Random thought on reviews
Dec. 4th, 2011 04:19 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
vcmwAs I have less time to read (and read fewer professional reviews, not being in the library world), I've been thinking a lot about what makes a book review useful to me. What I like best is when the reviewer situates the review for me along several axes.
I want to know whether the reviewer did or didn't like the book.
I want to know what the reviewer thought the book was trying to do AND/OR what the reviewer came to the book looking for.
AND
I want to know whether the reviewer thinks the book did a good job at what [the reviewer thinks] it was trying to do.
The professional book reviews in mags like Library Journal et al. tend to be what, 50-100 words? And are supposed to include genre and plot info, and maybe something about the series/author? The reviewer doesn't usually have time to identify their assumptions all nicely like that. The longer reviews online give many reviewers space to lay out all their reactions and assumptions. I like that.
One kind of review I see a lot of is "I liked it (or even "I loved reading it") but it wasn't good. It was a guilty pleasure / indulgence / fun trashy read / etc." And I wonder if there isn't some disconnect, then, between how the evaluations are being made along different axes. Like, the criteria that a book is being evaluated on mentally as the reviewer assesses on the "like / didn't like" axis are not the same criteria that are being evaluated on the "did a good job" axis? So that's why I think a "what I thought the book was trying to do" or "what I came to the book looking for" axis is important.
I want to know whether the reviewer did or didn't like the book.
I want to know what the reviewer thought the book was trying to do AND/OR what the reviewer came to the book looking for.
AND
I want to know whether the reviewer thinks the book did a good job at what [the reviewer thinks] it was trying to do.
The professional book reviews in mags like Library Journal et al. tend to be what, 50-100 words? And are supposed to include genre and plot info, and maybe something about the series/author? The reviewer doesn't usually have time to identify their assumptions all nicely like that. The longer reviews online give many reviewers space to lay out all their reactions and assumptions. I like that.
One kind of review I see a lot of is "I liked it (or even "I loved reading it") but it wasn't good. It was a guilty pleasure / indulgence / fun trashy read / etc." And I wonder if there isn't some disconnect, then, between how the evaluations are being made along different axes. Like, the criteria that a book is being evaluated on mentally as the reviewer assesses on the "like / didn't like" axis are not the same criteria that are being evaluated on the "did a good job" axis? So that's why I think a "what I thought the book was trying to do" or "what I came to the book looking for" axis is important.
