Thanks for all the links and comments so far, fellas.

I thought your editorial on ‘blurbing’ in BG 13 was very illuminating, John — Chris’s link from ‘Threat Quality Press’ is another interesting look at the ‘meta’ level of book reviewing, how reviews get quaoted and passed around, how a lot fo reviewers realize that effusive praise is the way to get themselves noticed, etc.

I think too many amateur reviewers secretly dream of becoming a CRITIC… someone like John Clute or Pauline Kael, individuals whose opinions can make or break a book. But “Criticism” and “Reviews” are too vastly different beasts, and you hit on the essential difference when you said criticism “assumes familiarity with the work in question.” For every reader who’s read the book, there are many dozens who haven’t… assuming otherwise will lose you readers, fast.

Criticism most assuredly has a place in the genre - you can’t become a writer of any stature without first catching the attention of the best critics in the field, in places like THE NEW YORK REVIEW OF SCIENCE FICTION and LOCUS - but outlets like SF SITE and BLACK GATE confuse criticism with reviewing at our peril. We’re here to entertain, not lecture.

I devoted my editorial in BG 13 to the ups and downs (mostly downs) of reviewing SF & Fantasy - Serial Distractions called it “a potent look at the seldom-revealed dark side of book reviewing.” That was one of the nicer things said about it.

John

If you think about it, a glowing review of a book in a reasonably-accessible market is actually a great way of familiarizing people with your name–quotes and blurbs can get pulled out and put onto inside pages or back covers, the review will get reposted on the author’s blog, and on the author’s friends’ blogs, and bounced around a lot.

But that’s only a glowing review. A mediocre review is less likely to get passed along a mildly or extremely disparaging review even less likely–your good reviews will see more light, while your bad reviews will be read mostly by people who are already committed to reading the material in which the review is published.

Unless, of course, the review is hilariously vicious, and passed around for purposes of schadenfreude.

I don’t think there’s a point to all that, I was just puzzling over it–it seems like there might be a kind of social or professional pressure for reviewers to gush when they shouldn’t.

I see you have a review of World War Z on your site, I’ll check it out (I’ve read the book, but I’m always curious to read reviews of books I’ve read).

I completely agree with your final point about taking your reading to another level. Turns out my teachers were right…critcal thinking can become its own reward!