[Rory Waterman]

Marybeth, I've regretted some of my own reviews in the past, and learned from the experience. A harsh review of a virtual unknown can leave a very bitter taste in the mouth - what's the point? However, some poets are well enough known to be able to take it in stride, and should be able to swat off negative criticism with ease, should they receive it. And if they can't, that really is their problem.

[Rick Mullin]

The gist of my withdrawal above--Poetry reviews, I find, often suffer from much of what makes post-1940s art criticism and the "Art World" such a headache: The tendency of the critic to go "outside the frame," if you will, and the subsequent need for reader of the review to grasp an esoteric, "insider" language of art criticism. This is not to say that a reviewer shouldn't bring scholarship to bear on a review. Literary context is very important. But there is a point at which referencing becomes mere name-dropping and the review becomes exclusionary. In essence, the review should, like a work of literature, invite the reader in.

NB: Now that I've had something reviewed and written a review or two, I've learned that it is not only appropriate but also important for the person whose book is reviewed to thank the reviewer or the editor for taking the time to review the book.

[Nicholas F.]

Frank. Honest. Unconcerned with sales. Entertaining for one reason or another.

[Rick Mullin]

To clarify my first note on the commercial aspect above...Nick is right, of course. The reviewer and publisher have no business selling books. But I, as a reader of book reviews, am often prompted to read the book reviewed. And, certainly, the poet reviewed hopes to be read as a result of the review. If this means dirty money changes hands, well, that's not such a bad thing. There is no real money in this game anyway. But, yes. Honest. And Frank. And Jim and Sally.

[Marybeth Rua-Larsen]

Rick -- would you be comfortable publicly (or privately) linking to a review that goes "outside" of the frame? I have (and do) read reviews, but I would like to understand fully what you mean. Thanks.

Very succinct, Nick!

Since the purpose of a review is largely to call attention to a particular work (right?), whether positively (or negatively), one obvious outcome would be that people buy the book, investigate it further with the possibility of buying it, or decide it's not for them and do nothing..isn't it? I don't think it can be denied that reviews influence sales to some degree, and I find it hard not to think about that when I'm writing them. It doens't influence what I write (objectivity and honesty are paramount), but it does influence whether I write or not.

It's my daughter's birthday, and I'll be away the rest of the day, but I find this discussion very interesting and helpful.

marybeth

[Maryann Corbett]

I've written several reviews/essays over the last few months, and I've also declined a couple on various grounds. While I'd never want to be baldly shilling for a book, I think Nick's phrase "unconcerned with sales" is a little overbroad. I want a good book to find its most receptive readers. Even if I'm not crazy about a book, or if I like some aspects and not others, I want to represent it in a way that makes clear what part of the review-reading audience might like it, regardless of what I think. Plain description of the poet's subject matter and style, apart from any words of praise or blame, can do a lot.

[Nicholas F.]

Rick,

I think we agree here.

Maryann,

What I meant is perhaps less extreme than what came across: When I write a positive review, the goal is to praise the work. Whether or not a reader of my review takes that praise as initiative to buy the book in question is their business (pardon the pun). I'd rather be a highly opinionated writer for Consumer Reports than Ron Popeil. I make my biases clear per se.

Nick

[Rick Mullin]

Marybeth: Well, I can't think of an online link to a review to illustrate my gripe. But, anything that gets into po-biz speak, or uses the term po-biz, is in the category. I can find a LOT of examples in art criticism, which I read more regularly, of manufactured critical language and criteria. Generally, my problem is with anthing that focuses me more on the reviewer or on his or her scholarship or on his or her faction's manifesto than on the work at hand. Certainly anything with esoteric critical language that excludes the average educated reader is, like, a real turn-off.

Thanks for not asking me the names of the people who didn't thank me lavishly for the wonderful reviews I've written. ~,:^)

[R. Nemo Hill]

It is that utilitarian angle which, if fore-fronted too much, reduces a review to the formulaic. Too often the format of a review is dictated by its practical purpose. It's that template that I find boring. Whereas an essay can be more surprisingly roundabout in its assessments.

Nemo

[Nicholas F.]

Do you like Jarrell's essays, Nemo? They're sort of a hybrid, as you describe it. I return often to No Other Book.