Reviewing pitfalls

The past three days have been rather "educational" ones for me as a reviewer.  I posted Friday afternoon that I had received an autographed review copy of the thirteenth The Wheel of Time book, Towers of Midnight.  In addition to being the main blogger here, I am active at two forums and I have been asked several dozen questions, visible and via private messages alike, things about the book.  I am not by nature someone who thinks much about "spoilers," but I do respect things to the point that I won't reveal anything even as specific as what I would say in my formal reviews before a book's release date.

Yet even mentioning my thoughts on the book's style (which says nothing about the plot developments) or making the vaguest of hints (not to read the Glossary before finishing the story, due to an unfortunate entry that spoils all sorts of things, at least for the most common definitions of "spoilers," is one of a few examples) seems to have fanned a few sparks.  This morning, I discovered that there were on two other sites posts about my comments that supposedly support this or that view of plot guessing.  This is despite me saying anything much beyond something like "there also could have been something from the third book that could have been alluded to as an 'overlooked event'" (or however I worded it when I wrote that allusion).  What have I taken from this?  That hardcore WoT fans will even try to postulate things from the remarks Sanderson wrote on the review copies.  Next time there is a high-profile release, I don't know if I'll even bother mentioning anything, since it's become quite wearisome seeing not just all the proddings to try and get me to support any of a dozen particular "theories" on 'future' events, but also reading those who seem to think that I wanted to "spoil" things (despite taking great pains to say much less than what I would in a review) or that I was "playing games" with fans.

In addition, I've seen a few comments, both on forums and in my Twitter feed questioning my motivations for reviewing the book in the first place.  It appears some people (most of them WoT fans, but not necessarily all of the ones whose comments I've seen) seem to think that someone who "is not a WoT fan" somehow "cannot do justice to the books" in a review.  It is a very odd complaint, one that seems to be tied in self-defense.  I would think that it might make for a better review if the reviewer weren't necessarily a "fan" of the reviewed work's author.  This is not to say that a "fan" of an author's previous works cannot be honest and write a good review (I like to think that I've been able to do so in the past with certain authors), but rather that if a reviewer who has an open mind and yet is not afraid to be critical of a work were to write a review.  Certainly there would be points of emphasis that would differ from a fannish review of any particular work, which is far from a bad thing in my opinion.

It is not easy, though, writing reviews or discussing books or anything that comes under the purview of being a reviewer, online or print.  I am not one who believes dogmatically in objective distance, yet it is rather annoying to keep having to deny all sorts of statements because so much is becoming twisted.  It's almost as if I had read the New Testament before anyone else and I said "oh, there's some resolution to Isaiah 53" and someone then proclaims that the Messiah has kicked Roman ass and the Jews are going to par-tay!  Best to remember that some people are just going to miss the point of doing a review in the first place and that it might be best to say to yourself, "I really need to STFU, as some are going all Foucault's Pendulum on me!"  Come and think of it, there might be some reading this who will take this as being a cryptic reference to all of the previous statements being misleading ones done on purpose, done just for nefarious shits and giggles.  Who knows?

All I know is that reviewing is much more than praising or condemning elements of a book.  It seems to be an emphatic avoidance of "fans" of all stripes if the subject matter strays anywhere near to their object of fanaticism.  Otherwise, a reviewer can wake up and find people outside her window, one group proclaiming to follow The Way of the Gourd and others The Path of the Shoe.  Now if only I can figure out a polite way to tell them to "fuck off"...