Julie says it all.

A painter friend of mine (with a career) has been reviewed in The New York Times and other prominent publications for years. He never thanked the reviewers, or at least not until late in his career, thinking it was somehow inappropriate to do so. He says he regrets this because he really was thankful. He also realized it helps build important connections. The second consideration, like the dirty money, is not a bad thing.

I've been contacted a few times about reviews I've written, and a few more about reviews I've published - most recently from Andrew McNeillie, which was a delight. His last book (In Mortal Memory, Carcanet, 2010) is excellent, by the way. I'd love to hear from some others, and I think my own tendency will be to try to thank my reviewers for their time, if it seems appropriate. But once you make contacting reviewers a protocol you're immediately back in Smallville, Backscratcher Territory.

And I should have said that, as an occasional reviewer for Raintown, I can vouch for what Q says. I'm fairly sure I was actually asked whether I knew the authors in question before books were assigned. And if you don't subscribe to TRR, why not, eh? It's gold.

Rory: But once you make contacting reviewers a protocol you're immediately back in Smallville, Backscratcher Territory.

Well, whether or not Thank You becomes de rigueur, it's the thing to do. But, I'll admit it's much a classier thing to do now that hardly anybody seems to do it.

Rory: And if you don't subscribe to TRR, why not, eh? It's gold.

I love the smell of dirty money. It smells like Victory.~,:^)

Can't we dislike something but think others might love it? Or vice versa?
 

Rick:

Why not? Look at Maz's example, where the reviewer relies exclusively on samples and lets you make up your own mind.

How are the feelings of a complete stranger, typically supported by descriptions of themes and plotlines, more useful to us than an objective analysis of the actual writing?

Don't professional reviewers, almost by definition, frequently evaluate works from genres that aren't their cup of tea? Did Siskel and Roeper not review childrens' movies?

-o-

Maz's example is all wet! Just show us the poems? Please. That is publishing the poems, not reviewing them.

I want the reviewer to give me his or her experience. That's the best a review can give. And what reviewer can presume to tell another reader "objectively" what they are likely to like and not like--much less any and all readers that reads the review?

Art is about subjective objectivity. We are all reading the same poem, looking at the same picture or dance, and we get a simultaneous shared and individual experience. The reviewer has to address that without shying from the subjective. The subjective part is the most interesting, given that we are already sharing the objective part.

Rick:

Eh?

The reviewer who studies the target audience. The reviewer who follows what else has worked with the target audience. The reviewer who understands the craft. Who analyzes technique. Who recognizes quality. Who knows that the difference between Williams, Shakespeare and McGonagall, is hardly "subjective". In short, any competent critic.

We're not talking about taking a poll here. The number of reviewers is too small a sample size.

Not yet. The reviewer has, the reader hasn't. Depending on how convincing the review is, that might not change.

This is why examples and analyses are so much more helpful to a perspective reader than blurbs or catcalls from a stranger.

-o-

The notion that a review should just be a sample of poems is a bloody silly one. I can't believe anyone really thinks it isn't. (Surely such a comment, from an intelligent person, is simply a quip aimed at suggesting that reviews aren't very helpful - not that I agree with that, either.) It would also be highly subjective, as rather than trying to discuss the various aspects of an author's work the 'reviewer' would be choosing a selection of poems and might do so very narrowly. Reductio ad absurdum: the best review of a book is the book.

Too many reviewers of poetry books forget that the reader isn't interested in them (at the time) but in the work. That's true, and should be guarded against, with a rottweiler if necessary.

"In short, any competent critic."

Yuck. I think it is precisely that self-confident critical apparatus that is far too often the bulk of what Rick is saying falls out of the frame of the poems themselves and is only a screen for the reviewer's own inevitable subjectivity. Such a critical view without honest subjective experience is dead in the water for many readers. The reverse can be a problem as well, but feeling one's way into the poems of another can be accomplished by an adroit essayist.

Nemo

Yes: yuck, indeed.