROWS upon its release last spring. There was a now-infamous embargo on galleys, because so many plot points were based on pre-existing characters and situations that to reveal them ahead of time would have prompted too much idle chatter and speculation (although, to be fair, I contributed my fair share, but I did take care to be spoiler-free about it.) When the reviews showed up, most simply didn't bother to maintain a fine balance of critique and summary: they just went and revealed spoiler after spoiler, blithely uncaring whether readers wanted to know this information or not.

The only reviewer that did not do so was Oline Cogdill; to my mind, this is exactly how a full-length review should be written. She explained what worked about THE NARROWS and why she loved it without ever revealing an important plot point. I'm still not sure how she did it, but I admire the hell out of that review and try to use it as a model for my own.

Most of the time now I'm writing 200 word reviews; there's a very limited amount of space for me to cover plot, main points and what works about a particular book. But even with the constraints placed upon me by the low word count I still endeavor to keep a general split of 50/50 between plot and critique, and ideally the slant should be favorable to the latter. Readers can find out the book's premise when they look it up on Amazon, read the jacket copy or use another source. My role is to tell them if the book's worth buying or not.

And as a reader, I don't like spoilers on principle. I love reading them, but that's a particular quirk of mine because I like to know things in advance. But if a reader isn't like me, why should I spoil his her her enjoyment of the book by going into gobs of detail about the storyline?

But it's a difficult balance. Many times a proper critique can't be done without revealing further plotlines because if a book starts out well but gets progressively weaker, that's important to know. Or vice versa. Or if a character behaves oddly, or if a writer didn't adequately convey motivation or personality. I suppose those could all be construed as spoilers, but readers also need to know such things in order to make an informed judgment on a particular book. Of course, reviews should always be taken with as many grains of salt as there are available. I'm just one girl with an opinion, and the rest of my colleagues are similarly opinion-driven as well.

Still, with every review I write I have to ask myself a series of questions: Did I include enough story to show why it's worthwhile to mention? Did I properly explain why I loved the book and you will, too (or conversely, why the book didn't work for me, even if it might for you, or whether it sucked outright?) And am I maintaining a delicate balance of information and opinion and if not, why not?

All I know is that it's possible, and ideal, for reviews to be as spoiler-free as possible. I certainly try my best, and I don't believe I'm the only one. But there are too many lazy reviews being written, and it couldn't hurt for each and every reviewer--be they on staff or freelance--to take a good look at how they write their pieces. It's all about balance, and the spoiler question certainly is a part of that issue.

Comments

[David Montgomery]

Any reviewer who gives away a part of the plot that should reasonably be kept hidden is a jerk. It's not like it's hard to decide what to leave other either. If it's a surprise, you keep it that way!

I've never knowingly revealed any secret plot points in a review -- although, even then, you can't please everyone. I've still heard from people who thought I gave away things I shouldn't have. But fortunately, those complaints have been few and far between.

As Sarah points out, it's easy not to reveal too much in a 200-word review (which is a large part of what I write, as well.) If anything, the problem is the opposite. But even in 1600-word reviews, I think I've always stayed on the right side of things.

But that's because I make the effort to do so. Any reviewer who doesn't is just being lazy. They should promptly be fired and I (or Sarah) should be hired in their place. :)

[Kevin Wignall]

Interesting that you didn't mention Anderson's review of "For the Dogs", not least because it points to another weakness of this kind of review - the concentration on exposition is usually at the expense of any deeper critique. Reading Anderson's review of my book would have given you a rough sketch of the plot - giving away several key developments in the process - and the blunt fact that he didn't believe it. Does that tell anyone if this book's for them? Absolutely not. I don't know if this is typical of Anderson's reviews, but it suggests a reviewer who doesn't understand books beyond the level of the high school lit-crit. As David says, it's lazy reviewing - "I can't think of anything meaningful to say about this work, so I'll just tell you what happens". If Anderson were reviewing "To the Lighthouse" he'd probably say, "Some people plan to visit a lighthouse, and many years later, some of them actually make that visit. Not much else happens".
Incidentally, lest anyone should think this is sour grapes on my part... I've mentioned before that David wasn't a fan of For the Dogs and yet I'd happily see him reviewing it for the WaPo, because I've seen how he reviews and I know he'd explain to the reader why it didn't do it for him. I'm sure all the other writers who hang around here would agree that there isn't much argument with that kind of review.

[James C. Hess]

He includes spoilers in his reviews because other reviewers do it? That makes no sense whatsoever. As the old saying goes: If everyone else jumped off a cliff would you do it?

It seems to me that if a reviewer wanted to stand out they would look at what other reviewers in their field are doing and NOT do that.

[Elizabeth]

I still haven't recovered from Anderson's review of Anne Perry's _Shoulder the Sky_, in which he said he couldn't understand why Perry would deal with World War I when Hemingway et al had already covered the subject so ably.

As if there is an embargo on subject matter!

[Mike]

Critics often spoil plots by pointing out how hard they're working NOT to include spoilers. I haven't yet seen Clint Eastwood's "Million Dollar Baby", but I'm about 99% certain I know what happens to Hilary Swank's character because of the gyrations critics have gone through to avoid telling me.

[David Montgomery]

I don't think Anderson is saying that people shouldn't write on the subject. "If Perry's novel is a skillful popular entertainment, it is also a reminder of the limitations of such fiction in dealing with human tragedy on a scale that should make the heavens weep." Sounds fair enough.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40898-2004Oct17.html

[Elaine Flinn]

I'd like to make a comment about David Montgomery and the way he handles reviews. Not only does he NOT give away a plot, he skillfully entices, critiques with an even hand (which I listen to!), shows great enthusiasm when he really likes something...and without the two major reviews he so kindly and graciously gave me with my first and second books, I doubt I'd still be around to hope the next one might sell a few copies.