Who should review books?

Not surprisingly, my link to Guy Johnson’s review of George Pelecanos’s new novel stirred some folks to comment about it. David Montgomery brought up a more general point related to the discussion, which is that perhaps novelists shouldn’t be assigned to review books by other fiction writers.

Well, all right then — but who should review them instead?

Reviews, at least the standalone variety and not roundups, are assigned to a particular person for any number of reasons: what they write bears some similarity to what the book is about, there’s some kind of “sensibility” that is similar (think of Zoe Heller’s cover review of Ian McEwan’s SATURDAY in this past week’s NYTBR) or there’s some hook in evidence — like, as in the above case, Guy Johnson is Maya Angelou’s son, a novelist himself and thus would be expected to expound upon the racial elements of Pelecanos’s book.

The “hook” element is even more apparent in non-fiction, where experts are asked to review books by other experts, academics review other academics, and so on and so forth.

But is this world of similarity necessary the right thing? Especially if we consider that a) reviews don’t necessarily sell books in the first place b) readers remember — maybe — that book X was reviewed in newspaper Y, and not who reviewed it and for what reason and what they thought of it and c) it’s only a handful of people who actually care why a book was assigned to a particular individual.

The bigger problem, and why I keep bitching about it here and elsewhere, is that too often an assigned review goes off on a particular tangent, caters to a specific agenda or has to do with everything else other than the book in question. All that should matter is whether the book has merit, and whether readers should buy it. There are all sorts of tricks used to fill up the space — I’m as guilty of this as anyone else — but they should be in service of that final judgment call: buy the book, or not?

And just because a person is qualified on paper to review a book doesn’t mean he or she will actually deliver on that ultimate judgment.

Look at the recent trend in the lit ‘sphere to present “book review reviews.” Mark Sarvas’s LATBR thumbnail and Ed Champion’s NYTBR Brownie Watch, as well as  similar efforts by Scott Esposito (SF Chronicle), Sam Jones (Chicago Tribune) Rake’s Progress (Denver Post) and Bookdwarf (Boston Globe). These are passionate book lovers taking a critical eye at whether the reviews they read in their local newspapers each week actually serve their proper purpose — disseminating important information about the books in question. Never mind how many litbloggers, myself included, are now reviewing regularly for major newspapers. Whether this mini-movement is real and suggestive of a change in reviewing culture remains to be seen, but I want to believe it’s an encouraging sign.

So in the end, who should review? Who are the most informed, most likely to present a qualified judgment about a particular book? And does it even matter?

UPDATE: Jim Fusilli, a novelist who knows a thing or two about reviewing, offers up a thoughtful challenge to my primary assumption:

The reviewer is under no obligation to encourage readers of the review to
buy or not buy the book under review. The reviewer is obligated to read the
book as written, analyze it versus a consistent set of standards of excellence
and present his or her opinions of the book when measured against those
standards. The reviewer’s opinions should be communicated in a manner that is respectful to the reader. The respected reader, thus informed, will decide
whether to read the book.

You are right on the mark when you question whether a novelist is qualified
to review a work simply because he or she is a novelist. (Let’s exclude
novelists who’ve written many reviews and thus have given us a chance to see what they consider consistent standards of excellence.) Unless the novelist can communicate to us his or her consistent standards of excellence that are being applied in the review, we have no idea if the novelist is attempting to achieve a measure of objectivity. If those standards or an attempt at objectivity aren’t clear in the review, it’s going to be an exercise in subjectivity. Those are rarely more useful than a simple thumbs up or down.

I’d say who reviews books matters quite a lot. Biased, unqualified or
unhelpful reviews don’t do very much harm to established writers: Those reviews, to my mind, are part of an awareness campaign by the publisher, a way of informing readers about the existence of a new book by someone who’s risen well above the pack. Unhelpful reviews hurt new authors whose work would benefit from critical analysis and exposure to readers of discerning reviews. They also hurt emerging writers by failing to give the book the kind of comparative analysis that might demonstrate its excellence.