Some advice on reviewing books

About a decade ago in response to some frankly vicious responses to an honest review of a bad book, the SF writer Ian Sales blogged some helpful advice on how to write a good book review:

1. A dishonest review is a bad review.
2. Not all books are good.
3. It’s not just good books that deserve reviews.
4. If a book is a bad book, it’s dishonest not to say so.
5. If a book is not a good book, it’s dishonest to refuse to review it.
6. Books can be bad for a number of reasons; most of those reasons are a result of failure of craft.
7. Reviews are not written for the author of the book being reviewed; their audience is potential readers of the book being reviewed.
8. A good review is not opinion because it will contain evidence supporting its assertions.
9. Whether or not a reviewer enjoyed a book is completely meaningless, since enjoyment is unrelated to quality and is entirely subjective.

Just one or two quibbles.

On 5: I have occasionally refused to review a book. I don’t think this is dishonest. When I review I try to find something positive to say even about books that are mostly bad. If a book is so bad that I can’t find a single redeeming feature, I then have to decide whether I need to write a review warning potential readers off or whether it would be better to starve the book of undeserved publicity by simply not reviewing it at all. (But perhaps that is a hangover from the days when I was reviews editor of an academic journal and had to make decisions about which reviews to include in the limited space available to me.)

On 6: Ian is writing about reviews of fiction. Obviously with non-fiction there are additional criteria for what makes a book bad (e.g. factual accuracy).

On 9: I don’t think enjoyment can simply be dismissed like this. For me, enjoyment is an important indication of a good book. Of course, an enjoyable read isn’t necessarily a pleasurable read. Rather I am looking for something that draws me in and compels me to read on (or, in the case of non-fiction, is thought-provoking).

Ian’s original list also included three points which were aimed at readers of reviews rather than reviewers:

• A review does not have to meet the expectations of people who have read the book being reviewed.
• A review is based on a critical reading of a book; this means the reviewer has probably put a lot more thought into their reading of it than you have.
• If you come across a negative review of a book you thought was good but you did not read the book in question critically, then you are not qualified to comment on the review’s findings.