Book Reviewing: A Guide to Writing Book Reviews for Newspapers, Magazines, Radio, and Television

by Sylvia E. Kamerman

In the first essay, Robert Kirsch talks about the importance of conveying to the reader what the book is about - READ the book, he admonishes. That isn't as superfluous as it sounds - some reviewers... This description may be from another edition of this product.

• Format: Hardcover
• Language: English
• ISBN: 0871161133
• ISBN13: 9780871161130
• Release Date: January 1978
• Publisher: Writer
• Length: 215 Pages
• Weight: 1.09 lbs.

Customer Reviews

The rarest of the rare -- a great book about book reviewing

It's amazing to me that, given the number of people who publish book reviews, more isn't published on the subject of what a book review is and how to do it.This book is a collection of essays by book reviewers on various aspects of criticism. We're not talking serious literary criticism here but we are talking about serious book reviewing. In the introduction, Kamerman describes what makes a good book reviewer and how to get started. She tells how to approach the material, the importance of knowing the audience and gives the fundamentals of preparing and writing the review.In the first essay, Robert Kirsch talks about the importance of conveying to the reader what the book is about - READ the book, he admonishes. That isn't as superfluous as it sounds - some reviewers don't. He suggests ways to respond to the book and describes the importance of knowing your own value system when you're judging. He gives a sample review, too, and discusses it.The essay on the structure of a book review is particularly helpful. Begin with a hook or a blunt, compressed summary of the argument or with some startling detail or outrageous exaggeration, P. Albert Duhamel says. The body of the review includes what the reviewer likes and doesn't like about the book - the kind of material (fiction, nonfiction) affects how this is handled and he goes into some detail about handling specific situations. One important point - don't ask your readers to substitute your opinions or value judgments for the author's. He also points out that the reviewer must judge the book, not the author.The difference between reviewing fiction and nonfiction, taboos in reviewing, reviewing books for children, reviewing mysteries, writing for the regional book section as opposed to the weekly book review section, reviewing at the local level, and paying the reviewer's dues are just some of the subjects studied by professional reviewers like Doris Grumbach, William McPherson and Jan Frazer. Barry Bricklin even covers "Reviewing For Specialized Journals."This truly is a "guide to writing book reviews - by leading book editors, critics and reviewers" that should be beside every book reviewer's computer. It is comprehensive and the thoughtful reader/reviewer will get something new from it with each perusal.

How the Pros Do It

This book makes the subject of book reviewing interesting most of the time, although since it's such a practical, instructional topic, it is not necessarily inspiring.It is a good book for those who are interested in reading and writing reviews; it shows the process and the guidelines reviewers follow. I don't like rules in reviewing, so I will call these suggestions that help you to get published. One of the biggest suggestions is that a reviewer should try to figure out what an author is attempting and how well he accomplishes that. He is to judge the book by that yardstick. Another was that a review has two parts usually a brief description of its contents and then an critical evaluation of the contents (why you liked or disliked it). Another was that a reviewer should not make judgements against the viewpoint of the book because he does not like it, but he should be objective enough to rate according to how well the viewpoint is defended. (Lofty ideals, indeed!)Brevity was stressed, most published reviews do not go over 600 words. (Darn!) Much emphasis was placed in making up that catchy first sentence and then holding the reader's attention with your engaging writing style, (but don't be so stylish that it detracts from the book your reviewing--Darn!) A grey area is that of what a reviewer should express in his evaluation of a book. He should evaluate, but he shouldn't go on and on about his own theories. His theories should relate directly to the book and be expressed briefly. (Oh, get real!) A reviewer walks the fine line between a cramping himself up in a bare-bones review and stretching out comfortably in an extended critical essay. It's probably more fun to be a critical essayist than a book reviewer because of this. In general, one should not rip into a writer that failed, especially if it's their first book. Instead offer gentle correction and encouragement. (Who are they kidding!) The superior reviewers develop a niche in a certain field such as current American politics and they read all the books coming out on that subject. They also read all previous works of an author they are going to review. (Speed reading, anyone?) This gives them the voice of experience and authority when speaking about their expertise. They know when a book writer is pulling the wool over innocent readers who don't know much about a subject. The book goes over the business itself, how there are so many books out and not enough space and time to review but a small percentage of them. It talks about how movie companies will buy their own book of their own movie so that it will be proclaimed a bestseller for promotional purposes. It talks about how reviewers are starving when they are not writing reviews. So you want to make money doing something slightly fun like reviewing? (Giggle, Giggle) It also lists literary prize winners since 1900, in case you want to read some acclaimed writers or wonder about the good judgement of the awarders-- Faulkner's The Reive