[Rick Mullin]

[It's all good!]

[Tim Love]

Peer review's an issue in academic science circles too. The people able to understand a specialist subject are likely to be either working with or against the paper's author. At the end of last year (in Nature, I think) it was reported that Peer reviewers got worse with age - partly complacency, perhaps, but also because people decline in general with age anyway.

[Julie Steiner]

What? I thought I was improving with age, like a fine wine...sigh...

[Roger Slater]

But Julie, I suspect you are like fine wine: not drunk nearly often enough.

[Rick Mullin]

Comparing literary criticism to peer review in the sciences makes Jesus cry.

[Ned Balbo]

Thanks, Susan, for taking the time to say a few words about Trials of Edgar Poe. If I were still actively reviewing, your kindness would prevent me from saying what I really think about The Best Disguise in print for fear of raising people's suspicions....! I admire the book a lot & hope others are stepping in to give it the critical attention it deserves.

I think the best reviews help clarify what a book is about, how it's written, what the writer's perspective is, rather than issue a summary judgment. Beyond miscellaneous pieces, I reviewed poetry regularly for Pleiades (8 years) & Antioch Review (most issues from '99-'09). I thought of myself not as someone upholding standards but as an experienced reader condensing my encounter with someone's collection into 500 or so words.

Reviewing in any forum is very important--especially when you consider all the very good collections that go unreviewed or insufficiently noticed.

[Rory Waterman]

Originally Posted by Ned Balbo

I think the best reviews help clarify what a book is about, how it's written, what the writer's perspective is, rather than issue a summary judgment.

I agree with what you say, though not with its inference that a review necessarily does one thing or the other. Too many reviewers are desperate to please and congratulate everything they review, and that can be nauseating, or (less often) see reviewing as a way to settle a score, which is even more nauseating.

[Wintaka]

Irrepressible optimist that I am, I love Amazon reviews. Convenience is their best selling feature: one can find onsite and links to offsite reviews right there and, if one encounters an objective, competent reviewer, one can click on the link to see other recommendations by that reviewer. I think it is a tremendous opportunity not in spite of the bogus reviews from authors themselves or their families or friends but because of these things. It's not like they've set the bar very high. The blurbers and assassins are transparent enough, often made so by the absence or ineffectiveness of examples. Frankly, I can't see that it would take long to establish one's trustworthiness in such a milieu, if one were so inclined. What I found most amusing was this:

So, how can ordinary shoppers identify reviews by genuine customers? "Sadly, the only reviews to be believed are the ones whose spelling, grammar or sanity is dubious," says the writer. "They're the only ones guaranteed not to be from the author or his literary enemies."

LOL! Amazon must be the only literary venue where poor spelling and grammar enhances one's credibility!

I was a little surprised to see Amazon take so long to implement features, including reviewer assessments, which were in place years earlier on sites like Egoless and Zoetrope. No biggy, though.

Best regards,

Colin

[Ned Balbo]

Hi, Rory, I don't mean to imply that reviews necessarily do one thing or the other. Actual reviews frequently fall into one category or the other, however: score-settling or mindless congratulation. My view reflects my own preference & practice--what I look for in a review--however imperfectly I achieve it. I've certainly read thoughtful pans that were smart and provocative--Adam Kirsch is very good at these--though I choose not to write them myself.