Good review, bad review

In a perfect world, this blog would be 100% objective about reviews because in the end, it’s just one person’s opinion about another person’s book. But sometimes I’ll run across a critique that just makes me shake my head, and it’s not necessarily for the reasons you might think.

Longtime readers of the blog are well aware of Kevin Wignall’s semi-regular presence, whether making comments or his brief turn guest-blogging a few months ago. I also like his books a hell of a lot, because they are well-written, structurally sound, and ask some very interesting moral questions which don’t always get answered easily. So when I heard that the Washington Post would be reviewing FOR THE DOGS today, I crossed my fingers, because a major paper review for what is essentially an unknown author is a pretty major deal.

I suppose I could try to look at the review as rationally as possible, and setting aside the instinctive reaction of “oh my god, this is terrible,” what annoys me is that Patrick Anderson’s review is essentially a lazy one. FOR THE DOGS is a fairly concise book–barely 200 pages–and there’s a lot of plot revealed, going deep into the second half of the book. Is that really necessary? I suppose Anderson was trying to make a point that in his estimation, the book disappointed as the plot rolled along and he had to describe each and every way it did so. But recounting each twist and turn doesn’t substitute for a thoughtful examination of what worked and what did not.

Never mind the irony of the opening paragraph:

One basic fact about the book business is that many, many more books are published than can be reviewed. In my little corner of the book universe, this means that the editors send me huge boxes of new novels and I have space to review maybe one in five of them. I try to find the best books I can, both because I don’t want to spend my time reading mediocre novels and because I want to alert readers to good books they might not find on their own. In particular, I look for the occasional gems by new or little-known writers that arrive amid all the junk.

Well, all right then. So instead of spending half of the review ticking off all the plot twists, why not spend that valuable space on another book by another “new or little-known” writer who deserves attention? Especially since Anderson’s done just that already (when he reviewed Norman Green’s WAY PAST LEGAL and the anthology LIKE A CHARM.)

In the end, of course, it’s an issue of taste (I liked the book, Anderson obviously did not) but it’s also about style. I’m reviewing fewer crime fiction releases lately in a formal manner–it goes back to the question of objectivity–but if I don’t like a book, I do at least try to explain why something didn’t work or why it did, because what may not appeal to me may pique someone else’s interest. And if I have 700 words to mess around with, then roughly half will be devoted to demonstrating my opinion to full effect.

Of course, I’ll never review Kevin’s books formally. So maybe I’ll just go back to my instinctive reaction this time around….