Following up on last week's post, here are the rest of the questions and answers I did earlier this year discussing book reviewing.
3. What does an editor want from a book reviewer (e.g., meeting deadlines, satisfying writing guidelines, etc.)?
If you can’t meet deadlines, you’re not going to last very long as a reviewer. Editors like people who are reliable and pleasant to work with. They don’t like writers who make their job harder. Anything you can do to help out an editor will make you look good in their eyes, whether that means suggesting books to review, or just turning in flawless copy on time.
One thing that I’ve learned after doing this for a while is that good writers who meet deadlines and play by the rules are going to be much more successful than great writers who do not. You may not be able to control how great a writer you are, but you can definitely control how efficient and reliable you are.
Always remember: being pleasant, courteous and dependable go a long way in this (or any other) business.
4. What do you think is the “proper” format and structure of a book review (or is there one)?
Book reviews should strike a balance between summary and analysis. At most, they should contain around 50% summary, and in many cases less is preferable. Reviews should avoid revealing key twists or surprises (the dreaded “spoilers”).
If I could offer general advice, it would be:
Reviews should start by introducing the book and/or the author, and giving a brief overview of your critical analysis. The piece should then summarize the book, giving only what information is necessary to inform the reader. It should then conclude with more in-depth analysis and a final summary of your critical opinion.
This ain’t brain surgery. Simple and straightforward is usually the best policy.
A review should not be 3 paragraphs of summary and one sentence of fuzzy analysis.
On a side note, I don't really see the need for citations from the text in book reviews, but I suppose some people might like them. (I tend to think reviewers just do it to fill space and up the word count.)
5. Should a reviewer insert personal feelings and information into a book review, and if so, how much?
This should be done on a very limited basis, if at all. (And this is probably the number one mistake that rookie reviewers make.)
Reviews that say things like, “I felt this book was good because...” tend to mean very little to me. We all know that a review is an expression of your opinion. That’s a given. So just tell us what that opinion is – and try to back it up.
Taking your review from the individual ("I think this book is good because...") to the general ("This book is good because...") makes your critique more authoritative and useful.
Write like you’re an expert, even if you’re not. Be confident and declarative in your language and tone. The use of qualifying statements and wishy-washy language ruin a review. If you can’t state a firm opinion and justify it, you have no business writing a book review.
Above all, remember that the reader isn’t particularly interested in you; they’re interested in the book and the author. So leave you out of it and focus on the book.
