January 2009

(Read Part One and Part Two)Moving on from all the general stuff, we get to some specifics. Now, since I write “Comprehensive Reviews,” I can’t provide any specific advice for any other form. I assume that the emailer likes the way I review books, so I’ll offer some insight on that front.When writing a review, I immediately place into focus three things: Synopsis/HookThe basic story, the plot, etc. Pros/ConsWhat’s good and what’s bad. Like/Not LikeDid I like it or did I dislike it? Why? Anything that fits around these isn’t necessarily important, because the three things above are what I look for in a review (#3 more so than the others). Ultimately, everything ties into #3, because what a reader of these kinds of reviews generally wants (or I assume they want, because it’s what I want too) is the answer to the question: do I want to read this? There are too many books published every year for any one person to read, and a reader’s time is precious. They have to know whether or not they want to read a book and fast.On top of these elements, however, I tend to toss in some personal reaction. I like to tell the reader my personal reactions to elements within the story. Was a particular scene emotionally gripping? Did I cry? Did I grimace? Did I actually have a visceral reaction to something that a character did? I consider this to be an important aspect of my reviews because I get the sense that readers want books that are engaging on multiple levels. If a book did something for me on an emotional or physical level, that’s something they’d like to know so they don’t go and buy some book that turns out to be emotionally empty. Personal opinion doesn’t have to be specifically in this vein, though. You can fiddle with the imaginary “conventions” of book reviewing all you want. What you do in your reviews, however, is up to you. Don’t let me determine how you write your reviews (or anyone else, for that matter). Sit down and give it a shot. When I started writing reviews, I was horrible (I’ve gone back to look). I don’t consider myself a particularly good reviewer today, but I can see how I have improved. There’s nothing wrong with starting and sucking (just like in writing fiction).What is important is determining what you want to do with your reviews, how you want to present them, and then doing it. Everything else can fall into place one piece at a time.

(Read Part One and Part Three)Alright, so I’ve gone through the types of reviewers, but what about reviewing in general? Well, before you sit down to actually write reviews, you should really think about what you’re doing. Consider what kinds of reviews you want to write, what kinds of books you want to write them about, etc. Once you’ve decided these things, you should stick to some basic reviewing “rules” (they’re not really rules as much as good ideas): Be HonestThis can sometimes be difficult, even though people constantly say “well I’m honest about all my reviews.” The fact is that it can take some practice to actually be honest on reviews. It takes guts to actually say “this book was horrible.” After all, we’re human beings and often times we like to avoid hurting someone’s feelings. There are other factors that play into this too, such as horror stories of authors throwing tantrums over a review, and even some cases where the author actually told the reviewer to commit suicide. These things can happen. Thankfully it doesn’t happen often. A good way to start out is to follow the second rule, because you aren’t inhibited by such factors as trying to please the publisher, the author, etc. Read Your Library FirstDon’t immediately start asking for review copies. First, it’s stupid because no publisher is going to send you ARCs (advanced review copies) if you haven’t even started reviewing. The primary reason for reading books you’ve bought is that you’re not obligated in any way, even just by some internal argument with yourself, to do anything but be honest. It’s a great way to hone your abilities too. Read Other ReviewersA great way to pick up little tricks and such is to see what others are doing and trying it yourself. This can lead to altering it to fit what you want to do with reviewing. Don’t go overboard, though. Find reviewers you enjoy reading and try to figure out why you like their reviews over others. That’s likely the kind of thing you want to include in your reviews. Write For Yourself, KindaReviews are obviously meant for other people to read, but unless you like writing in styles that aren’t your own or doing things that you generally wouldn’t do, I suggest sticking to what you like about the form. Write reviews you would want to see, but also pay attention to how you write them. You don’t want to alienate readers, but you also don’t want to have cookie-cutter reviews. Writing reviews for yourself can add a bit of personal flavor. Try ThingsIf you get an idea on how to improve your reviews, try it. There’s nothing wrong with experimenting. After all, a long time ago someone on the Interwebs sat down, saw blogging, and thought, hey, why don’t I try doing a book review blog? Trying new things can help improve your reviews. I recommend not going overboard though. Don’t just throw random things in there in the name of experimentation; be reasonable and logical. Anyone reading this post, feel free to add your own little rules in the comments. I think we should try to consider this as some sort of unofficial, slightly comprehensive guide to book reviewing, or something on that order. There will be a third installment after this that will dig into how I do reviews, to a certain extent. Stay tuned!

I recently received an email from a reader asking for advice on reviewing books and book review blogs. I figured the best way to answer would be to write a post about it (names excluded, of course). Here is what the reader wrote: The main reason I’m writing this e-mail is to ask you for some pointers on how to actually review books. I’ve been thinking of starting a review blog myself, but my reviews always seem to just consist of “I liked this book, and recommend it”. I want to be able to say more than that, but I don’t know how. I don’t suppose you have any tips you might be willing to share? Rest assured, you won’t get any competition for readers from me. First things first, this is a rather loaded question. There are a lot of different kinds of book reviews, both professional and amateur, and the way I review books is not necessarily the same as someone else. There are different classes or categorizations of book reviewing and each type has advantages and weaknesses. So, with that in mind, you have to decide what kind of book reviewer you want to be. The most common types of book reviewers are as follows (note: this post is not going to be a discussion of which kind of review style is the best one as I am not interested in discussing such matters; people read different kinds of reviews for different reasons; I would, of course, enjoy discussion about these review types and welcome additions to the pros and cons as you see fit): The LiteraryThese are folks like Larry of OF Blog of the Fallen who delve into the text, citing examples, pointing out themes, analyzing, etc. You might consider this to be along the lines of literary criticism. They can be quite interesting forms of reviews when done well and offer an in-depth perspective.Pros: These are designed to please those that are interested in more than whether or not they will like the book. Usually insightful and useful to those wanting to know whether a text is more than just another book about whatever.Cons: They can take a bit of time to do, especially if your reading practices are not already inclined to this sort of thing, and your audience will be relatively select (although not as select as you might think primarily because there aren’t a lot of blogs that do these kinds of reviews). The OMGGo on the Amazon, look up any popular book (Eragon, Twilight, Harry Potter, etc.) and find any 5-star review that essentially opens and closes with some derivation of “OMG this book was teh awzums.” That’s basically what this is, although to varying degrees of literacy.Pros: Quick and easy. These reviews are essentially about how you feel about the work and are not reliant upon objective opinion, informational dialogue (synopsis, plot information, etc.), etc.Cons: Because they don’t rely on objective opinion, informational dialogue, etc. these reviews tend to have value only to people who are already fans of a particular work, or fans of similar works. These reviews lose a lot of the value offered by other formats and really should be kept to convention meetings and Twilight fan clubs (I don’t even think they should be allowed on Amazon, because they provide absolutely nothing of value about a work: people read reviews to find out if they will enjoy a book, not whether you think it’s the best thing since sliced bread). The Reverse OMGTake the opinionated feel of #2 and add in some literacy. Essentially the Reverse OMG is a review that is based on personal opinion, but attempts to present that opinion in a less flamboyant manner. Consider this to be like an expanded #2 if you want.Pros: Tend to be much more interesting for the writer, which makes writing them rather easy.Cons: Suffers from some of the same issues as #2, although to a much lesser degree. Often times these sorts of reviews are placed on a personal blog, rather than a review blog, since they coincide with the writer’s personal opinions. These aren’t necessarily bad, though, and often can be interesting for people who like to get that more personal approach. Plus, they’re readable. The ComprehensiveWell, it’s like the name sounds. Comprehensive reviews, to varying degrees (obviously), attempt to bring a little of everything into the mix. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t, but by fusing a little personal opinion (I liked it) with informational dialogue (what was the plot, etc.) you end up with a review that tells the reader what the book is about, tells them whether you thought it was good, and informs them on whether they might enjoy it too. Now, this one breaks down into a lot of subtypes, but I’m not going to go into them (mostly because I haven’t the time for the absurdities of review semantics).Pros: Well, you’ve probably read these kinds of reviews in newspapers, magazines, etc. They benefit from being primarily about whether the experience of reading a particular work will be of value to someone who hasn’t read it. That’s the whole point. It’s meant to be clear and decisive on the matter by presenting information, opinion, and relevant comparisons.Cons: Less personal than #3 and generally not literary. Some of the depth of reviewing that is provided by the extremes (#1 and #3, respectively, as both are on different ends of the spectrum and offer insight into two different approaches) is lost here. (I attempt to write these). Those are the basic categories. From those, you have to decide what you want to do (and there is certainly plenty of overlap, to a certain extent, between these). I recommend avoiding #2 like the plague, because we have far too many of those kinds of reviews in the world as it is. That’s all for this edition, though, because to put all of the information I have into one post would be