Yes, what I know of them so far.

Nemo

Clarification No.2

By "outside the frame," I mean outside the world of the book being reviewed. A framed picture metaphor. This is not a reference to a framework for writing reviews. The reviewer can go all over the place, as far as I'm concerned, as long as it has to do with his or her experience of the book.

I actually don't know where one draws the line between "review" (a good review, that is) and "essay."

RM

Rory's point about log-rolling is important. We generally try to do the match between book under review and reviewer ourselves.

Where the book review can be important lies not merely in boosting sales (I tend to think the boost pretty modest, anyway), but in getting a conversation going--discussions, in public, about authors and their books. And reviews that aren't knee-jerk positive, but admit, as is true of virtually any collection, that a reader likes some aspects more than others--now that's something one can chew on, write about in letters to the editor, etc. (Why don't more people do the latter?)

Reviews and/or essays, in or "outside the frame", of Lines of Flight would be greatly appreciated by the author ;) .

Just be sure to thank the reviewer.

Rick I had no idea that it was good etiquette to thank the reviewer. Not that the occasion has arisen for me to do so, but that information might someday prevent me from making a faux pas. But do you mean that even if the book is shot down, the poet should roll over and say "thanks"?

Signed
Ignorant

Especially if the book is shot down.

A simpler view
 

IMHO, traditional reviews were essays with a limited scope: "Is this opus worth your while?" In the Age of Solipsism that changed to "Was this opus worth my while?" Today, reviews are written in the first person, not the second. Modern reviews rarely feature many examples or technical analyses because the critics don't need to convince themselves and don't feel mandated to convince us. IME, most reviews are comprised of some annotation and twelve different clever ways to say "I liked/disliked it."

To me, a sampling would be better than the author-centered reviews we encounter nowadays but a reader-centered review can put things in perspective, if only by specifying whether the poem being cited is typical or not. I see nothing wrong with a reviewer saying "I wish the collection included more efforts like this one: "

-o-

I don't know if conveying personal experience is "solipsism." The reviewer can't tell me if it's worth my while if he or she doesn't convey his or her feelings about the book. Doing so does not preclude technical analysis. And remember, second person is only one step away from third person! The writer in the first person lets me be the second. I like that.

It's never inappropriate to thank someone for their time and thought. Reviews certainly take time and thought. And the fact that a thank-you isn't obligatory or expected--especially if the review was negative--just makes the gesture that much more appreciated.

I also think it's appropriate to take the opportunity of a thank-you note to address negative aspects of the review in a professional and non-confrontational way...and certainly to draw errors to the reviewer's attention. One of the authors of a book I reviewed sent me an immediate (and sincere) email thanking me for presenting my negative comments as matters of taste with which other readers might disagree, and then politely mentioned two minor errors I'd made--one in my transcription of a poem excerpt, the other more complicated. Since the review was published in an online venue, I was able to contact the editor and perform damage control within a few hours of the review's appearance--a win-win-win situation for reviewer, reviewee, and readers.

On the other hand, a vindictive little tantrum disguised as a thank-you note would not have gone over as well.