I see this morning that Bonnie Cehovet has written another lackluster review for one of my books.
I expected it. Bonnie is a prolific reviewer, and I think she writes about every tarot book on the market. Yet she’s never written anything kind or thoughtful about my work … because Bonnie Cehovet doesn’t really review books.
Instead, she reviews tables of contents.
A typical Bonnie Cehovet review opens with her first impression of the subject matter: when she reviewed my book Tarot Journaling, for example, she started by describing her first “horrible thought” about the premise of my work:
Noting the use of the Celtic Cross (a traditional Tarot spread), I had the horrible thought that each journal entry was meant to be a complete Celtic Cross reading (which would mean using a ten or eleven card base, depending upon whether the reader chose to read with a significator or not). Fortunately, this was not true.
At the time, I didn’t know how to respond to that. I still don’t. Is it really fair to criticize a book based on a your own bias and preconceptions?
For Bonnie, apparently it is — because she opened her review of my new book in the same way.
I do not like to hear the word “fortunetelling” used in conjunction with the Tarot. If someone came up to me and said: “I understand that you read the Tarot. Would you tell my fortune for me?”, they could be assured that I would not read for them. I am decidedly NOT a fortune teller!
Luckily, we don’t have to dwell too long on Bonnie’s assessment of the topic itself, because her review rolls right into her usual format: a complete and total rehash of the table of contents.
She presents her recitation as though she’s developing the material herself, with a chapter-by-chapter description of everything in the book. Despite the fact that she found the structure of my guide “annoying,” she managed to compile 10 paragraphs of her review simply by outlining the material in my work.
That’s 10 paragraphs out of 13, total, in her review.
I always feel a little used after I read Bonnie’s reviews. I keep hoping she’ll come up with her own material, rather than appropriating my table of contents as if she gave birth to it herself. I keep hoping she’ll critique my books based on their merits, rather than on her misconceptions. I keep hoping that she’ll offer a thoughtful assessment of the books I’ve actually written, rather than a description of the books she would have written in my place. And I keep hoping she’ll conclude her reviews with something more than a “meh” that I can practically hear from my living room in Minnesota.
But then again, that might take some work, and it’s a lot easier to criticize than it is to create.



Dear Corrine,
One of the things that keeps me coming back to your work and your website is that you don’t take yourself or the Tarot too seriously. I wasn’t offended by the term fortunetelling and yet I tell people I am not really a fortune teller even though I am intuitive and read the tarot. I have a copy of TALL, DARK STRANGER and thought the title was great fun.
We all have our strengths in the business of teaching and sharing about Tarot and one of yours is too have fun with it. When your selling stuff and dealing with a publisher you have to go with what they want to a certain extent, right? You keep writing and I will probably keep reading. Thanks for all the good you do as a working Mother/wife, Tarot reader/writer, and business woman!!!
Bright Blessings,
Susie
Comment by Susie Joyce — August 22, 2007 @ 5:08 pm |
Ouch. I see what you mean. On the bright side, a “meh” is better than nothing. Hubby and I have sent out countless review copies of our new card game and are still clinging to the faint hope that someone might actually write a review one day (but hope is fading fast).
I think the book sounds great (and this is after reading that review). What’s wrong with fortune-telling anyway? Surely we all do at least a little bit of that? I hope it sells well.
Lynda
Comment by archertarot — August 23, 2007 @ 5:44 am |
Great post, Corrine. You have spoken aloud what many of us have said behind doors (that Bonnie isn’t a “real” reviewer, and only regurgitates the Table of Contents). In fact, she’s quite the laughingstock among some of us reviewers/writers. (Hopefully, she’s not taken seriously by readers! It doesn’t take long to realize that she’s never written an original thought in one of her reviews…)
Janet
Comment by Janet Boyer — August 29, 2007 @ 2:56 am |
Personally I’ve never been very impressed with her reviews. She seems to put a lot of emphasis on expressing her personal opinions about books, rather than simply presenting information about the content and allowing the reader to form their own opinion.
Of course, that’s just my opinion.
Comment by willow — August 30, 2007 @ 1:28 pm |
Don’t let it get you down too much. I’ve noticed that sometimes people who review a lot of books cheat like that, or in other ways. Because even for the few people who can read something fast enough to review a lot, it’s hard to get that much information to sink into the brain and have intelligent opinions on everything. One time I noticed that one very popular reviewer on Amazon used the word “poignant” in every single review. Every freaking book he reviewed was “poignant!” I thought it was funny as hell. Would not have been funny, however, had I bought a book based on his review. I haven’t read any of your books yet, but I will look for them next time I’m at a book store.
Comment by Amethyst — September 14, 2007 @ 1:31 pm |