Writing Reviews

For us writers—most of us would agree—browsing in a bookshop is one of life’s delights. A vivid teenage memory: visiting the local book shop and trawling through those poetry books from Faber and Faber—T.S. Eliot, Dylan Thomas, and Sylvia Plath—and plays like Waiting for Godot or Look Back in Anger—introducing oneself to grown-up literature full of the angst that appeals to mid-teenagers. While at school we would be reading Jane Austen, Shakespeare, and Milton. Anyone who ends up writing has always loved to read.

And to chat about books. One of us has a website with a section—Mari’s book club—where she’s posting reviews of the books she’s currently reading. 

What makes a great review? Firstly, remembering that it is different to a blurb which intentionally introduces the main characters and outlines the plot, or summarises the angle of the subject in a non-fiction book. A blurb is PR: it seeks to sell people the book, talking it up so that they’ll feel compelled to read it. A reviewer’s pitch is different. Yes, it might invite people to join the reviewer in their enjoyment of the book, but the approach is deeper, more wide-ranging, more subtle, and less specific on content. A review will give the potential reader hints about interesting characters and surprising plot twists—or of the the new approaches to the subject—but it will be sparing with details, using a broad brush to entice the reader’s interest. Inside, the review suggests, they can discover more which they won’t learn here. And above all, don’t give a precis of the whole story! Don’t reveal the plot!

Reviewing obeys the universal writing adage, ‘Show, don’t tell’. Phrases like ‘beautifully written’, shorthand for many stylistic attributes, are not helpful! Is this book poetic, big on description of countryside or characters? Does the writer have a special gift with language? The review needs to demonstrate what ‘beautifully written’ actually means, (or ‘dynamic prose’ or ‘easy to follow tips and suggestions’). It should explain why you thought the text so well conveys the type of story or the subject: how did it make its appeal, why indeed did the reviewer so enjoy this particular book?

The main body of the review is the place to expand on this, by giving samples of the writing to show how well it uses atmosphere, place, or weather, for example, to chime with emotions or action. How it builds tension. How it draws you into the subject and presents an argument. You may quote a short sentence or phrase, or describe how an incident or piece of action is cleverly placed, or a point made. Just give a taster, nothing more. You want to get your reader excited about this book, to show why you felt it was worth writing a review.

Near the end comes your chance to critique the book. Yes, a reviewer who’s positive about a book can also comment on its weaknesses. But always with generosity and good grace. If you really didn’t like book, it’s probably best not to write a review. Nitpicking prejudices don’t draw readers! A good way to deal with a book you found hard going but not actually impossible is to invoke personal reasons, saying, for example ‘it’s not the kind of book I usually read but…’ and often, if you are taking the trouble to review, you’ll be able to add ‘But I was very pleasantly surprised by…’, and you can say why, despite not usually reading this genre, you did enjoy it.

Finally, some books do slip through with poor editing or, for example, a dreadful cover. No problem in pointing this out, if gently put. It might even help towards the second edition. And of course you will, at the beginning of the review have made sure to state the essential details about the book—its title, author, publisher, price, paperback, hardback or e-book, and it is helpful to give the ISBN to facilitate ordering the book.

Clare and Edmund Weiner