Book Reviews

Apparently, Jack Shafer thinks we should try to make book reviews as lively as possible. He thinks the best way to do this is to assign books to writers who will say crazy shit. In other words, I guess that means Dale Peck is the gold standard for book reviews. Sigh. And I thought we'd come farther than this . . .

In response to Shafer's thoughts on what a book review should be, Dan Green says,

If I have to choose between "fair" reviews and "good pieces," I'll side with Kevin and take the former, if by "fair" we mean attentive to the tangible features of the book under review, as well as to the needs that a reader might have in placing the book in an appropriate context. Apparently Shafer believes this leads to "dull" writing, but that will be true only if the reader is more interested in the forced "liveliness" so many American journalists seem to think is a good substitute for thinking.

Dan also excerpts part of a book review that Shafer apparently believes exemplifies goodness in a book review:

Not all American novels are too long, but most novels which are too long these days are American. The bloated book belongs in a category with the yard-long hot dog and the stretch limo. The main difference is that the craving for extended sausage and limo comes from the customers—the eaters, the renters.

The need to publish ever-larger books, such as John Irving's 800-plus page Until I Find You, is a mysterious part of the psychology of the writer. It may be that readers like a book they can get their teeth into, but one which will dislocate their jaws? Not likely.

It's okay to toss in the odd gradiose statement every now and then, but the above is fairly ridiculous. It's just a bunch of ponderings without much substance behind them. It's rambling. Unless you're writing a fairly large book review (several thousand words) you really have no space and no reason to delve into the "mysterious psychology of the writer" in any meaningful way.

Most reviews in major newspapers and magazines get 1,000 words at most, and with such little space there's barely enough room to discuss a book's merits, let alone get into remarkably complex subjects like the psychology of writing. It's best just to leave that stuff out because all you'll be able to do is toss off half-assed thoughts that divert from the substance of the review: discussing the book under consideration. Who cares if it's less lively that way? That's not what book reviews are for.

Basically, if you want lively book talk, then you go to blogs. If you haven't noticed, we stock pretty well in half-assed thoughts, grandiose statements, and liveliness. Those are the sort of the things that we can get away with because this is a much more conversational, low-key medium. Book reviews are a very different entity, and I think some liveliness should be sacrificed in order to say something more well-argued.

Comments

[inkberry]

Well-said. Couldn't agree with you more. :-)

Now and then I contemplate teaching a book reviewing workshop at Inkberry -- though those who actually need it would likely not sign up...

[Jack Shafer]

"[Shafer] thinks the best way to do this is to assign books to writers who will say crazy shit. In other words, I guess that means Dale Peck is the gold standard for book reviews."

Really? Where in my piece do I say I want writers to say crazy shit? Where do I say that Peck is the gold standard for book reviews?

Is this blog item not an example of what its writer would call "crazy shit"?

--Jack Shafer

[ed]

"My preference, no surprise, is to let it all hang out in the British fashion. Sometimes the enemy of the book author is the only person willing to write the truth." = crazy shit, methinks. Crazy shit being "the truth," which means a rant instead of a review.

[David Milofsky]

I'd take issue with your statement to the effect that 1,000 words "is not enough space to discuss a book's merits." Sure it is and the better reviewers do it all the time. I'd go further and say most longer reviews I read, say, in NY Review of Books, rather than being more serious than brief reviews are prolix and repetitive and could use some judicious editing. Of course it's not easy to say a lot in a short space, but that's where the art (such as it is) of book reviewing comes in. Check out Leonard's great The 800 Word Mind if you don't believe me.

[Jack Shafer]

I love the attention, but must point out that words have meaning. Namely, "truth" does not equal "crazy shit" on any planet I've visited.

If you've read the piece, you'd know that by "letting it all hang out" I was explicitly refering to doing away with the tweezers book review editors think they need to use in assigning book reviews.

--Jack Shafer

[joe miller]

Seems to me that a lot of newspaper/magazine writers/editors think that word loopty-loops constitute good writing, even though simple and direct language is always preferable. Which is why we have the term "hack." Also, there's the issue of insecurity. Which is pretty obvious in the writing.

[Scott]

David,

What I said was 1,000 words is "barely enough room to discuss a book's merits." I certainly believe it can be done (I've done it myself), but if you start trying to cram too much in the review can be very unsatisfying. I think we're in agreement here.

Re: the NYRB. Yes, some of those reviews run too long and are repetitive/pedantic (not everyone has it in them to write a 4,000 word review). I found the NYRB's arts coverage so inconsistent that I ended my subscription. I'm just saying that if you want to make those grand pronouncements and go beyond a simple asssessment of the book at hand, that's where you do it.

[Scott]

Jack,

I can't say that either of your comments has raised my opinion of you. I'm sorry if my post offended you (which, from your tone, it apparently has).

You're right that this post is "crazy shit." If you managed to read all the way to the end of my post, you will be able to recall that I said that blogs (as opposed to formal reviews in reputable publications) are the proper place for "crazy shit."

I think book reviews should try to do more than to get a cheap rise out of the reader. If that means picking a reviewer carefully (which, I assume is what "using tweezers" means), then fine.

[david milofsky]

Scott,

You're right: we agree on this.And as Robert said in Dan's blog, in general I feel newspaper reviews leave much to be disired, and not only because of a lack of space. What concerns me is the shrinking news hold for reviews of all kinds in major newspapers and magazines which, let's face it, is where most people get information about books. If people don't know about a book, they can't buy it, and if what they know comes from a superficial review that makes everything that much worse.