Anti-Catholic Review -- what?

[cyn]

Talk about being outsiders . . . in one's own faith, yet.

Checked amazon today to see if there were any new reviews up for TWCP books and sure enough there was a new review for Leaps of Faith.

. . . that blew my socks off.

The reviewer gave 3* and then this comment:

"My only problem with this anthology is that uncomfortable feeling that the Catholics are the only people of God. Apart from that these stories, for the most part, are wonderfully written and bring the reader into unique situations."

What? Rating a book because of its worldview? A Christian worldview no less?

a. And, let me get this out of the way right at the start:
TWCP would no more publish a book that purported or even hinted at one denomination as superior to another than publish a book that preached about the evils of African Americans.

b. Of the 14 stories, 9 have obvious Catholic themes, yes. None of which preach, period, let alone preach that Catholicism is superior.

c. The editors of the book, Karina and Robert Fabian chose the stories in Leaps of Faith based upon solid criteria; each story included had to be:

• entertaining and well-written
  
• science fiction
  
• respectful of the Christian worldview and science (the worldview and the science had to coexist in a natural and complementary fashion)
  

Aside from the fact that this particular reviewer has a personal bias against Catholics and "saw" things in the book that weren't actually there . . . aren't book reviews supposed to be based upon literary quality (or lack of)?

Is it fair to give an average rating to a book described as well-written? Perhaps the reviewer holds the opinion that every book on the market should meet a certain level of quality and well-written = average. I could go along with that, but I don't know it to be fact--the reviewer never mentions his criteria.

Bad reviews are a fact of life for an author and publisher. Some you can learn from; others you need to ignore. However, the saddest point for me is that the reviewer has shown disrespect for a group of Christians because he disagrees with the denomination's beliefs.

----------------

One of the problems I have encountered with reviews written by novices is that they do not always demonstrate understanding of the book review process.

The hallmarks of poor review technique:

• nitpicking comments about a few typos, cover design, etc. when the book is clearly marked "Uncorrected Advance Review Copy"
  
• based upon personal interest, not on the book's intended audience
  
• shows personal emotional agenda, e.g./ dislike of author, competition
  
• over-effusive about the book to the point one wonders if it is the author's grandmother writing
  

c

[Caprice]

I'm not going to touch the points about Catholicism because I have not read Leaps of Faith. I don't want to get into the fray about how to review either, because I don't think my own reviews are all that great.

But I do want to touch on the star-rating thing. I dislike Amazon's star rating thing because it does NOT explain what the stars MEAN. Let me explain by pointing out two sites that use star ratings but DO give meanings for the stars: Goodreads and Shelfari. When I am rating a book on Goodreads, the mouseover tells me that two stars means "It was ok" (which is kind of the equivalent for "average" to me). But on Shelfari, two stars means "I didn't like it". To me, a book could be okay or "average" without me feeling I disliked it. This is why I have the same book sometimes star-rated differently depending on WHERE I rate it. Goodreads has four levels of acceptable/good while only one star for disliking a book, while Shelfari gives three levels of positive and two negatives ("did not like" and "hate").

But Amazon gives no meaning to their stars. So while a 3-star rating might mean "average", it might also mean what Goodreads and Shelfari defines for three stars ("I liked it"). It could also mean something entirely different, known only to the person who rated it like that. I prefer to make decisions based on the text of a review, not on the stars.

To me, "well-written" doesn't hold much sway because I EXPECT anything that was published to be well-written. That's just a minimum requirement I hardly think about. If it's not well written, I probably didn't even read the whole book! I do sometimes mention the writing when reviewing self-pubbed books because that is one place where there are no watch-dogs, and it's a more legitimate concern. But I tend to highlight the good when I find it rather than pointing out the negative when I don't find it. But that's just me using the Golden Rule. I realize not everyone thinks that way when reviewing.

[debkinnard]

I like having a star system on a site that posts my reviews. See, I've gotten really picky in my old age and I will not give a book the highest rating (regardless of what the site says it means) unless it really blows my socks off. I've read commercially published novels that have deserved 5 stars or bunnies or lightsabres or whatever, and I don't hesitate to give 'em out if IMO they deserve it.

However, the reverse also holds true. Even commercially published books can do a *clunk* in my eyes at times, and if a book is mediocre, I say so. I can't tell you how many CBA authors I no longer buy because the themes are simplistic, the writing uninspired, and the message either nonexistent or preachy.

I cannot, and would not, ever diss a novel or collection because the religious views therein were not the same as mine.

Moreover, there oughta be MORE Catholic and Catholic-friendly fiction, not less.

Okay, rant over now.

[karinafabian]

Well, the review certainly made for an interesting couple of days.

In the end, however, we've actually gotten some benefit from it. I've had several people refute the review directly and others post their reviews. They might not have ever commented on the book otherwise. I've also gotten some interesting blog fodder, and as a result have been able to mention Leaps of Faith in blogs and groups where before I hadn't felt comfortable about mentioning it's coming out in print.

I've gotten invites to two podcasts, and connected with a Catholic convert who suddenly found all the novels she wrote as a non-Catholic Christian panned by the Christian reviewers panned for their Catholic beliefs.

If you want to read more about my making this review lemon into marketing lemonade, check out www.fabianspace.blogspot.com. For more about the Christian content in Leaps, read www.virtualbooktourdenet.blogspot.com.


It would be nice for Amazon to have a rating, but I think they assume that everyone follows the standard: 5 stars is like the American grading system: 5=A, 4=B, 3=C (average), 2=D, 1=F. I know that was my automatic assumption.

[Frank Creed]

Nice BuZz, Karina!
Off to read your links.

[cyn]

I suppose the 3* rating didn't bother me as much as the content of the review. The title alone was disrespectful: Whole Lot of Catholics in Space. What is that about?

The stories in LoF are not well-written, they are wonderfully written, as the reviewer indicates. I am not a sci-fi fan (by any stretch of the imagination) but I was captivated by each of the stories.

But every dark cloud . . . and Karina is turning this negative review into a great promotional opportunity. Kudos to you!

c

[karinafabian]

He did a second review on his website, and--shall we say--showed his personal bias even more?

If you're like me, you'll probably find this a bit "too Catholic". Don't get me wrong. I truly believe that if a Catholic has called upon the Lord then they are saved, or born again, whichever term you'd like to use. I did find the exclusion of other denominations a bit disturbing, and some of the traditions of the elders that have displaced the teachings of the Catholic Church have also bothered me. However, having said all of that, at least 75% of these stories show, not only great story writing, but good, solid Christian teachings.

So the "too Catholic" is 25 percent?

I noticed he also used the e-book cover which has a monk on it, thus visually reinforcing his opinion. (Incidentally, he then apologized for the slip up but also said he didn't plan on changing it. I've asked him to change it to the correct cover.)

The sad part is that I'm getting feedback and it's negative against him, and through that, the CFRB.

Still trying to decide how or if I handle this one. So far, I am ignoring the anti-Catholic statements and agreeing with his assessment of the one story he reviewed. Any ideas?

[cyn]

Well, I am not ignoring his anti-Catholic views.

He is in a position of leadership and therefore must be vigilant about statements that represent the organization.

Quite frankly, I am embarassed.

Embarassed that a Christian would so effortlessly act in a manner that flames anti-Christian sentiments. These type of comments are exactly what those suspicious of Christianity point out and question.

I understand Karina not wanting to get into the anti-Catholic remarks with the reviewer. However, she is a much more politic than I am . . . I would show this to the Catholic groups, if only to start a dialogue about the bias shown towards writers, and how best to combat it.

I will ask the reviewer to change the cover. It is the wrong cover and furthermore, TWCP could be in trouble with the previous publisher and copyright holder of the image.

c

[karinafabian]

Cyn wrote: I would show this to the Catholic groups, if only to start a dialogue about the bias shown towards writers, and how best to combat it.

I wouldn't be showing them anything new. At any rate, I'm not taking this to my groups because I have a few friends on there who I'm worried would then take this opportunity to start arguing apologetics with David. Not only is that not the point of the book, but would probably give strength to his assertion that this is a Catholic book because I'm a Catholic editor.

I guess I don't see this as a Catholic vs. non-Catholic issue or as a a David's opinion issue. This is about making sure Leaps doesn't get misrepresented and thus pigeonholed in the market. That's why I "sicced" my Protestant readers (and the contributors) after the review.

Blessings,
Karina