On the contrary. I believe that if the reviewer didn't finish the book, she owes it to the audience to say that she didn't. You seem to find the revelation, beyond the non-finishing, to be an additional offense, while it seems to me to be a mitigation.
Generally, in such cases, the person should just fob off the job of the review. But there can be special circumstances, and I've seen them, in which the reason why the reviewer found the book unreadable is a legitimate critical observation, so long as it's clearly labeled as such, and the reviewer refrains from judging that part which wasn't read. I've never written such a review myself - I went all the way through the first volume of the Iron Tower trilogy just so that I could review it - but I have certainly commented informally on why I was unable to finish a book, and once or twice used it to spark off an essay that I didn't label a review.
By the way, in lit class in college, I developed a knack for writing my term papers on the first two-thirds or so of novels too boring to finish. The prof never noticed, or didn't say anything if he did.
no subject
Date: 2011-03-04 06:37 pm (UTC)Generally, in such cases, the person should just fob off the job of the review. But there can be special circumstances, and I've seen them, in which the reason why the reviewer found the book unreadable is a legitimate critical observation, so long as it's clearly labeled as such, and the reviewer refrains from judging that part which wasn't read. I've never written such a review myself - I went all the way through the first volume of the Iron Tower trilogy just so that I could review it - but I have certainly commented informally on why I was unable to finish a book, and once or twice used it to spark off an essay that I didn't label a review.
By the way, in lit class in college, I developed a knack for writing my term papers on the first two-thirds or so of novels too boring to finish. The prof never noticed, or didn't say anything if he did.