The best book
reviews are the ones that avoid the pitfall of objectivity because in reviewing
books there no such thing. Sure, there are good comparisons to give a sense of
objective placement – this book is similar to that one, the author writes
dialogue like that other author, the prose resembles so-and-so’s – but when it
comes to the quality of the book objectivity is mostly out the window. Rather
than claiming to provide an objective perspective, a good review claims to
provide the author’s perspective and then argues it well. Here’s why claims of
objectivity should not be trusted.
Every reader
intersects a book at a certain period of life, and this intersection is the
great determiner of the impact that book has. I read To Kill a Mockingbird in high school and was bored. My review would
have been “like most literary classics this book rides the coattails of its own
reputation with no real merit” or something like that. But I read it again when
I was 25 and now consider it to be one of the best works of fiction I’ve ever
stumbled across. That’s because I was in a period of life with enough added
maturity and perspective to appreciate it. And it wasn’t homework the second
time.
The expectation
level a reader brings to a book does a great service or disservice to it. Low
expectations set a book up well to surprise whereas expectations of greatness
are awfully hard to fulfill. So when a reviewer says a book was a
disappointment we have to consider what he expected. And a truly good reviewer
will tell you what he expected if he proclaims disappointment. The converse is
also true. If a reviewer is “pleasantly surprised” he ought to explain what he
expected to begin with and how the book surpassed those expectations. I was
pleasantly surprised at my second reading of To Kill a Mockingbird because my expectations were based on high
school homework boredom.
Books are not a one size fits all. The readers
own preferences and expectations must be taken into account when reading a
review. I may have found a certain book on writing to be the most helpful
resource to date and my review would state that. But that doesn’t mean it would
be the most helpful for everybody, so it behooves me as a reviewer to give
clear explanation of what was helpful
in the book so readers of the review will know whether that’s the resource that
will suit their individual needs.
And of course,
most broadly, reviewer preference, opinion, and pet peeve must be considered.
This takes time to discern unless the reviewer is overtly honest in saying
things like “I despise happy endings; they’re so trite” or “I love everything
that flows from the pen of George R.R. Martin.” As you read a reviewer over
time you’ll figure out which types of books tend to rise to the top, which authors
are favorites or whipping boys, and which topics are especially dear to the
reviewer (for good or ill). In this way you build a bit of a trust (mistrust?)
relationship with the reviewer. You’ll learn that, just like you always get
your produce from Trader Joes, so you will always get fiction reviews from this
reviewer and just like you never get your cereal from Trader Joes you will
never get biography reviews from him.
A good reviewer
is honest as to his preferences. He is clear in his assessments and pointed in
his explanations for them. He doesn’t shy away from making his opinions known
or making it known that they are but opinions. But after he does that he
defends them with both clear argument and vigor. If he can’t or doesn’t he is
nothing more than a yapping opinion monger, but if he does it well he is worth paying attention to because,
whether or not you agree with him, you will have learned some very clear
lessons about that book.
