CCBC-Net Archives
Reviewing for content and visual elements, too
- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
From: Ginny Moore Kruse <gmkruse_at_wisc.edu>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 10:30:11 -0600
Marc observed that it would be helpful if two reviews could be written for each book: literary and content. This approach was used for a long time by the former fine science book review journal "Appraisal." In "Appraisal" practitioners' reviews commented on the literary merit, child appeal, and unique quality of the books being reviewed. Content specialists evaluated the accuracy of mostly nonfiction books, but sometimes for fiction and picture books particularly applicable to the journal's overall scope. Of course getting the content reviewer took time, and time isn't available to most of you who've written about deadlines.
Is there a way to incorporate that approach to book evaluation more frequently? Book award committee members seriously nonfiction and fiction books do examine both the literary and the "extra-literary" elements of any book under serious consideration, because with their unique responsibilities they aren't limited to a certain number of words. It seems to me that members of annual "best of the year" list committees can do this, too.
I implore the reviewers who have word length limitations and deadlines, too, to make room in their reviews of highly visual books for observations about the visual elements of the books they're considering. Another way to express this is to urge all book reviewers to do more than summarize the plot or scope of the book being reviewed. Too many professional reviews are mere summaries.
Ginny Moore Kruse gmkruse_at_wisc.edu
Received on Tue 17 Nov 2009 10:30:11 AM CST
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 10:30:11 -0600
Marc observed that it would be helpful if two reviews could be written for each book: literary and content. This approach was used for a long time by the former fine science book review journal "Appraisal." In "Appraisal" practitioners' reviews commented on the literary merit, child appeal, and unique quality of the books being reviewed. Content specialists evaluated the accuracy of mostly nonfiction books, but sometimes for fiction and picture books particularly applicable to the journal's overall scope. Of course getting the content reviewer took time, and time isn't available to most of you who've written about deadlines.
Is there a way to incorporate that approach to book evaluation more frequently? Book award committee members seriously nonfiction and fiction books do examine both the literary and the "extra-literary" elements of any book under serious consideration, because with their unique responsibilities they aren't limited to a certain number of words. It seems to me that members of annual "best of the year" list committees can do this, too.
I implore the reviewers who have word length limitations and deadlines, too, to make room in their reviews of highly visual books for observations about the visual elements of the books they're considering. Another way to express this is to urge all book reviewers to do more than summarize the plot or scope of the book being reviewed. Too many professional reviews are mere summaries.
Ginny Moore Kruse gmkruse_at_wisc.edu
Received on Tue 17 Nov 2009 10:30:11 AM CST
