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 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.
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!
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...
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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!
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...
👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
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.
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.
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.
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.