The Chess Mind

To summarize, we can find three objections to (most) negative book reviews in these quotes: (1) they are insensitive to the author, who has spent a great deal of time on his work, (2) the reviewers are generally relatively unqualified, and (3) those reviews aren't even the most effective way to "punish" unworthy books; silence works better. Let's consider each in turn. On (1): The suggestion is that it's insulting to tell the (conscientious) author who has spent a good deal of time producing a book or CD that he has essentially wasted his time; that's what a negative review does. To this, I have five responses:

(a) This seems to assume an unqualified bad review. But it might be that the work is of value to some readers, even if not the ones (or not all the ones) the author had hoped. Thus a book might be a poor effort overall, but with some value nonetheless.

(b) It's not clear that it's better to waste the time of the readers who will buy the volume than to make the author feel better about the time he spent writing it. (And when one adds up the time of all the individuals who buy the book, it will easily exceed the time invested by the author.)

(c) Not only the readers' time, but their money as well ought to be protected. The reviewer exists primarily to serve his readers, not authors or publishers.

(d) It's not a waste of time if the author can learn something from the review. The reviewer should be as conscientious as the author, not only in calling 'em as he sees 'em, but by trying to explain why the book falls short, in what areas, and how it could have been improved. If reviewers stay silent (objection (3)), how will the author learn?

(e) Reviewers can write with sensitivity: it's not necessary or beneficial to write scathing, excoriating reviews when the work reviewed was the product of a genuine effort. (I'm far less sympathetic to those who put in half-donkeyed efforts.) If the author has something of value to offer his readers, then the reviewer, as the audience's advocate, should ideally help the author to ultimately better serve that audience. On (2): The objection is that in most cases, the reviewer is less of a specialist than the writer, or to take a different example not given by Golubev, it's also true that reviewers are often weaker than the authors.

This criticism may be legitimate in some cases, but in others it's not. For instance, suppose I'm reviewing an opening book. I might spot check some sharp variations of interest with a chess engine. If it regularly turns out that the engine busts the author's analysis, isn't that relevant? Why do I need to be stronger than the author, or more of a specialist, to note that his work was sloppy? Maybe the author doesn't want to be told that he has wasted a few months on the book, but I don't think the reader will be thrilled to lose a few hundred - or a few thousand - dollars losing a big money game following bad analysis.

That's one response; here's another. It might be that the reviewer isn't ideally qualified to assess the content. Nevertheless, again, the reviewer is there to represent and advocate for the audience, not the author and publisher. And if the content is wonderful but the presentation awful, prospective readers should know this. The reviewer might be the author's inferior when it comes to producing the material, but he might have a better understanding of the audience's pedagogical needs (in terms of form, not content). This in turn helps authors, by helping them understand how to reach their audience. On (3): The objection is that silence is a better way to "punish" bad work than a negative review. In my view this might be true on occasion, but probably not most of the time. Here are some objections and considerations to take into account.

First, by responding with silence rather a review, learning opportunities are lost all around. The conscientious writer doesn't learn what's wrong with his book, the audience doesn't learn from the insightful reviewer what sorts of things he should look for in a good chess book, and in case of disagreement about the merits of the review, the reviewer doesn't get to learn anything either.

Second, just because one reviewer is silent doesn't mean everyone will be. Assuming a book is borderline-bad, or is more attractive to reviewers more inclined to think from certain perspectives and less to others, then the upshot of Golubev's policy is that a weak book will be helped, not hindered, by having only positive reviews in print!

Third, the silence of the reviewers doesn't mean the book will die of obscurity. If the book comes from a major publishing house, or gets good blurbs by the author's friends, or is the umpteenth effort by an already successful author, or is promoted by effective supply chains, etc., it will find its way into the hands of unwary readers. They will waste their time, waste their money, not improve, and then rush out to buy the next weakly written but well-marketed work by that author, thinking that maybe this next book will push them over the hump.

In sum, while Golubev's concern for the feelings of chess authors (and a concern for their livelihood as well, I'm sure) speaks well of him, I think his opposition to negative reviews is misplaced - as long as the reviewer is writing conscientiously and to inform, not to "score points". The reviewer, even when negative, is performing a useful function: protecting the potential buyer's time and money while helping teach writer and reader to know what to expect from each other.

(P.S.: I have two of Golubev's books and have seen many of his analyses on Chess Today, and I'd like to say that he has always struck me as a hard-working analyst who does consistently excellent work.)