[Rory Waterman]

I review for the TLS a fair bit, and the space given to poetry book reviews is understandably limited. They fit a fair few in, though, by limiting most po-book reviews to either 400 or 800 words, or something like that, with the odd longer piece. This seems very sensible to me, and a reviewer really can give a good flavour of a collection in a few hundred words. It limits room for digressions, of course, and does not allow the reviewer to impose their personality. But I've almost never read a bad or unintelligent review in the TLS, and their longer pieces are often superb. Better than the books, probably, most of the time.

I love longer reviews and review-essays, of course; they can be a great pleasure to read. Gawd bless The Dark Horse and PN Review, the two best poetry mags I know for smart, longer reviews with bite and verve. At New Walk we try to do both: little, sharp reviews and long, ranging ones. I've felt a little squeamish about some of the reviews and opinion pieces we've published, and I don't always agree with them, but review and comment sections should - must - be more than knocking shops for third-rate poets.

As for the formulaic advertising aspect: I'd never review, for any publication, a collection whose author I considered a friend. I wouldn't be subjective, and nor is anyone who does this. And when people send us (at New Walk) copies of books in the hope of a review and they recommend potential reviewers who are likely to 'understand' the collection, I feel as though I'm being implicated in a nasty-nice little culture of ineffective back-scratching. I don't trust the intentions behind most poetry book reviews - not as a reader. I would also never review a book by someone after they had reviewed mine - or at least I don't think I would. I don't yet have a book, so I can afford to make such a remark without having to worry about it! I don't say these things to criticise what others do - but I believe in what I say.

Does reading reviews make me want to buy books? I love reading reviews on their own terms; but sometimes it does.