The Rules for Book Reviewing

One of my favorite high standard web sites  to  read is a  Melbourne, Australia based site The Conversation,  an independent source of news and views, sourced from the academic and research community and delivered direct to the public. I never fail to find something there to interest me.

Recently there was an article on   The Rules for Book Reviewing   .  which I found very interesting considering the number of WordPress posts on books which  I read each day.   They range from genuine book reviews to the more personal reactions to the book.

The writer of the article included John Updike’s rules for reviewing,

Novelist and reviewer John Updike established five useful rules which are valid today:

  1. Try to understand what the author wished to do, and do not blame them for not achieving what they did not attempt.
  2. Give them enough direct quotation – at least one extended passage – of the book’s prose so the reader can form their own impression, can get their own taste.
  3. Confirm your description of the book with quotation from the book, if only phrase-long, rather than proceeding by fuzzy precis.
  4. Go easy on plot summary, and do not give away the ending.
  5. If the book is judged deficient, cite a successful example along the same lines, from the author’s ouevre or elsewhere. Try to understand the failure. Sure it’s theirs and not yours?

I don’t attempt to write reviews so I found myself looking at these rules in relation to the blogs I read.  My main thought is that going by these rules some reviews do give away too much of the plot.  I need just enough to know if the storyline is one which will appeal to me.

And the final statement could just as easily apply to readers as well as reviewers -is my lack of enjoyment of the book a result of my failure and not the authors.  Hmmm.   Well.

I invite you to read this article.  It particularly applies to Australian reviewers but it could be interesting to all bloggers who write about their reading experiences, to see if different countries have different cultures in their book reviewing  and to see how these rules compare with their own book blogging  experiences

The Conversation

You might even find other articles which interest you.

book reviewingWe all know a good review when we read one – but what actually differentiates a good review from a bad one? Hartwig HKD, CC BY-ND

Image from Prof John Dale’s article on the Rules of Book Reviewing.

Advertisements

7 thoughts on “The Rules for Book Reviewing

  1. I wrote book reviews for different journals for several years and their protocols were different. Basically in 250 words I had to give a brief overview of the plot (a couple of sentences), discuss any particular concerns or issues, spotlight any standout aspects, and then tie the book to other possible books. My blog reviews tend to be more in the realm of reaction versus true review. Not sure which is better–review or reaction.

    • They sound like good guide-lines. At least with the blogs we get to read a variety of reviews/reactions compared to when all we had were the newspaper reviews. I rarely read a book these days that I haven’t been introduced to by a blogger.

      • I subscribe to a handful of book lover sites that keep me in the loop about upcoming books, yet many of my reads do come from reading blogger views .

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s