Reviews
 

I pulled this one bit from something Rose wrote in the Accomplished Members thread for Mary Meriam's review of Maz's Grasshopper to hopefully get a discussion going here*:

"Maz used to question the value of poetry book reviews, saying it would be more useful simply to provide a sampling of poems and let readers decide for themselves if they were any good."

I realize I may be taking this out of the context of Rose's point. I put it here on its own as a starter.

I will start by disagreeing. Criticism is in and of itself literature, of course, and reviews are criticism. It certainly matters to me that I am able to get a discerning reader's views of and responses to a book of poetry by reading a reivew. I thereby share my experience with the writer--I take it for granted I can get a copy of the book and read it myself (the commercial aspect of the review is not such a bad thing!).

That was me, Rick, though I'm flattered by the mistake. I must have said something intelligent.

FWIW, I don't entirely agree either. Reviews can be enlightening. Most are either boring and useless or entertaining and useless. Anis Shivani for example is entertaining but little else; I would never buy or not buy a book on his say-so.

You indeed. Sorry, first person I attributed the Maz quote to, whose name has been expunged.

RM

I prefer the essay setting to the review setting.
It opens things up a bit more, involves the writer of the piece more intimately, and undermines the formulaic advertising aspect.

Nemo

Reviews, as Rick says, are literature and can be entertaining in their own right. Or not, as Rose says.

As for the best way of helping the potential reader decide whether to buy a collection of poetry or not, I'd go further than Maz. Simply list the first line of every poem. Poems rarely improve after that. Not an infallible method, since the unscrupulous poet who cottoned on could simply write 40 dazzling openers followed by drivel, but if a first line doesn't grab you in some way and make you want to know more then the chances are you won't like the whole poem. I feel the same way about novels (although there you need a paragraph).

Nemo has a point about the essay, though. A well-written essay isn't out to convince you that something is better than you thought it was but is an aid to enjoyment (I don't see a lot of point in reading an essay about a poet or poem you don't already know).

There. I just agreed with everyone.

Philip

Another withdrawal. I'm feeling withdrawn~,:^)

Well, per Nemo, a good book review is really a critical essay, and in my current opinion for now at least, reviews should rarely go under 1,000 or so words, and they should not deal with multiple books as a matter of course (though this is a tendency rather than something set--the juxtapositions can be enlightening). But I can live with multiple schools of thought on this one.

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.

I'm just starting out reviewing books, and I like and agree with these guidelines. Thanks, Rory. I also shoot more for the essay rather than the review in the sense that I want to understand the book I'm reviewing and share that understanding with others (though they may disagree, of course). In the future, I don't see myself spending time reviewing books I strongly dislike or think badly written. There are reviewers out there who relish that kind of thing or just want to express a justly negative opinion (and that's their prerogative), but I'd rather put my energies toward more positive pursuits and celebrate the books I do love by attempting to shed light on them and explain what I think makes them good. That may wind up making me a not-so-great reviewer in the end, possibly, but so be it.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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. ~,:^)

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

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

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.

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.