From: Hunt, Jonathan <Hunt.Jo_at_monet.k12.ca.us>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 08:38:16 -0800

What I like to read in a review is a brief summary of the literary elements of a book--plot, character, setting, style, and theme--coupled with an appreciation of how this particular book is part of a larger whole--how it fits into it its genre or the author's body of work, for example. That's a tall order when you only have several hundred words to work with.

One of my biggest pet peeves are reviewers who think they must point out some negative, some failing in the book, lest their peers think them completely devoid of critical faculties. The truth, however, is that when you only have so many words and you throw something critical in, just for the sake of being critical, then it throws the balance of the review off. You may have only found 5% of the book to be unsatisfactory, for example, but 30% of your review addresses those points. The same thing happens when you write collection development caveats (sex! violence! language!). It skews the review and throws it out of balance. Furthermore, with nonfiction reviews too often we get points about the presentation (the book design, the paper quality, the photograph quality) rather than the content, almost as if the reviewer is completely uncomfortable and incapble of engaging with the latter.

So while I prize economy and brevity in a review, I also value balance. Anybody can henpeck some element of a book, but it is the gifted reviewer who can evaluate a book holistically and know which failings merit note when text space is at a premium.

Jonathan, who subscribes to the digest form
Received on Thu 12 Nov 2009 08:38:16 AM CST