I think this phrase tries to signal that something isn't working on a structural or technical level; it says that the reader's failure to connect with it isn't about the prose itself, or the way the characters are drawn, or the authenticity of the voice, but rather the actual mechanics of the narrative. It seems to be interchangeable with the euphemistic "didn't hang together" people tend to use when the storyline doesn't feel satisfying.
I think you're onto something here and I really like that usage! If this is what reviewers mean, I do still want them to tell me more. Sometimes it's hard to put a finger on what's not working narratively, so I completely understand avoiding that. I just get frustrated when I hear or read that the book didn't work without any followup about what that means. That's when it starts to feel like it's being used interchangeably with simply not liking it. (By the way, I really enjoyed If We Were Villains! I think it worked AND I liked it!)
That is exactly what I mean when I use that phrase! And I often use it when I can’t find any fault in the book other than it wasn’t to my taste, or I expected a particular tone or arc and got something completely different bc MY expectations were off. That is not on the author. It just “didn’t work” for ME.
I love that! That makes so much sense! And I think that’s why I only get frustrated with that phrase when someone is trying to present a “formal review.” Because you’re so right, sometimes something just doesn’t resonate for us and it’s impossible to articulate why.
Fascinating unpacking - thank you, Sara!. I teach creative writing, and of course this phrase crops up a lot in critiquing too: as you say, probably because it's trying to be nice, and to recognise one's own subjectivity, rather than claiming authority to decree that it's "good" or "bad" writing.
But for me the "work" in "It doesn't work for me" is more like "It doesn't work ON me": it hasn't gripped, moved, intrigued, persuaded, enraptured, enthralled me - even infuriated me, if it's that kind of book. That might be about whether it achieved its thematic aims or not, but it might just as much be about whether it got me to care whether whodunnit is revealed or not (or, indeed, to care about whodunnit at all). And whether a book works for any given reader in that sense is of course hugely subjective - not just whether I care about the theme or am bothered or irritated by a character: it can even simply be about the circumstances in which I tried to read it.
So when I'm blogging over at This Itch of Writing, or teaching or mentoring, I'm usually talking at least 50% of the time about how we set about working on our reader: how we get them to experience the story as we want them to - which of course can be a matter of anything from big narrative arcs to whether the punctuation is working as they need it to. And I think that's a legitimate position from which to review too: this book didn't fulfil its aims for this reader, for the following reasons...
Oh, Emma, thank you for this! I love this interpretation! Of course there are many many ways for a book to work ON a reader...in terms of emotion or engagement or hitting the genre beats that we readers expect. You're so right that that is a legitimate position to review from, and often we learn a lot about whether we want to read a book or not if a reviewer can effectively communicate if and how a book worked on them!
I do think there's a major difference between the workshop and a formal, public review. In a workshop, we are asked for feedback as readers in order to aid the writer in helping the book "work" better. But I don't think formal reviews post-publication ought to be about what the writer should or could have done differently. I think reviews should evaluate the work as it stands. This certainly could include saying that the book doesn't work for this reader, but often in public review spaces I find that that "this didn't work for me" goes along with "because I wanted a different book." I always want to know from reviews whether a book was achieving its aims (whether thematic or genre or emotional resonance) not what the reviewer wishes the author had done instead. And still! There could be value in that too as long as the reviewer is self-aware enough to explore why they expected something different or where and why the book failed to work on them (still loving that phrase!).
Thank you so much for sharing these thoughts. I'm going to be thinking about them a lot and I can't wait to follow along with your Substack too!
Yes, I think a post-publication review which takes a book to task for not being what it was never trying to be is really missing the point - unless, as you say, the reviewer does it in terms of "I really wanted this book to be X, but it never really turned into that". And of course one can only guess at what the aims are ... (The only exception might be in non-fiction, where it's a legitimate point to say "No book about X should leave out discussing its relationship with Y".)
You captured this idea so well here! I don’t use this phrase too often in my reviews, but this is also how I mean for it to be interpreted. I’m usually referring to my feelings/level of investment in the story, which is SO subjective
Yes - "level of investment" is exactly it - did the book get you to invest, and then did it satisfy that investment? I recently read a novel which had huge merits, and I was enjoying it a lot, and admiring it, but the plot that all these merits were hung on was an really old-fashioned (and as it happened, sexist) trope, a cliche that the book didn't examine or unpack. I ended up much crosser with the book and the author than I would have been if I hadn't started by admiring it so much: that such a good writer had been so sloppy with that aspect of it?
I also think that frequently the book jacket leads you to think the book is really one thing when it’s something else. So in that sense it doesn’t work or doesn’t meet expectations because you weren’t given a clear picture of what to expect. I have had that happen a number of times. I expect one thing based on the book jacket copy but it turns out to not be that at all. Also, saying it didn’t work for me is, I think, actually nicer. Especially if you explain why it wasn’t for you, then people who may love what you hate can find their way to a new favorite book. But I do agree that saying WHY something isn’t for you os important.
Totally agree about book jacket expectations! In my opinion, it's up to the reader to recalibrate expectations. Authors don't get to write the jacket copy, so I would say, in these cases, it's the marketing copy that didn't work, not the book. I also still think I can leave room for many readers to like a book by saying I don't like it: "I didn't like it for X reasons, but readers who love Y might really enjoy it." I know this is getting into the weeds, but I think saying a book wasn't "for you" is completely different than saying a book didn't "work for you." When someone says a book doesn't work, I really want to know what the book was trying to do and how it failed.
I know I've used this phrase and I think I typically use it when there's something in the story that was off for me so to speak. I usually try to elaborate and talk about whether it was the structure, the characterization, the dialogue etc. For me, sometimes that does end up meaning I didn't like it but again I will have given the reasons why- I think it's important to hear what it was specifically that someone didn't like or what specifically didn't work. One of my pet peeves is hearing "I hated that book"- I don't find this helpful, tell me why!
Absolutely! I use it too! My pet peeve really comes down to this: if someone says a book doesn't work, I expect them to tell me what the book was trying to do and how it failed. Often when people say "this book didn't work for me," they really mean they wanted a different book. I find those reviews to be unfair and unhelpful. And I totally agree about specificity! Whatever phrasing folks are using, I want the details to back it up!!
I hate that phrase too because it feels dismissive and like a backhanded compliment for anyone it did “work” for. Or maybe I just spend too much time on Booktokagram…
Most of the time if a book or movie didn't work for me it meant that it didn't reach me on an emotional level. I admired the movie Oppenheimer but it didn't "work for me" as it didn't reach me emotionally. Often there are books and movies like Oppenheimer that are male-centric and I prefer the female main characters with their viewpoints, their experiences. That said, I like to read about things I know little about and hopefully I can connect with it without the filter of my own background. And yes, the literary techniques and storylines can be clumsy or disappointing keeping me from totally sinking into the narrative. I would rather say it didn't work for me because not being an academic but dealing with readers often in my life I've found that opinions are so subjective and I want to allow for a variety of responses. I appreciate your attempts at deciphering this habit though! I will think about this before I use the phrase again and I do expect more from a serious reviewer.
That's a great point, Christine! Context is key. Our audiences may respond better and feel more room for their own opinions when we say "this didn't work for me" instead of "I didn't like it." So smart and so important! I agree that I often use the phrase when I mean I didn't emotionally connect with a piece of art, but that's an area where I'm trying to rethink my wording. Some books may be trying to appeal to my intellect rather than my emotions, so in that sense they work for their intent, but not for my taste. Or perhaps a book is appealing to the emotions of readers with experiences I don't have. In those instances I may not be the intended audience, but the book may still be working when it comes to its own purposes.
I've been thinking about this since you brought it up. I'm definitely guilty of using "did not work for me" as a euphemism for "did not like" though I do tend to provide additional context, which I agree, is important! I'm not yet sure whether I will/won't continue to use this phrase, but I am considering more my taste vs what the author set out to accomplish and how to convey all of this through my review. It's both interesting and important to consider, I think! And I appreciate you continue to unpack this topic.
I think there are some great reasons to still use the phrase! And I also think it's totally fine to use just because we like it! My plea here is mostly for exactly what you said: additional context. If a book isn't working, tell me what it was trying to do and how it failed! That's super helpful to me as a reader!
Totally! As someone who enjoys book critiques, reviews, and generally discussing books I really value that additional context and think it's key to having a real conversation. I personally dislike when reviewers leave it at "I liked/disliked it." Or, the horror, just shake the book at the screen with a thumbs up/down or a frowny face or something, hahaha. Sometimes internet trends are just not for me! At the same time I understand some readers just want to read and leave things surface level, that's valid and their prerogative, I suppose.
Thank you for saying this. I just finished a book that I didn’t enjoy and it’s been bothering me. Upon further reflection, I realize that my expectations and experience didn’t match up, I thought I was reading a dark fantasy story and I received a gothic magical realism and I didn’t realize it until half way through the book.
I probably should have stopped reading but I am in a book club and agreed to read the book. Given my expectations, I won’t review this book, but I would say that I didn’t like it.
I love these insights into how you think about reviewing books! I feel like I've gotten to the point where I'm a lot more comfortable talking about books that do their thing very well but are not my thing (like Yellowface) and it's been so valuable in learning about my own taste.
Yes! And it helps me appreciate more books and read more widely! Of course I want to find books that are aligned with my taste, but I also enjoy being able to read books that I appreciate, even if I don't love them.
Thank you for speaking about this. There are tactful ways to say that we didn’t like a book and the reasons why. The later of which is probably the most important. One must read very closely in order to determine if a book achieved what it set out to do. Several considerations need to come into play. If I felt that a book was not what I thought it should be careful conversation with others who I trust would be sought prior to saying anything about the book working or not. Sometimes we can gain clarity and eye opening revelations. Recently there was a scene in a book that I was not expecting and it triggered me emotionally to the point that I did not want to read the book. Does that mean that I did not like it or that the author did not achieve their goals? Absolutely not. That being said, I could have looked further into any warnings for sensitive readers prior to picking this particular book. One needs to choose their words wisely when discussing someone else’s work.
Sometimes a book doesn't work for me because I can't identify with the characters or the situations they're in. I don't read YA books because I have a hard time identifying with teens and what they're going through these days. I don't read fantasy because I find it hard to suspend belief when there are magical and fantastical things going on that make no sense to me. Doesn't mean that the books are bad, just that they aren't for me.
I’ve been thinking about this idea so often since your original instagram post about it. I don’t think(?) this was something I was actively considering when reviewing or talking about a book that I deemed “not for me.” But I’ve found so much value in thinking about this concept when I’ve been confused or unsure about a book’s theme/meaning. Using this framework makes reviewing so much easier! For example, I just finished Mrs. Dalloway, and generally I would’ve said it was fine because I recognized the work put into it but didn’t particularly enjoy it. But now I have the language to explain that I didn’t love my reading experience, but there’s no doubt Woolf achieved what she set out to do in fascinating and really creative ways. “Fine” just really doesn’t encompass that!
I think this phrase tries to signal that something isn't working on a structural or technical level; it says that the reader's failure to connect with it isn't about the prose itself, or the way the characters are drawn, or the authenticity of the voice, but rather the actual mechanics of the narrative. It seems to be interchangeable with the euphemistic "didn't hang together" people tend to use when the storyline doesn't feel satisfying.
I think you're onto something here and I really like that usage! If this is what reviewers mean, I do still want them to tell me more. Sometimes it's hard to put a finger on what's not working narratively, so I completely understand avoiding that. I just get frustrated when I hear or read that the book didn't work without any followup about what that means. That's when it starts to feel like it's being used interchangeably with simply not liking it. (By the way, I really enjoyed If We Were Villains! I think it worked AND I liked it!)
Absolutely agree--this is itself is not enough to qualify as a proper "criticism" without a little more supporting evidence. (And thank you so much!)
That is exactly what I mean when I use that phrase! And I often use it when I can’t find any fault in the book other than it wasn’t to my taste, or I expected a particular tone or arc and got something completely different bc MY expectations were off. That is not on the author. It just “didn’t work” for ME.
I love that! That makes so much sense! And I think that’s why I only get frustrated with that phrase when someone is trying to present a “formal review.” Because you’re so right, sometimes something just doesn’t resonate for us and it’s impossible to articulate why.
This thread is such great discussion. Thanks Sara!
Fascinating unpacking - thank you, Sara!. I teach creative writing, and of course this phrase crops up a lot in critiquing too: as you say, probably because it's trying to be nice, and to recognise one's own subjectivity, rather than claiming authority to decree that it's "good" or "bad" writing.
But for me the "work" in "It doesn't work for me" is more like "It doesn't work ON me": it hasn't gripped, moved, intrigued, persuaded, enraptured, enthralled me - even infuriated me, if it's that kind of book. That might be about whether it achieved its thematic aims or not, but it might just as much be about whether it got me to care whether whodunnit is revealed or not (or, indeed, to care about whodunnit at all). And whether a book works for any given reader in that sense is of course hugely subjective - not just whether I care about the theme or am bothered or irritated by a character: it can even simply be about the circumstances in which I tried to read it.
So when I'm blogging over at This Itch of Writing, or teaching or mentoring, I'm usually talking at least 50% of the time about how we set about working on our reader: how we get them to experience the story as we want them to - which of course can be a matter of anything from big narrative arcs to whether the punctuation is working as they need it to. And I think that's a legitimate position from which to review too: this book didn't fulfil its aims for this reader, for the following reasons...
Oh, Emma, thank you for this! I love this interpretation! Of course there are many many ways for a book to work ON a reader...in terms of emotion or engagement or hitting the genre beats that we readers expect. You're so right that that is a legitimate position to review from, and often we learn a lot about whether we want to read a book or not if a reviewer can effectively communicate if and how a book worked on them!
I do think there's a major difference between the workshop and a formal, public review. In a workshop, we are asked for feedback as readers in order to aid the writer in helping the book "work" better. But I don't think formal reviews post-publication ought to be about what the writer should or could have done differently. I think reviews should evaluate the work as it stands. This certainly could include saying that the book doesn't work for this reader, but often in public review spaces I find that that "this didn't work for me" goes along with "because I wanted a different book." I always want to know from reviews whether a book was achieving its aims (whether thematic or genre or emotional resonance) not what the reviewer wishes the author had done instead. And still! There could be value in that too as long as the reviewer is self-aware enough to explore why they expected something different or where and why the book failed to work on them (still loving that phrase!).
Thank you so much for sharing these thoughts. I'm going to be thinking about them a lot and I can't wait to follow along with your Substack too!
Yes, I think a post-publication review which takes a book to task for not being what it was never trying to be is really missing the point - unless, as you say, the reviewer does it in terms of "I really wanted this book to be X, but it never really turned into that". And of course one can only guess at what the aims are ... (The only exception might be in non-fiction, where it's a legitimate point to say "No book about X should leave out discussing its relationship with Y".)
I agree with much of this, but I definitely think readers can do more than guess at what a book is trying to do.
I wonder if one of the things that the beginning of a book needs to do is help the reader "get" what the book as a whole is trying to do.
I blogged on the Itch a while back about making sure that the first pages and chapters "create the reader you need"; maybe this is something else that needs to be in the mix. More here: https://emmadarwin.typepad.com/thisitchofwriting/2015/01/do-what-you-like-and-show-your-reader-how-to-like-it-too.html
You captured this idea so well here! I don’t use this phrase too often in my reviews, but this is also how I mean for it to be interpreted. I’m usually referring to my feelings/level of investment in the story, which is SO subjective
Yes - "level of investment" is exactly it - did the book get you to invest, and then did it satisfy that investment? I recently read a novel which had huge merits, and I was enjoying it a lot, and admiring it, but the plot that all these merits were hung on was an really old-fashioned (and as it happened, sexist) trope, a cliche that the book didn't examine or unpack. I ended up much crosser with the book and the author than I would have been if I hadn't started by admiring it so much: that such a good writer had been so sloppy with that aspect of it?
I also think that frequently the book jacket leads you to think the book is really one thing when it’s something else. So in that sense it doesn’t work or doesn’t meet expectations because you weren’t given a clear picture of what to expect. I have had that happen a number of times. I expect one thing based on the book jacket copy but it turns out to not be that at all. Also, saying it didn’t work for me is, I think, actually nicer. Especially if you explain why it wasn’t for you, then people who may love what you hate can find their way to a new favorite book. But I do agree that saying WHY something isn’t for you os important.
Totally agree about book jacket expectations! In my opinion, it's up to the reader to recalibrate expectations. Authors don't get to write the jacket copy, so I would say, in these cases, it's the marketing copy that didn't work, not the book. I also still think I can leave room for many readers to like a book by saying I don't like it: "I didn't like it for X reasons, but readers who love Y might really enjoy it." I know this is getting into the weeds, but I think saying a book wasn't "for you" is completely different than saying a book didn't "work for you." When someone says a book doesn't work, I really want to know what the book was trying to do and how it failed.
I know I've used this phrase and I think I typically use it when there's something in the story that was off for me so to speak. I usually try to elaborate and talk about whether it was the structure, the characterization, the dialogue etc. For me, sometimes that does end up meaning I didn't like it but again I will have given the reasons why- I think it's important to hear what it was specifically that someone didn't like or what specifically didn't work. One of my pet peeves is hearing "I hated that book"- I don't find this helpful, tell me why!
Absolutely! I use it too! My pet peeve really comes down to this: if someone says a book doesn't work, I expect them to tell me what the book was trying to do and how it failed. Often when people say "this book didn't work for me," they really mean they wanted a different book. I find those reviews to be unfair and unhelpful. And I totally agree about specificity! Whatever phrasing folks are using, I want the details to back it up!!
👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
I hate that phrase too because it feels dismissive and like a backhanded compliment for anyone it did “work” for. Or maybe I just spend too much time on Booktokagram…
Haha....I might spend too much time there too... Glad to have someone who shares my pet peeve though!!
Most of the time if a book or movie didn't work for me it meant that it didn't reach me on an emotional level. I admired the movie Oppenheimer but it didn't "work for me" as it didn't reach me emotionally. Often there are books and movies like Oppenheimer that are male-centric and I prefer the female main characters with their viewpoints, their experiences. That said, I like to read about things I know little about and hopefully I can connect with it without the filter of my own background. And yes, the literary techniques and storylines can be clumsy or disappointing keeping me from totally sinking into the narrative. I would rather say it didn't work for me because not being an academic but dealing with readers often in my life I've found that opinions are so subjective and I want to allow for a variety of responses. I appreciate your attempts at deciphering this habit though! I will think about this before I use the phrase again and I do expect more from a serious reviewer.
That's a great point, Christine! Context is key. Our audiences may respond better and feel more room for their own opinions when we say "this didn't work for me" instead of "I didn't like it." So smart and so important! I agree that I often use the phrase when I mean I didn't emotionally connect with a piece of art, but that's an area where I'm trying to rethink my wording. Some books may be trying to appeal to my intellect rather than my emotions, so in that sense they work for their intent, but not for my taste. Or perhaps a book is appealing to the emotions of readers with experiences I don't have. In those instances I may not be the intended audience, but the book may still be working when it comes to its own purposes.
I've been thinking about this since you brought it up. I'm definitely guilty of using "did not work for me" as a euphemism for "did not like" though I do tend to provide additional context, which I agree, is important! I'm not yet sure whether I will/won't continue to use this phrase, but I am considering more my taste vs what the author set out to accomplish and how to convey all of this through my review. It's both interesting and important to consider, I think! And I appreciate you continue to unpack this topic.
I think there are some great reasons to still use the phrase! And I also think it's totally fine to use just because we like it! My plea here is mostly for exactly what you said: additional context. If a book isn't working, tell me what it was trying to do and how it failed! That's super helpful to me as a reader!
Totally! As someone who enjoys book critiques, reviews, and generally discussing books I really value that additional context and think it's key to having a real conversation. I personally dislike when reviewers leave it at "I liked/disliked it." Or, the horror, just shake the book at the screen with a thumbs up/down or a frowny face or something, hahaha. Sometimes internet trends are just not for me! At the same time I understand some readers just want to read and leave things surface level, that's valid and their prerogative, I suppose.
Thank you for saying this. I just finished a book that I didn’t enjoy and it’s been bothering me. Upon further reflection, I realize that my expectations and experience didn’t match up, I thought I was reading a dark fantasy story and I received a gothic magical realism and I didn’t realize it until half way through the book.
I probably should have stopped reading but I am in a book club and agreed to read the book. Given my expectations, I won’t review this book, but I would say that I didn’t like it.
I love these insights into how you think about reviewing books! I feel like I've gotten to the point where I'm a lot more comfortable talking about books that do their thing very well but are not my thing (like Yellowface) and it's been so valuable in learning about my own taste.
Yes! And it helps me appreciate more books and read more widely! Of course I want to find books that are aligned with my taste, but I also enjoy being able to read books that I appreciate, even if I don't love them.
Thank you for speaking about this. There are tactful ways to say that we didn’t like a book and the reasons why. The later of which is probably the most important. One must read very closely in order to determine if a book achieved what it set out to do. Several considerations need to come into play. If I felt that a book was not what I thought it should be careful conversation with others who I trust would be sought prior to saying anything about the book working or not. Sometimes we can gain clarity and eye opening revelations. Recently there was a scene in a book that I was not expecting and it triggered me emotionally to the point that I did not want to read the book. Does that mean that I did not like it or that the author did not achieve their goals? Absolutely not. That being said, I could have looked further into any warnings for sensitive readers prior to picking this particular book. One needs to choose their words wisely when discussing someone else’s work.
Sometimes a book doesn't work for me because I can't identify with the characters or the situations they're in. I don't read YA books because I have a hard time identifying with teens and what they're going through these days. I don't read fantasy because I find it hard to suspend belief when there are magical and fantastical things going on that make no sense to me. Doesn't mean that the books are bad, just that they aren't for me.
I’ve been thinking about this idea so often since your original instagram post about it. I don’t think(?) this was something I was actively considering when reviewing or talking about a book that I deemed “not for me.” But I’ve found so much value in thinking about this concept when I’ve been confused or unsure about a book’s theme/meaning. Using this framework makes reviewing so much easier! For example, I just finished Mrs. Dalloway, and generally I would’ve said it was fine because I recognized the work put into it but didn’t particularly enjoy it. But now I have the language to explain that I didn’t love my reading experience, but there’s no doubt Woolf achieved what she set out to do in fascinating and really creative ways. “Fine” just really doesn’t encompass that!
Love this post and going through the comments.