Not for Everyone

Even though the topic of book reviews (I assume) is something near and dear to all our hearts, there's surprisingly little talk in the 'sphere about how to write a good book review. Beyond some critiques at the weekly thumbnails, the litblogs I read are pretty quiet on this issue.

Today, however, the Literary Saloon is not, as its M. A. Orthofer discusses the use of "not for everyone" in a book review. M. A. quotes an article in Context that takes the Complete Review (among others) to task for lazily using "not for everyone." The article argues

All reviewers, in the future, should be required to list at least five books that they see as "for everyone," a practice that might allow us to judge their tastes and intelligence rather than simply using the phrase to dismiss a book that they seem unable to dismiss in any other way, or at least any way that can stand a close inspection . . .

I have to get on the anti-"not for everyone" bandwagon, mostly for reasons explained in my SFCBR Cliché Count. I understand that we're all going to be a little lazy every now and then, but I'm really getting tired of anonymous, blurb-worthy book reviews. I think that adjectives such as "extraordinary," "ingenius," "astounding," "heartfelt," and "amazing" should be saved for only slightly positive reviews, my reason being that if a reviewer really liked a book that much, he/she should be able to better articulate why. If a book can't inspire you to say more than "incredible," well then maybe it's not that great after all.

I know that most book reviews don't get a ton of space--1,000 words tops--and I further understand that it can be difficult to get everying to fit within that space. But I still would like to ask that all reviewers who read this blog try a little harder to find space for a few sentences that explain exactly what makes a book worthy of your multi-syllable superlatives. Don't be afraid to single a certain element out and dwell on it; an in-depth treatment of one element is far more preferable than a superficial, blurb-worthy treatment of several. If you need to trim from elsewhere (plot summary for instance), then do so. I'd really much rather read an insightful analysis of the author's prose style than a bare-bones plot sketch.

Comments

[dave Munger]

Good post, Scott, and I agree with you. Unfortunately I think the vast majority of book review readers want plot summary, plot summary, and plot summary -- because they have no intention of reading the book, and simply want to give the impression of being well-read.

[bookdwarf]

I like a general plot summary, just enough to give me a sense of what the book is about. Then analysis---does the writing work, does the plot (if there even is one) work, etc. Most of all, I want the reviewer to give me an opinion. I don't mean some snarky commentary, just a 'I liked it because of this, but found this part annoying'. At least, that's what I try to do. Don't know if it's working or not.