Back to index of writings This article ran in the Maine Times the week of November 1. It is reproduced here with permission. Not a review at all By Brendan Wolfe Deputy Editor, Maine Times Call and response First off, though: What's got people so upset? From the word go, Haiss pulled no punches: "Tess Gerritsen's latest detective novel The Surgeon is abusive garbage. If Gerritsen weren't a woman, she would be accused justifiably of misogyny, and the world would be a better place if she had stuck to her medical practice. Both women and men with loved ones who are victims of rape—myself included—particularly will be offended." The novel's plot, according to Haiss, revolves around Dr. Catherine Cordell, a beautiful ER physician who was raped but managed to kill her attacker. Along with tough-as-nails detective Thomas Moore, who has fallen in love with her, she pursues what turns out to be two killers—one who carves out a still-living victim's uterus and another who then rapes her. Haiss asserts that the characters are two-dimensional, that the narrative is formulaic, that the dialogue is incompetent, and that the violence is gratuitous and exploitative. Gerritsen is, according to Haiss, "the only author I have read in 40 years who makes me want to slap her." "In the wake of the World Trade Center attacks, there has been some discussion about the entertainment industry reevaluating what is appropriate entertainment," writes Haiss. "Let's hope that the New York publishing industry takes part in that discussion. Meanwhile, Gerritsen lives in Camden. If you see her, tell her you're not going to read this book, and tell her to donate her royalties to a rape crisis center." By way of response, we have heard from regular Maine Times readers as well as from some who appeared to have found the review on an Internet listserv; from women and from men; from those who have read the book and from those who have not; from those who write for a living and from those who do not; and from one woman who identified herself as a victim of rape. They said the review was "beyond words," "badly written," "irresponsible," "pathetic," "utterly objectionable," "extremely tasteless," "inflammatory and indeed potentially detrimental to your community." They said that "Tory Haiss needs to grow up" and that she "owes Gerritsen an apology." They charged Haiss with being "petty, vindictive—perhaps unstable—and, worst of all, biased." According to our readers, there's "no way a newspaper of any caliber would run such a vitriolic, personal attack against an author" and that if Haiss is lucky, "she won't be reviewing a summons from Ms. Gerritson's [sic] lawyer." The review, they wrote, was an "ad hominem attack" that "borders on harassment." Several said it wasn't a review at all, and one argued that it was more a "profile of the reviewer's personality" and "about the reviewer's need to hurt someone else in response to her own pain." One reader even charged that Haiss took advantage of Gerritsen being an Asian woman living in a small, mostly white community when she suggested readers approach her about her book. "Your reviewer knew exactly what she was doing," this reader wrote. Legitimate questions To that last charge I can say with absolute confidence that Haiss had no such ideas. But legitimate questions have been raised. Was what Haiss wrote really a book review, or, when she introduced her personal experiences, did it become something else entirely? Did Haiss have an axe to grind going into the review? And was it appropriate for her to encourage like-minded people to approach Gerritsen with their views on the book? To the second question I can once again say with absolute confidence that Haiss had no such axe to grind. She approached Gerritsen's book with an open mind, hoping to like it. This is how all reviewers should approach their subjects. At the time the review was assigned, Haiss—unlike lots of famous reviewers, such as Susan Sontag or Gore Vidal—had no intention of using the opportunity to make a political argument. The remaining two questions, however, are much stickier. Before making some final comments, I invite you to eavesdrop, with his permission, on an e-mail exchange I had with Queens, N.Y., mystery writer Keith Snyder, whose latest novel, The Night Men: A Jason Keltner Mystery, will be published this month. Tory Haiss, by the way, is currently out of town and unavailable, but we hope that when she returns, she'll want to weigh in on all of this, too. Not a review at all From Snyder: "Your recent review of Tess Gerritsen's The Surgeon isn't just a bad review; it's not a review at all. Reviews are discussions of books. The Maine Times' piece was a profile of the reviewer's personality. Reviews are about seeing what a book tries to accomplish and discussing whether it accomplished that. The Maine Times' piece was about the reviewer's need to hurt someone else in response to her own pain. "Competent reviewers say why a piece was bad. This reviewer simply says she hates the book, trots out some perfectly good dialogue and makes vomit comments about it and invites the public to publicly confront and insult its author. "Competent reviewers understand that the appearance of violence against women in a novel is not the same as the author condoning it. Whether you liked the book, hated the book, or had no strong feelings, at least give it a real review. "An apology to Ms. Gerritsen would also be in order." Your definition is too narrow From Wolfe: "My feeling is that your sense of what a book review ought to be is too narrow. According to you, a review should be a discussion of books and not a profile of a reviewer's personality. Must the two be mutually exclusive? Must all reviews be impersonal, or can a discussion of a book emanate from a profound personal reaction to a book? After all, what good is a book that provokes us to respond only in a technical or literary way? "Still, that personal response shouldn't overwhelm a review. It's still a reviewer's job to consider what an author is attempting to accomplish and whether she succeeded. I think your point is taken there. But Tory did more than say she hated the book. She said the characters were two-dimensional, the dialogue was incompetent (that you think it's 'perfectly good' is just a disagreement you have with the reviewer and not an argument that the reviewer is improperly reviewing), and that the violence is gratuitous and exploitative. "While Tory was not given the space to expand on this last point, I don't think she implied that Gerritsen condoned the violence in her book. That would be an ugly charge indeed. To say that violence is gratuitous and exploitative is to say that Gerritsen used that violence inappropriately. Regardless of whether you agree with Tory's point, it's a reasonable charge to make in a book review." Where's your evidence? From Snyder: "You are absolutely right that a review can emanate from profound personal reaction. However, if the resulting piece is about the reaction more than the book, it's not a review. It's an opinion piece, and it should go on the editorial page—where it would still be a good idea to provide some sort of support for the points made in it. "I disagree that Ms. Haiss 'did more than say she hated the book.' It is true that she gave details, but this is a difference that makes no difference. She did not provide support for her assertion that the characters are two-dimensional; she did not provide support for her assertion that the dialogue was incompetent—she just quoted a few lines and gave no glimmering of an explanation as to what made them bad; she provided no basis whatsoever for the logical leap from 'this book contains violence against women' to 'this book is gratuitous and exploitative.' She did not argue or consider; she merely asserted. "Book reviews are about plot, character, setting, theme, voice, an author's growth or failure to grow, and so on. They are not about somebody else's fears and history, even if that somebody is the reviewer. Why? Well, because they're just not. That's a different piece. It's an interesting piece, and possibly an important one. It's not a review." A yelp of pain From Wolfe: "I will concede at least one point: I don't think that Tory supported her arguments well. I'm still thinking about this idea of a book review versus an opinion piece. Wouldn't it be legitimate for an article to be both? I think that so long as the reviewer does not approach the book with a particular agenda in mind, what is wrong with being honest about the personal response provoked by the book? Book reviews are indeed about plot, character, etc., but I disagree that they must be only about that. Rather than tiptoe around the extreme violence against women (as other reviewers of this book have done), Tory's response was a yelp of pain. It's not a textual analysis, but I do think it's legitimate." Kittens or biscuits? From Snyder: "I agree that plot, character, etc., are not the only acceptable subjects of a review. However, if a piece is not primarily about those things, how is it a review? "Tory's 'yelp of pain' is quite valid as such. I would not and have not argued against its validity. However, it's not a book review. It might be a companion piece to a review, or an opinion piece, and in those contexts, even if I objected to it personally, I would not object to it professionally. But a review is about the book—if not solely, then at least primarily. That's what a review is. An opinion piece on the review page is like kittens born in the oven: It doesn't make them biscuits unless you successfully argue that my view of what constitutes a biscuit is too narrow." Finally All of this is interesting, I suppose, if what you're interested in is book reviews, as such. But most people are really concerned about whether Maine Times is being fair. So let me say a few words about the principles that guide our book reviews. Reviewers should not have a conflict of interest. In other words, nobody reviews their friends or professional colleagues. Reviewers should have an open mind. Nobody should read a book expecting to hate it. Reviewers should have an opinion, and that judgment should be part of the review. The review is not about the reviewer, however, and the book should be the primary focus of the review. With Tory Haiss' review, I think that we lived up to most of those principles and fell short, in particular, of the last. The discussion has informed us all, however, and we thank our readers for that.   ©2001, Keith Snyder, all rights reserved.