What to read next? From the reviewer’s standpoint

Hardly a day passes where I don’t come home from work to find a review copy or ARC waiting for me, but yesterday was extra-special: several boxes from the Baltimore Sun offices were nestled outside my doorstep upon my arrival. The timing was good because of a couple of reasons: I try to think ahead to what books to consider for columns in subsequent months, but until now, I didn’t have very many galleys for books due out in March, April and beyond. Now, with dozens of books to choose from, I can make preliminary decisions about which books pass muster, and which will be relegated to the “maybe, if ever” piles.

It seems appropriate, then, to look at David Montgomery’s recent primer on his method for choosing books. It’s all well worth a read, but I would think if you’re a writer in desperate need of a review, it’s not necessarily the news you want to hear from someone who reviews books professionally for a number of outlets, including the Chicago Sun-Times. Case in point:

On the shelves next to my desk, I currently have 62 advanced galleys and 29 finished hardbacks that passed my initial sort. When I receive books (I don’t keep count but it must be at least 100 or so every month), I immediately sort them into two categories: “might read” and “won’t read.” All of the books on these shelves are in the “might read” category. (The rest are stacked in teetering piles on the other side of my office.)

(And, yes, I realize that this is the scariest part for authors – basically, your book has one chance to make the cut and, after that, probably won’t be considered again. I know it sounds harsh, but, considering the huge volume of submissions I receive, there’s really no way around it.)

Many of the books in the “might read” category never make it out of that pile to actually be read. I try my best to read as many as I can, but things like my day job and my beautiful wife keep getting in the way.

I take a similar, but slightly different approach, which I’ll detail after the jump.

When the boxes come in, I sit down in the front room and sort them into three categories: the "must-reads", written by favorite authors or have some degree of buzz that I know I’ll enjoy the book; the "possibles," books which have some compelling reason for me to consider including them in my column, and the "not likelies," which, well, are books written by folks whose work I don’t care for, who aren’t to my taste, or have some compelling reason for me to pass over them.

And yes, I make that decision very quickly. Although reviewing and criticism is an analytical skill, choosing what to read next is, for me, very instinctive. Do I guess wrong? Sometimes, but I’ve learned to trust my instincts and let them lead me to interesting and uncharted waters, and more often than not they prove me right.

So the “not likelies” are stored away, usually destined for library donation or, if I know someone who might like a particular book, mailed or given to them. The possibles” are sorted through once again to pick out titles that attract further interest the second time around. And then, the fun begins, because my “must-reads” and “possibles” usually number about 20 books or so; how do I cull it down to five?

The trick for me is balance. In an ideal column, I’ll review one "big-ticket" book, by a writer who’s a bestseller (think Jonathan Kellerman or Janet Evanovich) or noted in the crime community (Jan Burke.) I also like to have one debut novel in the mix, and even though many cozies aren’t to my tastes, that doesn’t mean I should ignore them wholesale because readers might (and should) know which are worth recommending. So if I can throw in a cozy, all the better. Same with historical mysteries, and crime in translation.

Further, I have to take into account the male/female mix, and lastly, which publishers are represented. Recently I was faced with the prospect of reviewing 3 titles from the same publisher — hell, the same imprint. That seemed rather skewed, so one of them had to get the chop, but even 2 seemed to push it. Luckily, a couple of hot properties (each from separate publishers) came my way, I wrote quick reviews of them and concluded I’d rather include those than the 2nd one from that other publisher, so it was culled as well.

Perhaps I’m more methodical (or more likely, neurotic) about how I choose books for review than others, but it’s a skill that I’ve honed more sharply over the last few months. Obviously, not every criteria I’ve listed gets satisifed, even if one book has the advantage of satisfying several of them at once. But all I can do is try.

Also important is that I mix up my reading, because it’s all too easy for me to burn out on reading books for review in consecutive fashion. So perhaps it’s ironic that in the months since I started at the Sun, I’ve actually read more mainstream or literary fiction than I did before. Or perhaps not, because in order to learn about writing, I must seek out good writers — whatever they choose to write. And I want to have as many pleasurable reading experiences as possible with a variety of different voices, so a good mixture is critical to keeping my mind fresh.

Whether reading critically or uncritically, I strive for balance. I don’t like reading two similar books in a row, so a "dark" book is usually followed by a "lighter" one, a run of crime novels interspersed with other genres, new books dotted with those by older masters or sadly out-of-print ones.

So, over to you: do you have a "magic formula" that determines what you read next? If you review, professionally or for reputable newsletters or websites, how do you maintain a good balance (if at all)? And are there books languishing on the TBR pile that you finally pick up and wish you’d read earlier?