Crime Fiction Dossier

Here me speak: A Critic Perspective, Picks, Pans, and Pitfalls

It goes without saying that the most elite writings can be presented in a form of a speech. I'll be giving a talk on April 3 to The Writer's Center as part of their "Leesburg First Friday" program, held in Leesburg, VA. The title of the talk is A Critic Perspective, Picks, Pans, and Pitfalls (yes, I'm aware that isn't particularly grammatical, but it wasn't my title). It'll go from 7:30pm to 9:30pm.

Here's the description:

Join us for a discussion of the state of book reviewing today, and find out how it works on a practical level. Learn to avoid the common writing problems critics often see, and discover how authors can increase their chances of getting books reviewed. Hint: It does not involve bribery with wine or chocolate.

If that doesn't sound riveting...Well, I can't help you.

I'm open to suggestions (preferably non-profane ones), so if you have any thoughts on what would make good discussion points for this talk, please send them along.

Ask the Critic: Why don't you review self-published novels?

An anonymous self-published author asks:

Why don't you review self-published novels along with the traditionally published books?

The short answer is: time and quality.

The long answer is that I don't have enough time to read but a fraction of the trade-published crime novels released in the U.S. each year. That number is somewhere around 2000 books per annum. Out of all those I read maybe 120 or so -- figure 10 a month*. The other 94% of crime novels, I don't have a chance to read.

That's a stunning number of books that it's simply impossible for me to get to. Now imagine if I were to add all the self-published novels to that figure. I can't imagine how many of them there are, but surely that number is in the high hundreds if not thousands. When would I have the time to read any of them? So I have to draw a line somewhere. (More later on why I draw the line here.)

The second aspect of time has to do with reviews. I review five books each month in my Chicago Sun-Times column. It takes a lot of books to get down to that five; at a minimum the 10 books per month mentioned earlier. Since newspapers generally won't run reviews of self-published novels, and since the majority of my reading is driven by my review obligations, I can't afford to give up any of the slots in my reading schedule to them.

The other factor, and this is why I draw the line where I do, is quality. In my experience the overall quality level of self-published fiction is not sufficiently high for the books to be given serious consideration. This is not to say that all self-published fiction is bad. The law of probability alone would indicate that at least some of it must be readable. But the vast majority of it is not.

There are many reasons for this (e.g., self-published fiction has no third-party vetting, most of it is not professionally edited, much of it was already rejected by agents/editors for a variety of reason), but the bottom line is that most self-published fiction just isn't very good.

I used to consider self-published fiction -- I even reviewed two books that I can recall. But those were the only two out of scores of books that I looked at. The rest weren't worthy of consideration. And nothing I've seen in the intervening years has compelled me to change my mind.

So that's it in a nutshell. I wish I had the time to read more books or were somehow able to read faster. But even if that were the case, I'd have to increase my productivity by an order of magnitude before I could even consider adding self-published novels to the mix.

*Note: Over the past three years I've averaged about 13 books read per month. That accounts for the new crime fiction mentioned above, along with older crime fiction and a limited amount of science fiction, non-fiction and other assorted stuff. But not much of it.

The confines of the crime genre

I read Janet Maslin's laudatory review of Dennis Lehane's new book, The Given Day, yesterday in the Times. It's an interesting, thoughtful review and made me consider reading the book, although I haven't been overly enamored with Lehane's work in the past.

One line leapt out of me from the review and stuck with me: "He has written a majestic, fiery epic that moves him far beyond the confines of the crime genre."

I've been thinking about that statement since I read it, wondering exactly what the confines of the crime genre are. And near as I can come up with, a crime novel has to have a crime (either past or future) play an important part in the plot, or else it somehow has to deal with crime or the aftermath of crime in a significant way. Other than that, I think anything is fair game.

As I indicated, I haven't read The Given Day. But judging by the description and the reviews I've read, the book involves the lives of police officers, a terrorist attack, spying, bomb-throwing anarchists, suspense, corruption, anti-union violence...Well, damn, that sounds a lot like a crime novel to me.

It's almost like Ms. Maslin (and I wouldn't be surprised if other critics wrote something similar) is embarrased to admit that she really liked and admired a book of significant literary achievement -- that just happened to be a crime novel.

We saw some of this reaction earlier this year with Richard Price's superb Lush Life, another novel of literary prowess that, oh yeah, was a crime novel.

This idea seems particularly strange coming from Maslin, as she so often reviews crime fiction, frequently quite favorably. (And has even been known to gush in a somewhat unseemly manner over the novels she's particularly taken with.) So why the resistance at acknowledging that a book can be great, literary and a crime novel, with no contradictions inherent therein?

Online vs. print reviewing

The subject of online vs. print reviewing has been much debated in recent months, fueled by the devastating erosion of print outlets for book coverage. A piece on the Literary Saloon summarizes some of the recent discussion.

The piece includes a quote that I found interesting: "In certain areas Internet coverage has long superseded newspaper coverage: review-coverage of genre books (mystery, science fiction, romance) is far superior in range and, for the most part, quality than what can be found in newspapers."

I began as an online reviewer before moving into print and I have continued to write in both mediums for over five years now. But I have yet to discover an online outlet that consistently covers the crime genre with the skill that print critics like Patrick Anderson, Oline Cogdill or Janet Maslin (to name just a few) bring to the table.

Granted, there is far, far more coverage of crime novels online than there is in print. But is it better in quality? That's where I am less convinced. There are several sites that do an admirable job of covering the genre as it relates to publishing, trends, gossip, comings-and-goings and assorted matters -- things that seldom get written about in print. But what about reviews?

I think there certainly can be great reviewing done online -- and, hopefully, eventually there will be. But I also think that as long as there isn't a monetary component to online reviewing, it's going to be difficult to have truly fine critics producing top-quality, professional work.

Book reviews still matter

Random House and Zogby did a poll of the reading and book-buying habits of over 8,000 adults. They generated some interesting results -- for example, only 11% of respondents said they are comfortable reading books in non-traditional formats, such as online or with an e-book reader or PDA -- so it's worth taking a look at.

Here's one stat that I found especially interesting: "When asked what makes them want to buy a book, 60% said suggestions from friends and family members, while nearly half (49%) said they are influenced by book reviews." (emphasis mine)

So reviews are definitely still having an impact. If only the people running newspapers and magazines would listen.

How to ask for a book review

I made a post a while back on how not to talk to book reviewers. Now here's one on how you should. (I've written about this before, but it never hurts to repeat.)

1. Know who the reviewer is. If you don't know who you're asking for a review, then why are you writing to them?

2. Address the person by name. At least have the good manners to find out who you're writing to. (And if you're going to do this by mail merge, at least make sure it's not blatantly obvious.)

3. State upfront why you're writing. For example: "I'm a mystery author with a new book coming out and I'm hoping for a review." (You can say it more elegantly than that.)

4. Give the pertinent details: Author's name, book title, publisher, format (hardback, paperback, etc.), publication date.

5. Include a short synopsis. No more than a couple sentences.

6. Briefly include any interesting hook that might appeal to that reviewer: you're a local author, it's a debut novel, you're an FBI agent, you just won the Edgar. (If you don't have a cool hook, nevermind. You don't have to have one.)

Things you shouldn't include:

1. Blurbs.

2. Press release.

3. Excerpts from other reviews.

4. Long summaries.

5. Attachments.

6. Claims that this is the best book I'll ever read (and other assorted puffery).

Remember: your goal is to make it as easy as possible for the reviewer to say yes. Reviewers always have many more books than they can possibly read, much less review, and they also tend to be cranky SOBs. Don't give them a reason to say no before they've even considered the book.

How not to talk to reviewers

I get emails almost every day from authors, telling me about their books, asking for reviews, etc. And that's fine. I make my email address public and easy to find so that people can always get in touch with me. I like hearing from writers, readers, etc. That's part of why I do this.

Occasionally, though, those emails do more harm than good. Obviously, the crackpots who demand that I review their PublishAmerica masterpiece -- and then just won't let it go -- are among the worst. But sometimes even well-meaning authors say the wrong thing.

For example, I find it irritating when I get a message that reads:

"You should have received a copy of my new book by now. I look forward to reading your review."

Or, even worse:

"I hope you enjoyed reading my book. Please let me know when the review will appear."

I don't know if this is something they teach in management school, or whether some advice guru suggested it or what, but it's annoying.

I am not susceptible to the Jedi Mind Trick. I will not review your book just because you sent it to me. (I get a couple hundred books a month and only review a handful of them.) Most of the time, I can't even read your book. I wish I could. I wish I could read everything and write about most of it. But that's not reality.

Contacting reviewers is fine. Asking if they received the books is fine. (Although you may not get a response.) Anything more than that is probably not a good idea.

Negative reviews

In the comments section of the post below about Why books get reviewed, Paul Guyot asks the following:

Why do you think -- at least in the mystery/crime world -- that the "bad" review has become so rare?

I'm not talking about being mean or nasty, etc. I'm talking about a critic doing their job: reviewing both good and bad books. Why did that die?

It's a good question, and one I've been thinking about a lot over the past few months since this came up in a discussion. Because I think it's true: there aren't very many negative reviews written of crime novels, and there probably should be.

So here's what I've come up with. There are several factors that come into play at various times. Not all of these would apply to any particular reviewer, or any particular book. But at least some of them affect all of us.

• To write a negative review, you have to finish reading the book. If the book stinks, you don't want to finish reading it. This is the main reason I don't write more negative reviews. There are so many books waiting to be read that I hate spending the time reading something when I don't think it's any good.
• Lack of review space. With the significant decline in space devote to books coverage, there is pressure to use that coverage to promote the good rather than pan the bad. I can't really argue with that decision. If I have to choose between recommending a good book or scorning a bad book, I'll nearly always choose the former.
• Lousy books aren't very interesting to write about. If a book is spectacularly bad, then maybe there's some good material there. But if a book is simply mediocre -- and this is the case for most of the bad books published -- then there's not really a lot to be said about it. Writing a review of a book that's bad, but only in a dull sort of way, is nearly as tedious as reading it -- and the review wouldn't be much fun to read either.
• Nobody likes negative reviews. The publisher, the publicist, the author, the people at the newspaper, even the readers themselves -- just pan a high-profile book, especially one that other people liked, and watch the hate mail come in. So there is no encouragement to write them, but there is encouragement to write positive reviews. (Note: I'm not saying this is a reason not to write negative reviews. But I believe it does influence people.)
• Praise inflation. After reading 5 books in a row that aren't very good, even a halfway decent book will seem good by comparison. Thus, books that might otherwise receive negative or mixed reviews get edged up the quality scale.
• The "out on a limb" factor. It takes a certain amount of self-assuredness, and confidence in one's taste, to go out on a limb and state that a book other people like sucks. It's easy to doubt your instincts when you hate a book that other people are proclaiming is great. Nobody wants to look like an idiot. So it can be easier just to keep your mouth shut.
• "Bandwagonism." There is a certain herd mentality among reviewers, some of whom are a little too eager to jump on board and praise whatever or whomever is getting the most buzz. Janet Maslin raves about an author in the Times? A lot of reviewers follow. An unknown author is suddenly the flavor of the month? The reviewers come out of the woodwork to praise her, eager to show that they, too, are part of the in-crowd.
• It can be hard to publicly proclaim that a book someone worked really hard on is not very good. This is a tough one for me. Even if I know in my heart that a book stinks, it's hard for me to tell everybody that. I think it's part of our culture -- you know the old saying, "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all?" Well, I was raised to believe that. And it can be hard to overcome. Some critics get off on uncapping the poisoned pen, but I don't care for it myself.

What do you folks think, as readers? Do you want to see more negative reviews? Would you pay attention to them? Would you rather have a reviewer tell you that Book A is awesome or Book B is horrible?

Why books don't get reviewed

In an effort to find out why books don't get reviewed (and why they do), I convened a meeting of the Critics Cabal, that super-secret organization of book reviewers that actually controls the publishing world. Cabal members in attendance included myself, Carol Memmott, Oline Cogdill, Sarah Weinman, Tod Goldberg, Hallie Ephron, Dick Lochte and Clea Simon.

I posed to them a two-part question: Why do books get reviewed? Why don't books get reviewed? Here are some of the responses to the second question. (The first question was dealt with in a separate post.)

• NOT ENOUGH BOOK REVIEW SPACE.
• Too many books are published. "Little" books in particular get lost in the shuffle.
• The book is mediocre. Most critics aren't looking to write ho-hum reviews of so-so books.
• It has a lousy beginning. (Critics tend to stop reading books soon if the first 50 pages or so don't grab them.)
• Weak writing. (One-dimensional characters, reliance on clichés, hackneyed dialogue, profligate use of adverbs, muddled POV, etc.)
• Unappealing subject matter. (This varies from critic to critic, but such topics as serial killers, children-in-jeopardy books, and novels featuring torture were cited.)
• The author's last book wasn't very good or very popular. (Although if the book was spectacularly bad, the new one might get reviewed.)
• Series novels in which the protagonist doesn't change/develop over time. (Robert B. Parker's Spenser novels were cited.)
• The author or publicist is annoying. (Constant pestering, phone calls, bad b.o., etc.)
• It's a PBO, POD or some other set of initials; it was self-published, vanity-published, not-really-published. (Note: These factors vary somewhat from critic to critic. For example, I review PBOs, as do some of the others.)
• The book received no publisher support. If nobody's heard of it, it probably won't get reviewed.
• There's no art available for the book. (Virtually every newspaper runs art of either the book or the author with a review. If none is available, the review gets scrapped.)
• And that oldie but a goodie...The reviewer never received a copy of the book.

Why books get reviewed

In an effort to find out why books get reviewed (and why they don't), I convened a meeting of the Critics Cabal, that super-secret organization of book reviewers that actually controls the publishing world. Cabal members in attendance included myself, Carol Memmott, Oline Cogdill, Sarah Weinman, Tod Goldberg, Hallie Ephron, Dick Lochte and Clea Simon.

I posed to them a two-part question: Why do books get reviewed? Why don't books get reviewed? Here are some of the responses to the first question. (The second question will be dealt with in a separate post.)

• It's a great book. Critics are always looking for interesting, exciting, original, excellent books to write about.
• The author is notable, well-regarded, an award-winner, trying something new (see Benjamin Black), doesn't publish very often (see Richard Price), has interesting credits, etc. Basically, there's something about the author that calls out, "We need to review this book."
• Something about the book is new/different/unusual. Could be the characters, the setting, the basic outline of the plot, the topic (especially true for non-fiction).
• It's the "buzz book" du jour. Some books get reviewed because everyone is talking about them, reviewing them, etc.
• It's by a debut author. (Nearly everyone responded that they're always on the lookout for great books by new authors.)
• It's by a local author. Chicago authors are more likely to get reviewed in the Chicago papers, New England authors in the Boston papers, etc. This also applies somewhat to authors who will be appearing in the area.
• It received really favorable pre-publication reviews (PW, Kirkus or Booklist).
• It was recommended by a trusted publicist, editor, author or critic. Critics are influenced by word-of-mouth just like everyone else. (One person specifically mentioned the books that Stephen King recommends.)
• It has significant publisher support, advertising, etc.
• And finally..."Sometimes, I just like the cover." (Yes, this really does matter. Unfortunately, many galleys don't actually have covers on them, just plain paper wraps.)

To sum up, the reasons why books get reviewed fall mostly into three broad categories:

• The quality of the book
• Who the author is
• Pre-publication buzz

Only one of those is something that authors really have control over. So what's the best advice I can give you on how to get reviewed? Write a great book. Next up: Why books don't get reviewed.