Welcome to Literary Ashland

Follow

As I write this wrap up to the book reviewing series, I’m also beginning a book review, so it’s an opportunity to see if I can practice some of the wisdom of the wonderful guest posts, from Tod Davies, Jeff Baker, Adam Woog, Brian Griffith, Audrey Homan, Alisa Bowman, Kelli Stanley, Michael Erard and E. B. Strunkdotter. Recent news suggests that book reviewing is still a concern of authors and publishers. And some of the gaming of the system seems to be coming to light—witness the recent NY Times story on “The Best Book Reviews Money Can Buy” and the expose of British writer R. J. Ellis, who was for years faking his reviews on Amazon. And civility seems to be making a comeback in reviewing—or at least the most mean-spirited reviews are being discussed (though some argue that there is an epidemic of niceness). Perhaps with more and more books being published, consumers are thinking about reviews with a renewed seriousness.

Reflecting on the collective wisdom of the posts, I’m reminded of the century-old seven Cs of professional writing. Writing should be clear, correct, concise, complete, concrete, considerate, and conversational. Clear, and correct and concise, cover a lot of ground linguistically, but also in terms of taking the time to understand the book (so as to avoid the embarrassment of misidentifying a character or plot point). Complete and concrete entails understanding the place of the book in its genre or discipline—what has come before and how the book fits in that history—and justifying one’s remarks with textual or other evidence. Completeness also entails being honest about a book’s shortcomings but balancing that with a discussion of its strengths. Consideration comes into play in term of understanding and respecting what the author is trying to accomplish and subordinating your impulse to be clever (“This book create a great void in the field”) to the responsibility to be fair.

Finally, begin conversational helps the reviewer to focus on his or her readers—what do reader’s need to know about the book and what questions will they have about the book and your review.

Follow

E. B. Strunksdotter (a pseudonym) works in the book reviewing profession.

Ed Battistella has asked me to tell you “ what makes a good book review.” My humble opinion on the matter follows.

• Accessibility/clarity–Jargon is the enemy of clarity. Brief reviews “cannot bear the weight of stylistic flourishes” (phrase stolen from another editor) . Reviewers should write as if for generalists. The following is unacceptable: “The intertextuality of the framing narrative objectively correlates with the synechdoche, the parataxeis being the vortex of the allegorical imagism (which is the doppelganger of metafiction).”

• Accuracy—If the review cites a person, a book, a chapter title–any “fact” whatsoever—that fact should be correct and accurately spelled, punctuated, and so forth. Which is to say—check it!

• Authority—Random opinions are irrelevant. The opinion should emanate from a verifiable expert on the subject.

• Brevity—Do not ramble [see elsewhere in this document].

• Comparisons—A critical review of 200 words can include citations of works that are comparable/complementary/superior/inferior/etc. This information is important to readers.

• Fair mindedness (as in lacking bias)—A reviewer should let us know if he/she is an arch enemy of the person who wrote the book he/she just received for review; has a viewpoint entirely antithetical to that of the book; is first cousin once removed of the author; etc. Any such circumstance smacks of conflict of interest (real or perceived). The reviewer is therefore disqualified.

• Focus—In reviewing a book on, say, Shakespeare, the reviewer should not digress and rattle on about, say, Elizabeth I’s ruffled collars (unless her ruffled collar is central to the book).

• Good grammar—Eschew passive voice! Do not dangle participles or misplace modifiers! Mind your collective nouns (sheep nibble grass/a flock nibbles)! Put periods and commas inside quotation marks! And so on.

• Opinion/evaluation—Without opinion, a review serves no better than the information on the publisher’s website or the jacket flaps. I don’t want synopsis; I want to know how valuable (and for whom) the reviewer thinks the book is. Should I buy/read it or should I give it a pass?

Follow

From Michael Erard author of Babel No More: The Search for the World’s Most Extraordinary Language Learners, (Free Press, 2012) and Um…: Slips, Stumbles, and Verbal Blunders, and What They Mean (Pantheon, 2007).

I think the best review is a profile of the writer, a profile of the reader, a profile of the genre or tradition the book fits in (or aspires to be in), and certainly not a full profile, but a substantive gesture in that direction. A situatedness.

The question that it’s getting at is, can you have a relationship with this book? There are many ways to get at that question. A good review is written by someone who’s read the book more than once; a bad review, on the other hand, is simply a report of how you feel after having consumed something. You don’t have a relationship with a meal (though you may have a relationship with a cuisine, a chef, a particular ingredient, or a restaurant) — or with most meals, anyway.

I find that a lot of reviews — both pro and amateur — don’t know what it means to have a relationship with a text, or how to talk about people who also have relationships with texts. They’re purely lip-smacking, plate-pushing. Yeah, get the fries, but the burger wasn’t worth it. But the reader of that review needs to know more about that reviewer: how many burgers have you eaten before? How hungry did you come? What were you expecting? Have you eaten here before? etc.

Follow

From Kelli Stanley, an award-winning author of City of Dragons and City of Secrets and of The Curse-Maker and Nox Dormienda.

Good reviews should encapsulate the plot points without giving away spoilers … if the book has a surprise twist 3/4 of the way through, don’t reveal it, just allude to it.

As a reader, scholar, and author, I particularly appreciate reviews that admit their own subjectivity. Taste is a subjective thing–just because you don’t like, say, The Grapes of Wrath, does not mean that the book isn’t “good.” In fact, weak adjectives–“good”, “bad”, etc.–tell us nothing about a book, and are the hallmark of an amateur reviewer or worse–someone out for attention for themselves by slamming or extolling a given work.

If, as a reviewer, you are not versed in a particular sub-genre you’re reviewing–Gothic horror or steampunk or noir, for example–make sure you inform the reader. A dislike of the book may, in fact, be your dislike and/or ignorance of the subgenre showing. A good reviewer should reveal his or her gaps in taste and knowledge, and explain why they chose to review a book outside of their comfort zone.

Give us a bit of the critical history. Did it receive praise from well-regarded critics? Has it sold well? Did it win or was nominated for legitimate awards?

Plot, characterization, pace, tone and style should all be discussed or at least mentioned.

Spell the author’s name correctly! 😉