On Book Reviewing

At my day job, I stand in front of first-year college students and allegedly teach them the rules of writing. Like a lot of people in that position, I can’t totally shut up the little voice in the back of my head that tells me I’m a fraud for thinking I can do this when every day I learn something new about the subject myself. So I’m similarly uneasy writing my thoughts on book reviewing now, but please understand that the following are just that, thoughts. Some of them overlap with Alyse’s excellent advice, some are my idiosyncrasies. We all approach book reviewing differently, and that’s what makes this section of LAR consistently strong. As we move into our new format, we have an opportunity to make the book reviews section even better, and I am looking forward to working with you all to do so.

1. Critique the Writing, Not the Writer: In his essay “The Moody Blues,” Dale Peck begins his hatchet job with the following sentence: “Rick Moody is the worst writer of his generation.” Peck’s essays are less book reviews than they are condemnations of the banal cocoon-culture of mainstream literary criticism, and this delicious hyperbole is totally appropriate for what he’s trying to accomplish. It’s insightful, mean, and hilarious. But again, Peck isn’t really writing book reviews. This isn’t to say that book reviews can’t be critical. We owe that to our readers. But being critical also means being generous and meeting the book on its own terms. If the plot of a novel doesn’t really hang together, but the prose is gorgeous, mention both. But don’t speculate on the author’s intelligence. As soon as you do, you invite readers to question yours. And if you’re not Dale Peck, good luck with that.

2. Make Comparisons: I’m currently reading Gaute Heivoll’s Before I Burn, a Norwegian novel about arson and families that Graywolf Press is publishing in translation. It’s slow, but not boring. Many of the characters are only partially-figured, but all feel fully human. And the crimes at the heart of the novel somehow manage to be more painful than they are violent. For these reasons, Heivoll’s book reminds me a lot of Graham Greene’s “serious” fiction. This is something I’ll mention in my review, both to show how much I think of the book, but also to give readers a sense of what to expect without ruining all of the fun of discovery. Small presses are publishing some phenomenal work and are slowly gaining the recognition they deserve. We can help continue this by putting these authors in conversation with other authors and styles our readers might already know.

3. Quote the Text: Our reviews tend to range from being relatively short to extremely short. Writing capsule reviews in particular is an art in itself. It can be difficult to capture what makes a book worth reading in 250 words, but at the very least we want to give our audience a sense of what they’ll be getting into. Showing the reader a bit of the prose or verse can often do this better than telling them about it. However, as with all things, quote from the text in moderation in order to avoid blowing up the structure of your review.

4. Be Yourself and Control the Review: Oscar Wilde famously remarked that “[t]he highest as the lowest form of criticism is a mode of autobiography.” In other words, it’s inevitable that your reviews will be a reflection of who you are as a reader and writer, so go with it. Yes, we have a certain style here at LAR, but the reason that you write for us is that you’ve shown yourself capable of having a distinct point of view within those guidelines. So don’t try and sound more academic, more casual, or more experimental. Simply allow your writing to be the things that reflect your feelings about the book you’re reviewing. And above all else, remember that you are in charge of the review, not the book or its author. All you owe anyone else is honesty and generosity of spirit. So take chances and be interesting.

Dan Pecchenino is LAR’s Assistant Book Review Editor.