Why write a review?
That’s a poky trident. You can do it for yourself, for the community, or for the authors you are reviewing.
It is helpful to the reader/reviewer to read more deeply with intention to understand, to see patterns and reasons behind the writer’s choices. It makes you a more active participant, a more informed writer and it sharpens the mind. (Probably staves off senility like chess and word puzzles.)
It is valuable to engage with who you read, instead of moving eyes over the page towards the plot, be involved with the community that interests you. You elect to be part of the community. You provide service to the magazine, or blog, or wider readership by saying, look at this thing!
When you review you are drawing attention to something you read as worth more time and attention. Very few books get reviews or acknowledgement that they were made and published. It boosts the spirit of the writer to be seen. You are boosting its visibility by an increment.
No, it is fork, not a trident. Beyond building community in general, you are helping particular readers find their bliss, or avoid wasting their time on Definitely Not Their Bliss.
By what you choose to quote and comparisons made you build a matrix for someone to access whether they would benefit from reading it. By sharing your favorite parts, takeaways, sense of what was lacking, you are not able to change the book or the writer, (so stop scolding), but indicate to the review-readers, how well that match what they are looking for in this amoebic crawl we do through culture of yes or no to observe and absorb more material to digest and become.
What to include in a review?
People (other readers, publisher, author) like sound bites, and adjectives, a personal point of view rather than a list of table of contents, and page count. Compression is part of the art so it can be quotable, but a careful reading is more important than witty words.
The author is your peer, your equal, not someone you condescend to. The book is more likely to be a baby than an object so a certain amount of compassion and respect is appropriate. If it leaves you cold, not much worth saying, If it makes you mad, it’s triggering something from your hot-buttoned past, and consider that over the morality or skill of the writer you are reading.
A review is part of wayfinding. Few get paid for it. If you do make a critical “bad” review, courtesy is to not put it under the author’s nose with social media tags. Don’t @ them anywhere. Even if you think it is a kind review, it’s hard to know how someone else would interpret it. Maybe you call out their favourite bit as weak or omit mention of it. Maybe you praise what they felt guilty including but thought they could slip in. It’s all a bit precarious like any communication.
Someone not getting what you’re saying is normal, but let the engines of the publishers trawl over that and move on. You don’t need to engage with the author and the author doesn’t need to engage with you. A review is not an obligation. You probably will never get thanks, because like so much writing it is a thankless task, especially proportional to the time that went into it.
A review is communication at a couple degrees of a remove. The writer communicates to the page and you to another page. It’s a bit of an odd-duck dance.
If you resonate with each other, you may grow in each other’s regard. If you can’t hear them or they can’t hear you, that’s normal. But if you discover each other and animate each other, that engagment could be the start of something lovely, or a lovely experience in isolation.
What to include?
Ideally, to me, a review, quotes the work. Not too much as to be a spoiler, but the focus is on the work, so quote it. I don’t want your unsupported opinion nor decontextualized quotes. Say a thing, back up with an example. Study the thing. Reread. Take your time. You are here to learn not teach.
Cite page numbers. Cite publishing details of page number, publisher, price. Make a conclusion. Let your enthusiasm out or keep it neutral. Remember the sandwich rule. 2 positive bread for each neg. The point is not to only be positive but don’t scourge the thing/author. You are giving information not setting up a centre for your absolute monarchal authority.
The focus is not how clever or scathing or thrilled the reviewer is, like those recipe columns that derail into tangent on some relative’s kitchen as a child, or some trip to a prestige location. You can put yourself in the review, but as audience, not main performer.
What is the work about, in general that strikes you? What’s the prevailing mood or range? What’s your favourite section? How so? What aspect of it is strong? Consistency? Range? Sound? Rhythms? Arc? Personality? Unique point of view? Universality? What worked for you?
Be humble and be truthful. It doesn’t help if you say effectively nothing. It takes guts to put yourself out there and review. It’s a precariously visible position to make your observations known but the risk otherwise is to safely consume in secret and not add yourself to the mix. You miss out more in the bleachers, if don’t throw yourself onto the sport field.
