Tom McAllister, the nonfiction editor at Barrelhouse, blogged this week about the positive vs. negative criticism controversy. To gain a full understanding of the controversy, I recommend you read McAllister’s blog, if you haven’t already, as this is a multifaceted issue and I don’t have the space to really cover it in full detail here. McAllister is very even-handed and fair in his assessment of the issue. In fact, the next day, he posted an addendum to the initial post, clarifying his points and adding further ideas he’d thought about later.

I agree with McAllister and am impressed with his objectivity. Still, I disagree with the conclusion that we should all of us, every one, be posting negative reviews for the sake of honesty. I hope it doesn’t seem like I’m constructing a straw man here, but after reading McAllister’s blog, I believe he’s suggesting just that: that withholding comment is no different from lying. If you are not a book reviewer or critic, in my opinion there is no appropriate alternative to posting only positive comments about other writers’ work.

The problem arises from equating the work of book reviewers and critics to online posts writers make about other writers. The two are not the same. Book reviewers and critics are being tasked to give their evaluation of a book, regardless of whether they like it or not. People posting to social media sites are choosing to post about a book—nobody asked for their opinion, and, probably, nobody cares except the writer, if he or she sees the post, and possibly a small number of friends who value the poster’s judgment and taste.

Here’s what I think:

 

It’s important to distinguish between critics/book reviewers and people who are just posting on Facebook, Twitter, blogs, etc. about their friends’ books (or just books they’ve read). I agree that book reviewers and critics should be willing to post negative reviews. If you’ve been assigned (or if you’ve volunteered) to review a specific book and it turns out you freakin’ hate it, it would be totally unethical to post a positive review of that book. It’s less obviously unethical to just not write the review at all, but personally, I agree with McAllister that negative reviews can be as useful as positive ones, and that professional reviewers should probably post both positive and negative reviews.

People who are just posting in the social media about books they’ve read, though—that’s completely different. Yes, everyone should still be honest. If a friend of yours writes a book and you hate it, you shouldn’t lie and post about how much you loved it on Facebook. I don’t agree, though, that you should post negative comments about the book. If a friend of mine reads Peter Never Came and hates it, fine; we can still be friends—but if he or she plasters the web with negative comments about my book for no reason, we’re through. Does that make me an asshole, as McAllister says? I don’t think so. I think it makes me human. I don’t feel compelled to ridicule my friends when they write things I don’t engage with, and I expect the same courtesy in return.

Does that mean that we end up with only gushing reviews on Facebook and Twitter, people posting about other people’s “brilliant” books? Yes, I guess it does. And I guess I’m okay with that, because as long as those people are being honest (again, I DO agree that it’s unethical to say you love something if you don’t), we can trust these positive reviews, even if the people posting them are personal friends of the authors.

Now, that doesn’t mean I think we should refrain from offering our honest feedback if a friend asks for it. If I ask someone for their opinion of something I wrote, I expect the truth. Likewise, if someone tells me they loved something I wrote, it does me NO GOOD if it turns out to have been a lie. I won’t learn anything, have a chance to improve, if everybody just claims everything I write is perfect as is.

But keep in mind we’re talking here about already published work. It’s too late, now, to do further revision, and the fact that it’s been published indicates that some editor somewhere likes it. That doesn’t mean it’s perfect; that doesn’t mean the writer can’t still gain something from criticism. But it’s the place of the book reviewer and critic to help the writer from there. If the writer asks for your help, then it’s your place too, but otherwise, let’s be honest, only a true asshole feels it’s his or her place to point out other people’s foibles.

Again, book reviewers and actual critics should feel free to tear any published piece apart—that’s their job—but a friend? No. If you read the published work of a friend and you don’t like it, I think you should follow your mama’s advice from grade school and keep your mouth shut unless otherwise requested.