Faint Praise: The Plight of Book Reviewing in America

Introduction

Publications in general, i.e. all “documents”, are frequently edited, evaluated, peer‐evaluated, criticized, and of course generally reviewed in journals. Numerous publications exist related to these processes – and here is another fine contribution to this genre.

Pool's book is indeed “fabulous” – at least from my viewpoint after publishing the past decades 300 plus book reviews. Yet, Pool warns her readers of over‐praising any book! To paraphrase/quote from the outside back advertisement: “For more than two hundred years, book reviewers have influenced American readers, setting our literary agenda by helping us determine not only what we read but also what we think about what we read. And for nearly as long, critics of these critics have lambasted book reviews for their overpraise, hostility, banality, and bias.” Yet, I have to maintain without reservations that Pool's book offers a superb overview of one tricky social phenomenon and a “hard and long‐overdue look at the institution of reviewing” to anyone involved in writing, editing, researching, peer‐reviewing, and of course book‐reviewing. It is an eye‐opener, and will not only amuse you, perhaps infuriate you depending on where you are within the writing‐publishing system, but definitely will influence you! The “book is not just for those who create and review books but also for everyone who loves books. By demystifying this hidden process, Pool helps everyone understand how to read reviews – and better decide what to read”. Pool “analyzes point‐by‐point the inner workings of this troubled trade to show how it works – and why it so often fails to work well”. She “reveals why bad reviewing happens despite good intentions and how it is that so many intelligent people who love books can say so many unintelligent things on their behalf”.

“Reviewers have the power to award prestige to authors, give prominence to topics, and shape opinion and taste; yet most readers have little knowledge of why certain books are selected for review, why certain reviewers are selected to review them, and why they so often praise books that are not all that good.” Pool takes readers “behind the scenes to describe how editors choose books for review and assign them to reviewers and she examines the additional roles played by publishers, authors, and readers”. In describing the context of reviewing, she “reveals a culture with little interest in literature, much antipathy to criticism, and a decided weakness for praise”. In dissecting the language of reviews, Pool “demonstrates how it often boils down to unbelievable hype”.

Pool “explores the multifaceted world of book reviewing today, contrasting traditional methods of reviewing with alternative book coverage, from Amazon.com to Oprah, and suggesting how the more established practices could be revised”. She “also explores the divide between service journalism practiced by reviewers versus the alleged high art served up by literary critics – and what this fuzzy boundary between reviewing and criticism really means. This is the first book[1] to analyze the field in depth, weighing the inherent difficulties of reviewing against the unacceptable practices that undermine the very reasons we read – and need reviews.” So much, for the author's and publishers' well‐phrased introduction, which will be supported by the following comments.

Caveats

Several aspects the reader must be aware of: Pool is dealing mainly with reviewing of books of the humanities and the arts (using these as collective or generic terms, i.e. all fiction types), with a few comments about scientific/technological or non‐fiction book reviewing. The latter style of reviewing exhibits characteristics which are similar to that of fiction books, but also many differences as it may overlap with peer‐reviewing (see below).

Certainly, reviewing of the works of technical non‐fiction writers must be “less emotional” and “more factual” to be of any pragmatic use! Is that really true? No, according to many reviews exemplified (Rose, 1988)

Here Rose made some interesting “opinionated”, even amusing, comments related to reviewing (paraphrasing): “there is both a pleasure and frustration in writing book reviews. The pleasure is in sounding off about topics that interest you, praising or damning author and book as wittily as possible on route … frustration is the measly 1,000‐odd words which is all most review editors have to spare … how nice to be allowed an essay length review … even better to have your reviews collected into a book … as those of Gould's essays … yet there must always be a question mark about republishing book reviews years after they first appeared”.

Contents

The eight chapters are entitled: 1. Introduction: the Reviewer's Lament; 2. Unnatural Selection; 3. Vermin, Dogs, and Woodpeckers; 4. The Match; 5. Getting it Right; 6. Private Opinions; Public Forum; 7. Are Book Reviews Necessary?; and 8. Improving the Trade. Eight pages of Notes and 14 pages of an excellent Bibliography plus eight pages of an Index follow. The text has no sub‐headlines. The only qualm I have from a non‐fiction reviewer's viewpoint is that I always like a longer text divided into sub‐headed shorter sections, with the sub‐headlines listed in the main Contents allowing a quick overview.

Broader context of reviewing

• •

  Book reviewing may be one genre (sub‐genre), and is closely related to literary criticism, although there are differences as deliberated by Pool. She even compares/contrasts “creative writing” with “reviewing”. See also comments on academic criticism, arts criticism, criticism v. reviewing, film reviewing, online reviewing, and theater reviewing.

• •

  Another context comes to mind: namely “peer‐reviewing”. This non‐fiction‐publication process is complex, often controversial, and has been described and debated in many books, chapters, and uncountable articles. Although “peer‐reviewing” concentrates chiefly on evaluating research programs, it also is extensively involved in reviewing or judging scientific theses, reports, books, and monographs, as well as chapters and journal articles. Thus, “peer‐reviewing” may range along a spectrum from “academic peer‐reviewing” and “theses‐reviewing” (e.g. my PhD thesis was “reviewed” by an overseas external reviewer) to “book/article reviewing”. Peer‐reviewers may do well to read Pool“s book!

• •

  An American journalist's (and National Politics writer, New York Times, Matt Bai) talk here in Australia (June 2008), dealing with the quality of websites and blogs, compels me to list these information media as a third exemplar where it is utterly necessary for “online opinions” to undergo the writer‐scrutiny advanced by James! (Bai, 2007).

Readership

The above analysis indicates that Pool's fine book addresses just about anyone involved in writing, editing, reviewing, criticism, journalism, blogging, teaching, and publishing as well as research and peer‐reviewing on any level of specialization within the social hierarchy, including undergraduates and post‐graduate students.