What is the purpose of a book review? And are book reviewers writing anything useful?

March 24, 5:38 PMBook ExaminerMichelle Kerns

Previous Next

13 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Book Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

 

Frequent readers of the Book Examiner have noticed, no doubt, that there has been a dearth of book reviews on the site for the last several weeks (the last one was for Anita Shreve's Testimony).

This isn't because I haven't been reading -- God forbid! I may as well stop breathing or stop drinking extremely cheap Burgundy, both equally unlikely events.

Rather, I've been experiencing something of a book review epiphany (or, as fellow Simpson fans will appreciate, an epipha-tree).

After compiling my list of the top 20 most annoying book reviewer clichés, posting that list plus about 30 more over my computer as a not-so-subtle reminder, and purging myself of all 20 forbidden words in two breathless paragraphs, I indulged myself by surfing about the Internet in search of fellow book reviewers in thrall to reviewerspeak.

That I found them was no surprise (and in such high-falutin' places as the New York Times Book Review and the Christian Science Monitor, one of which printed a word that should be drawn and quartered, tarred and feathered, then burnt at the stake -- "unputdownable"). The shocker came when I realized, with the same sort of cold horror I experience when the bottle is empty and it's still 24 hours until grocery shopping day, that the majority of book reviews -- I'd say at least 95%, and this is including mine as well, folks -- don't say anything useful at all.

Nothing! Useful! At all!

I don't mean that they are badly written -- some made me sick with envy at their turn of phrases -- or that the reviewers hadn't read the books.  What struck me again and again was the feeling, after reading a review, that I still had no idea what the hell the book was about. Not necessarily the bare bones of the plot, but what the writing was like, which other author the writer's work resembles, the book's atmosphere and feel, which other books that, if I like them, I'd be sure to at least be passably interested in this one: in short, everything that determines whether I want to read a book or not.

All this was left out in nearly every review I read -- including mine.

The earth shifted beneath my feet; the heavens opened; lightning struck; the clouds rolled; and I asked: What is the purpose of a book review, anyway? And why doesn't it seem like any of us are achieving it?

 

In an ideal world, where everyone sits about in laundry-detergent-commercial-white robes listening to Schubert and re-reading Proust for the tenth time and eating organic couscous out of recyclable bowls and saying witty and memorable things every day of the week, a book review would, without hype, gush, or apology, give the reader five things:

1. A brief, accurate, and unbiased precis of the setting and plot of the story without giving away what the rabbit in the hat looks like

2.  A specific evaluation of the author's writing ability, including which writers the author's style resembles, and, as the exalted John Updike recommends in his Six Rules for Book Reviewing, a taste out of the author's pot with a few moderately lengthy and representative quotes

3. Which works this particular book most resembles in both plot and feel.

4. How the book compares to the authors previous works (if any) and to other books cut from a similar cloth

5. A final verdict on the book stated clearly and unequivocally and with the particular reviewer's caveats laid out for consideration.

Now, yank yourself back to the Real World; what does the typical book review consist of? One of two manifestations:

Version A:

1. A wordy, sometimes incorrect, sometimes rambling summary of the book that often incorrectly elevates subplots to the level of the book's main storyline

2. No comments on the author's writing ability, how it compares to other works, or what books it resembles.

3. A wishy-washy conclusion along the lines of "A highly enjoyable and readable work from a fresh new voice in American fiction."

Version B:

This version of the typical book review, also known as the bitchy review, covers the above three points, but with the sole purpose of making fun of the author, the book's plot or main arguments, and generally making as many cutting remarks as the word limit allows. This type of review is a particular favorite of liberals reviewing books written by conservatives or of conservatives reviewing books written by liberals. These reviews have no intention of telling you anything useful about the book; rather, the entire focus of the review is on how witty and well-written the reviewer's put-downs are.

It wouldn't take Strunk and White to figure out that neither Version A or Version B is worth a thing. No one wants to approach a book review as if they are panning for gold, searching tediously for one nugget of usefulness out of a reviewer's silt. Reviews such as these don't serve the reader (or, in the end, the author or the publisher).

So why the hell do book reviewers write this way? I know why I've done it in the past -- because everyone else does.

 

Perhaps I felt that by aping everyone else's style I would manage to leap over the magic line that divides "amateur book reviewer" from "professional book reviewer;" perhaps I thought being snarky would get me hired by the New York Times Book Review; perhaps I even feared that somehow, somewhere, Harold Bloom, like the Eye of Sauron, would see if I was doing something lacking his literary blessing and strike me dead. Or, maybe, after a lifetime of reading book reviews, I simply wrote mine in an identical manner because it seemed like a good idea.

But now that I'm convinced that the format and content of the majority of book reviews aren't achieving any sort of useful purpose, it doesn't seem like a good idea anymore.

And so -- ta da! -- I am announcing a brand spanking new format for reviews on the Book Examiner page, a format inspired by the review I wrote for the Watchmen movie.

What struck me about the comments I received for that review was how readers addressed specific aspects of the film instead of unleashing the usual insipid string of "It was totally awesome" comments. Why? Because the review listed specific things for people to consider as opposed to wordy generalities. It was also set up in a way that made it easy for readers to scan the separate sections of the review, with each point standing out with its own header. The idea is that if book reviews were set up in this way, the information in them would be easier for readers to find what they are looking for, ponder it, discuss it, question it, and, ultimately, be moved to read the book themselves if they haven't. Because that's what this is all about, folks-- the love of books. And if book reviews are getting in the way of book fiends uniting with their one true love, it's time for the reviews to change.

Here are the headings that will be included in each upcoming Book Examiner review. If you see any you think are worthless or can't believe I left something so obvious out, let me know -- leave a comment below or send it to michellekerns@surewest.net.

The Book Examiner Book Review format:

Title

Author

The genre(s) this book fits most comfortably within

The basic plot

How does this author write? (this should include at least one representative sample) Whose writing is it most similar to?

What feel does the book have?

What worked magnificently

What failed miserably

How does it compare to other books within the same genre(s)?

How does it compare to the author's other books?

What books are most similar to this book?

If you like this book, you will probably like....

If you hate this book, you will probably like....

What to drink while reading this book (you knew I couldn't leave this out)

Continue your journey into the Dark Heart of Book Reviewing with The Aftermath of 'The top 20 most annoying book reviewer cliches' and 'What's the purpose of a book review?'