Reviewing the Reviews
(Cross posted at One Bite at a Time.)
Book reviews have received a lot of attention lately, largely been because newspapers are dropping them faster than a banker can endorse a bonus check. Various web sites are picking up the slack. Most online booksellers post reader reviews, which may be of dubious merit. Some are written by the writer’s friends; others may be written by competitors with an ax to grind before placing it directly between the author’s shoulder blades.
Other sites dedicated to the review and discussion of books and writing. Some are strictly amateur affairs, and show it. Some are the work of dedicated volunteers whose quality of product is hardly amateurish. Still others are professional operations deserving the respect previously accorded only to the traditional print media.
As the primordial ooze of Twenty-First Century book criticism sorts itself out, another, often ignored question comes to mind: what is a book review? Based on what I’ve read, some are little more than plot synopses, with a brief coda to say, “It’s okay,” or “Don’t bother.” Others are more like book reports, summarizing the story, discussing a theme or two, and maybe concluding with a recommendation.
Another category discusses the writing, and its various strengths and weaknesses. These can also be a mixed bag. Some are little more than opinion pieces without example or justification, telling more about the reviewer than about the book. Others cite examples to back up their opinions, though even those who strive to be objective are prone to cherry-pick only citations that support their opinions.
Authors, readers, and reviewers all read this blog. What do you look for in a review? What are the primary reasons for having book reviews at all? If we can stipulate all reviews should pass the Twenty-Five Dollar test (Is this book worth $25?), should the reader expect more than a synopsis and recommendation?
Book reviews have received a lot of attention lately, largely been because newspapers are dropping them faster than a banker can endorse a bonus check. Various web sites are picking up the slack. Most online booksellers post reader reviews, which may be of dubious merit. Some are written by the writer’s friends; others may be written by competitors with an ax to grind before placing it directly between the author’s shoulder blades.
Other sites dedicated to the review and discussion of books and writing. Some are strictly amateur affairs, and show it. Some are the work of dedicated volunteers whose quality of product is hardly amateurish. Still others are professional operations deserving the respect previously accorded only to the traditional print media.
As the primordial ooze of Twenty-First Century book criticism sorts itself out, another, often ignored question comes to mind: what is a book review? Based on what I’ve read, some are little more than plot synopses, with a brief coda to say, “It’s okay,” or “Don’t bother.” Others are more like book reports, summarizing the story, discussing a theme or two, and maybe concluding with a recommendation.
Another category discusses the writing, and its various strengths and weaknesses. These can also be a mixed bag. Some are little more than opinion pieces without example or justification, telling more about the reviewer than about the book. Others cite examples to back up their opinions, though even those who strive to be objective are prone to cherry-pick only citations that support their opinions.
Authors, readers, and reviewers all read this blog. What do you look for in a review? What are the primary reasons for having book reviews at all? If we can stipulate all reviews should pass the Twenty-Five Dollar test (Is this book worth $25?), should the reader expect more than a synopsis and recommendation?
Views: 9
Comment
-
Comment by I. J. Parker on February 12, 2009 at 8:28am
-
Oh, yeah, they are wonderful. Nice on Amazon, even better when they drop you an e-mail. But consider: the reviewer gets his opinion to a lot more people and quickly. The fan sometimes forgets about your book when he finds another one he likes.
-
Comment by B.R.Stateham on February 12, 2009 at 4:43am
-
But don't forget the genuine fan, friends. Not friend or relatives--but strangers who have read your book and have gone ga-ga over it. Professional reviewers are all nice and dandy, but a curious reader looking for a good book puts a professional reviewer in a category called 'skepticism.'
But a real fan is as obvious as a ten dollar bill laying on a sidewalk. Instantly noticeable. And the curious reader put's more faith in a fan's review I think.
-
-
As you say, you take anybody's opinion with a grain of salt. You are also absolutely right about the variety of types of book reviews and the regrettable habit of desperate authors to have all their friends and family members post glowing reviews on the Amazon site. And yes, there is a bit of nasty sniping, too.
The legitimate reviewer (someone whose style and opinion have qualified him or her to have reviews published in major papers or in the trade publications) writes not for the author, or the publisher, but for the consumer. That means the information should let the reader know what sort of book it is (that may involve a very general and short statement of content) as well the strengths and weaknesses of the book as the reviewer sees them. Examples would be good, but most review space does not allow for this. Somewhat irritating is the habit of some reviewers to show off their cleverness of phrase or knowledge of the whole genre.
Welcome to
CrimeSpace
© 2024 Created by Daniel Hatadi.
Powered by
You need to be a member of CrimeSpace to add comments!