Beyond Selidor

I follow a few writers' blogs, and one of them, kateelliott, has an interesting post about book reviewing. It got me thinking about reviewing, the relationship between reviewers and writers and readers, and what makes a good review.

I've been book-reviewing since I was 17 (the first review I wrote was the result of my writing a ranty, angry letter to the Sydney Morning Herald's children's books reviewer after I objected to her assessment of The Amber Spyglass) and over the years I'd like to think I've improved. I don't really want to write about what makes a good review. Rather I'd like to note a few things that popped into my head when I started to think about my own experiences as a reviewer.

1. When I started out, I struggled to write negative reviews. Now, I find it much easier to write negative reviews, and find positive reviews much more difficult. I've even been known to avoid writing reviews of books that I really loved because I felt I couldn't convey their brilliance properly.

2. I mainly review young-adult books, which means I'm dealing with the most diverse genre around. I can get everything from angsty tales of drug addiction and self-harm (when I was a teenager this would've been anorexia, but self-harm is the worthy cause du jour right now) to Jackie French-style historical fiction to swords-and-sorcery to sci-fi thrillers. This means I have to be more well-informed than reviewers who specialise in, say, crime novels.

3. I have always been a big reader. As a child and adolescent, I read voraciously - by the time I was in the later years of high school I would routinely read more than one book a day. Books were my favourite form of entertainment. As a result, the memory of my favourite childhood and adolescent books is very vivid, slightly rose-tinted and always at the back of my mind when I'm reviewing. This means that when I sit down to review a young-adult book, as an adult, I am unconsciously comparing it to books about which I have an unrealistic opinion (and which if I were to reread may not seem as amazing). (Some of these books I do read even now, though - Catherine Jinks's Pagan series, HDM, Adele Geras books, Isobelle Carmody, John Marsden, Victor Kelleher - and they still amaze me and remain some of the best books I've ever read.)

4. I have very strong opinions about young-adult literature. Often I worry that these opinions influence my reviews too much. I intensely dislike angsty, worthy theme-driven stories. I prefer books that are more plot-driven, where engaging stories and three-dimensional characters can carry myriad themes that are allowed to whisper in the margins, rather than being shouted at the reader. I've also read so much genre fiction (fantasy in particular) that I don't suffer clichés gladly. (And I don't hold back politely. '(book) reads like an earnest creative-writing student's crack at the generic fantasy literature plot - insignificant boy discovers that he must save the world [...This] use of fantasy clichés demonstrates at least his wide reading in the field, but he fails to animate them with any originality.' I write in a review from 2004.)

5. As you can see from the above point, reviews are often more about the reviewer than the book. This is something I'm trying to work on. (There was a time when I managed to sneak in a reference to Philip Pullman or Buffy in many of my reviews. Now I try to restrain myself.)

6. I interviewed Sophie Masson last year. It was fantastic because we seemed to click really well. After the interview, we spent ages discussing books, Celtic Studies (she did the same ASNAC course at Sydney Uni as I did, and knows a lot of my old lecturers), the state of English Literature teaching in Australian high schools, and reviewing. We came to the conclusion that a good review should never just retell the story and make a value-judgment about the book. Instead, it should tell a story. This is one thing I've always tried to do, right from the beginning.

7. At that same interview, Sophie said to me that I was one of the best reviewers she's ever encountered. Now, I am aware that flattery will get you anywhere, and it's in her interest as an author to get reviewers like me on side, but I listened more to the reasons for her opinion. She thought I was a good reviewer because my reviews told a coherent story and when I criticised, I did it constructively. I'm not sure if that's correct - perhaps it's correct in relation to my Sophie Masson reviews - but in any case, I take it more as advice about how to review well than as an accurate portrayal of my reviewing abilities.

We need book reviewers, especially in the young-adult genre (where most books are bought by parents who need advice about what sort of stuff to buy for their children), but we need good reviewers who are willing to leave their egos and prejudices behind, able to write coherently and pleasingly, and able, when reviewing a book, to bring their own experiences and knowledge into the review.

That's my opinion. Questions, comments?

MoS CDs listened to today: 2004 Annual disc 1, 2005 Annual discs 1 and 2.