From: sully_at_sully-writer.com
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 16:19:07 -0700

It's been great fun reading these different perspectives on reviewing. I started reviewing in 1994 and, since then, I have written several hundred book reviews for just about every major journal. I now primarily review for Booklist and Kirkus.

I share the frustration of limited word count that many of you expressed, but my greatest frustration is with the typical treatment of nonfiction books in reviews. As an avid reader and writer of nonfiction, it bothers me to see the lack of attention reviewers usually pay to the aesthetic merits (or lack thereof) of these books. I agree with historian Barbara Tuchman that the label "nonfiction" is "despicable," and Zena Sutherland did us no favor when she coined the phrase "informational book." Labeling these books as "not fiction" or "informational" implies that storytelling is irrelevant, which could not be further from the truth.

What many reviewers seem to overlook or not understand is that telling a good story is as important in writing nonfiction (for lack of a better word) as it is in fiction. Any nonfiction book of merit is going to possess some or all of the elements that you will find in an exemplary work of fiction--vivid setting, interesting characters, compelling themes and conflicts, dramatic tension, engaging style, etc. If you read any of the best nonfiction titles published this year (Deborah Heiligman's Charles and Emma, Phillip Hoose's Claudette Colvin, Albert Marrin's Years of Dust, and Tanya Lee Stone's Almost Astronauts, to name a few), you see it is the way the authors craft their stories that make the books stand out. Reviewers of nonfiction, however, frequently pay little or no attention to this dimension of nonfiction. Attention seems to be placed exclusively on the informational dimension (accuracy, readability, organization, integration of primary sources, etc. ) I am not suggesting that is not important. Wha t I am saying is that both dimensions are equally important and both should receive attention (for better or worse) in reviews.

With all do respect to my fiction-writing friends and colleagues, I believe it is a lot more difficult to write nonfiction. The nonfiction writer has all the worries the fiction writer has of crafting a compelling story that will capture the imaginations of readers, and the additional burden of getting right the things that are unique to nonfiction. I remember when writing The Ultimate Weapon, a book about building the first atomic bombs, what an ordeal it was to explain the science behind atomic weapons in a way that readers would understand and find interesting. I lost count of how many times I went back and forth with my editor on those sections before we were both satisfied. I am a history person, not a science person, so the biggest challenge for me was understanding the science myself before I could even begin to explain it in the book. It was a long, painstaking process. I was thrilled when the National Science Teachers Association named it an Outstanding Science Trade Book. That made all the hard wor k worthwhile.

I try to practice what I preach when I review nonfiction, and having to do it in 150 or 200 words does make it quite a challenge indeed!

Edward T. Sullivan, Rogue Librarian Author, The Ultimate Weapon: The Race to Develop the Atomic Bomb (Holiday House, 2007) Visit my web site, http://www.sully-writer.com Visit my blog, Rogue Librarian: All About Books and Reading http://sullywriter.wordpress.com Facebook Page: http://www.facebook.com/sullywriter
Received on Sun 15 Nov 2009 04:19:07 PM CST