Books and the reviewers who review them

January 23, 2007 9:56 PM

I found this comment by languagehat earlier today somewhat bewildering; "You don't think book reviewers, even the insightful ones, read every word of all those books, do you?"

OK, I review fiction, (there are doubtless other tricks for non-fiction), but I'd regard not reading every last word of a book I reviewed as an abdication of the critic's responsibility to the work and the reader, as well as thoroughly unprofessional.

Am I hopelessly prissy? I'm especially interested in the opinions and practices of other reviewers, although all responses welcome, obviously.

posted by Wolof to Media & Arts (44 answers total)

Anecdotal Evidence: I attended a writers' workshop a few years ago, and the husband & wife author team mentioned how every now and then, the blurb of the back of the book would be completely wrong, posibly talking about something that was really only a subplot.

Maybe reviewers do skim, though I'd agree that it's surprising.
posted by niles at 10:05 PM on January 23, 2007

I once bought a math book after it had gotten a good review in a math journal.

I seemed I was the only one who close read it. One whole section seemed to be a palimpsest - it had initially been written as VersionA. Then some terminology and approach was changed and it was re-written as VersionB. However the rewrite was incomplete and there were contradictory bits of VersionA popping up in VersionB.

I emailed the junior author about this, and he replied that I was the first to mention this, but the senior author had decided to move beyond that work and wasn't interested in it anymore. Last time I check the online errata still didn't mention any of the problems I pointed out.
posted by MonkeySaltedNuts at 10:35 PM on January 23, 2007

Think of it this way: in another sense, reading every word of every book is doing a disservice to your readers, since it keeps you from being able to review more of what's published. I mean, there's only so much time in a day. I suspect the key thing is to know when you've read enough to give a reasonable opinion on a book, then stop.
posted by Hildago at 10:57 PM on January 23, 2007

I review for http://www.reviewingtheevidence.com and I read everything I review. I'm even willing to state that the site's owner does as well (she's my mom:)

We'd be pretty ticked off if we caught a reviewer skimming and writing a totally off base review. We often get multiple copies of books and they go out to different reviewers and we'd notice if two people got the same title and reviewed markedly different books.

Regina
posted by legotech at 11:13 PM on January 23, 2007

I'm sure it depends on the type of critic. A professional critic - eg someone who's job it is to review books for a paper or journal - would I'm sure see their professional responsibility as being to read the book in full. But equally they may have lots of books to review for the paper that week.

And the same balance could apply with someone who's taken on the review as a one-off - eg they're an expert on the subject, or have written similar books - may have other responsibilities that prevent them from reading the book in full, absolute detail before their deadline. Then again, because it's a one-off they may put their heart and soul into doing it.

So I think the short answer is, it depends.

My confession - having reviewed a large number of books myself as a sideline in the last few years, both fiction and non-fiction (mainly history) - is no, I didn't always read them in full. Mostly due to print deadlines (particularly so when I was writing for a weekly paper on top of job, degree and other responsibilities). I hope that I read enough not to do the authors a disservice, and I would always skim everything in the book, even if I didn't read it in full. But it does affect the type of review you write.
posted by greycap at 11:18 PM on January 23, 2007

I review movies and DVDs for a good part of my dough, and you don't have to scrutinize every second of every DVD feature to review one. Last year i covered a massive TV-show box set -- and I promise you not one critic sat down and absorbed all 100 hours of it before writing their hundred-word-reviews of it.

If you watched 90% of The Dukes of Hazzard, do you really think that there's something in that last 10% that will suddenly turn it into a good movie? (I did watch all of it, and wish I hadn't).

To be clear, I still watch all of over ninety percent of the things i review. But if I never get around to watching that last ten minutes of Farce of the Penguins, I think I'll be okay.

I don't see how it would be any different for books, except that book critics seem to have heavier workloads, which may excuse more lollygagging.
posted by Bookhouse at 11:29 PM on January 23, 2007

It depends what level of reading you're at. Some people read every single word, slowly, and methodically, whereas other people read very quickly and scan to get the general feel and plot. Once you start to need to read a whole lot of books in a short period of time, you naturally incline towards a faster, more scanny type of reading.
posted by wackybrit at 11:33 PM on January 23, 2007

Keep in mind that there is sometimes a difference between blurbing something (i.e. being someone whose capsule review appears on a book cover when it's first printed) and writing a review for publication someplace. Sometimes the blurbs are from published reviews, but sometimes you get a galley copy of a book with a polite request to write 30-50 words about it. This can happen when you're a name in the field, or the book is on a topic of particular relevance to work you do.

I have done book and DVD reviews in the past for library publications and I usually read/view the entire item. However, recently I've been asked to blurb books and generally I get a 200-300 page stack of loose pages and a short deadline and sometimes in that case, I skim to get an all-over feeling, find parts I like and don't like and try to write something punchy and thumbs-up-ish about the book.
posted by jessamyn at 12:06 AM on January 24, 2007

John Allemang reviews a book a day for the Globe and Mail, and claims to read them all in full:

Do I skim? Where's the fun in that? No I refuse to cut corners, partly because I was raised in the somewhat stern Lutheran faith and can't handle guilt, but mostly because that would be turning something I've designed as a pleasure into 9-to-5 Hackery.

posted by Urban Hermit at 12:39 AM on January 24, 2007

I'm a book reviewer, and I also read every word of all the books I review (no matter how awful). In fact, for poetry, literature, and serious non-fiction, I often read books twice.

It makes for a hefty workload, but I feel it's more fair to the author - and some day, god willing, when I publish my own book, I'd like to think reviewers will read the whole thing.

Also, frankly, it's not that much work. I was a full-time book reviewer for many publications and still rarely needed to read more than 4-6 books a week. (Of course, one of those books this week is the new Pynchon....)
posted by piers at 1:44 AM on January 24, 2007

my first novel was reviewed by critics in quite a few UK national newspapers and it was obvious that some of the critics patently hadn't read the book. One favourite trick seemed to be to read the first ten pages and then rewrite the blurb.

I know this because there were a couple of inaccuracies about plot, etc, in the blurb for the proof (review) copy, these were repeated in more than one review.

Other critics, however, obviously did read it and on the whole gave it better and longer reviews.

So, yes, in my experience, some professional reviewers working for national papers definitely don't read all the books they review.
posted by johnny novak at 2:02 AM on January 24, 2007

Evelyn Waugh once pledged that he would never give a bad review to a book he hadn't read.
posted by pollystark at 2:42 AM on January 24, 2007

Think of it this way: in another sense, reading every word of every book is doing a disservice to your readers, since it keeps you from being able to review more of what's published.

Sorry, I can't seem to think of it that way. I would not say that those reviewers johnny novack wrote about were doing their readers a service.

Textbooks may be another story.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:05 AM on January 24, 2007

Journalists? Cutting corners? Surely not

Not reading a book? I've got stories -- I'm sure everyone does -- about the times we've run reviews of gigs that were cancelled.

"Oh yes, Meat Loaf was brilliant last night. I gave him four stars" "Er, Meat Loaf was stuck at Heathrow last night."
"Oh."
posted by bonaldi at 4:12 AM on January 24, 2007

Response by poster: Whee! Thanks all for the great thread.

Comment away!
posted by Wolof at 4:17 AM on January 24, 2007

Reiterating the difference between reviews and blurbs. The book descriptions on Amazon or Powells.com? Written as blurbs by people who skimmed the book. I worked as one of those people for a time about ten years ago, and I was paid $3 per blurb-- a strong incentive to skim very quickly.

If I was hired to write a review, however, I'd feel obligated to read the entire work.
posted by miss tea at 4:18 AM on January 24, 2007

Response by poster: PS, bonaldi, I am not a journalist, I'm a reviewer.
posted by Wolof at 4:20 AM on January 24, 2007

Yes, but the reviewers languagehat was talking about are.

And where are your reviews published then? Journalist != reporter, btw.
posted by bonaldi at 4:28 AM on January 24, 2007

In the defence of reviewers, I can imagine slogging through a few hundred pages of a book you think's a stinker is a pretty thankless task.

I frequently stop reading a book after fifty pages or so because I hate it and know it's not going to get any better. Then, of course, I'm not getting paid for my reading, whereas the critics are and though that's often not a great deal, I guess they should at least try to finish a book.
posted by johnny novak at 4:31 AM on January 24, 2007

as well as thoroughly unprofessional.

LOL

the reviewers who actually read the entire goddamn fucking book are a sad, often not very successful minority. many of them even brag about it -- they quit reading if they don't like it and they're going to pan it anyway, they skip to end, they speed-read, whatever.

see, whenever you read a review and, God forbid, you've actually read the same book and think the reviewer missed the point, well, maybe they missed it because they didn't know much about the book to begin with, having skimmed it at best.

at least most film critics actually go to screenings (they might fall asleep there -- they're often in the morning -- but it's another question entirely)
posted by matteo at 4:35 AM on January 24, 2007

many of them even brag about it (in private, of course)
posted by matteo at 4:36 AM on January 24, 2007

I've written several dozen academic book reviews. Rarely do I read the entire book, word for word, when I do so. I have to either love or hate the book to bother.
posted by fourcheesemac at 5:10 AM on January 24, 2007

There was an article in Newsweek about this recently: Our reviewer liked the first 100 pages of Vikram Chandra’s new novel. If he’d loved them, he might have finished the book.

And a must-read on this subject (despite its nearly complete lack of uppercase letters) is Jack Green's Fire the Bastards!, an analysis of the first reviews of William Gaddis's 1955 novel The Recognitions.
posted by Prospero at 5:20 AM on January 24, 2007

I frequently stop reading a book after fifty pages or so because I hate it and know it's not going to get any better.

wouldn't the thing to do there be to be straight with your readers and tell them that the book sucked so bad you stopped reading after 50 pages? To write a review that gives the impression you've read the whole thing seems unfair. I can go to the bookstore and skim the thing; the reason I read a review is to find out if it's worth investing more time in, right?

I can understand the argument that an expert on a non-fiction book can bring something to the table without necessarily reading the entire thing, but I think this sort of "expert" culture is a little dangerous. It's important to remember that intelligent amateurs are often just as insightful as the professionals. There's a balance to strike, because it's also true that intelligent amateurs can think they know way more than they do about a subject, but even so, the reverse assumption, that you can sum up a new POV in twenty minutes because you've been studying the topic for decades, is unfortunate and not particularly rare.

Which is all to say, I'm not tremendously surprised that reviewers may lean on their already established expertise more than the actual activity of responding to a new book, but I don't think it's good - for their readers, or for them as thinkers. I'd call that the "expert rut", when you've settled into your little nook of what you know, and you're no longer honestly open to rethinking things (and I know, some people will call that a groove, and say defending your stance is an important part of being an expert, but I think there's a way to still be alive and flexible in your thought even while building on previous conclusions).
posted by mdn at 5:34 AM on January 24, 2007 [2 favorites]

I once reviewed a book and read every word of it, because I thought that's what reviewers did.

When I interviewed the author for the article I was writing, she was surprised and flattered that I had indeed read every word.

Another anecdote: I have a friend who reviews upwards of 200 books a year for the various papers she writes for. Plus she writes other articles, edits books, and teaches classes. Clearly she does not have enough time to read all of those books. Plus, she's told me that she doesn't.
posted by misanthropicsarah at 5:50 AM on January 24, 2007

languagehat was answering a question for me and I took him to be referring specifically to reviews in scholarly journals which are done primarily by professors and grad students. They are generally in the range of 1-3 pages (at least in most social science disciplines), so not really blurbs.

Reviews are generally not considered particularly "high status" publications, people don't get paid to do them specifically, and have to fit them into a schedule that includes a lot of other things. I've certainly read reviews that indicate a deep understanding of the book, but it really wouldn't surprise me if many reviews represent a thorough reading of *part* of the book.

I think the situation must be pretty different for full time reviewers.
posted by carmen at 6:04 AM on January 24, 2007

Heh. Just to clarify: I was indeed responding to carmen in an academic context, but I was referring to reviewers in general, since I know that many reviewers for general publications do skim. BUT I did not mean to imply, nor do I believe, that ALL reviewers are skimmers; many, as you can see from this very thread, do in fact read every word, and good for them!
posted by languagehat at 6:32 AM on January 24, 2007

And for paid reviewers, I would really appreciate one who did as mdn suggests. My experience is that if a book starts out as crap, it stays that way to the end. Other books start out well, then turn to crap at some later point. If a reviewer tells me that one of those is just swell, they may be giving their honest opinion (because they only read the good part), but it still has the effect of recommending crap. If I then go and buy the book, I will blame the reviewer for misleading me.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 6:41 AM on January 24, 2007

I am an academic and sometimes write reviews. If a book is about a topic that is squarely in my subject area, I may indeed skim some chapters. Let's say a book is about the Chinese in the California Gold Rush, and is also the 30th or 40th book I have read about the Gold Rush. I may skim through the chapters where the author is describing the actual discovery of gold, or the environmental costs of mining, or other topics I have read too often before, and focus my attention on what is new in the volume.

Also--to read every word of a bad book, or sit through a bad movie, even for a reviewer, shows a lack of imagination.
posted by LarryC at 7:35 AM on January 24, 2007

And then, of course, there's this recent story, from a Swedish newspaper last month:

A book reviewer on a Swedish newspaper has got himself into hot water for writing a review of a book that has not been written. To make matters worse, Kristian Lundberg claimed the book's plot was "predictable" and said the characterisations were one-dimensional. Lundberg made the comments in Helsingborgs Daglad, in an article about recently published thrillers, [including] Britt-Marie Mattsson's novel 'Fruktans Makt' (The Power of Fear). Unfortunately for Lundberg, while the book had been advertised in publisher Piratförlaget's autumn catalogue, Mattsson never actually got round to writing it.
posted by mothershock at 8:27 AM on January 24, 2007 [1 favorite]

Lisa Schwarzbaum "reviewed" Infinite Jest by saying should couldn't read that much of it.

"Reviewers far more disciplined than I can tell you what Infinite Jest is about. . . . . With one crabbed hand gripping the cover like a claw and the other raised like a limp white flag, I salute them."

The fact is, most weekly or daily publications have short lead-times and there is no way they can tackle something like an 1100 page novel in that amount of time. My favorite reviewer is Michael Silverblatt at Bookworm and he clearly reads, digests, and forms astute opinions about everything he reads. I doubt Charlie Rose has ever read a book cover-to-cover.
posted by mattbucher at 8:38 AM on January 24, 2007

Chiming in to support what carmen, LarryC, and languagehat are saying about academic reviewing. It is a bit of a different animal than reviewing for the popular press. That is because of all the reasons they mentioned, but also because the structure of most academic writing, at least in the humanities, is fairly well prescribed. Most are in thirds: in the introduction, the author gives a quick summation of previous scholarship in the topic, talks about the intellectual underpinnings of the book or the school of thought in which it should be evaluated, and then describes the scope of the book and its general argument. In the next third, the author presents evidence in support of the argument, with accompanying interpretation. In the final third, a conclusion summarizes the evidence and reinforces the argument, then suggests directions for future work.

Once you understand the structure, you don't, in fact, need to read every word in order to write the review. You need to read the introduction to get the author's idea of what the book is intended to show, then read in the middle third to determine whether there is enough, or enough reliable, evidence, and then read in the last third whether the conclusion is reasonable and important.

Academic reviews are often written by graduate students to earn a few (very few) bucks, or to build publication credits, or to get free books. Of course it is better to thoroughly read all books review, and many people do because it is ethically preferable to them. But it is not as great a crime as it may seem for an academic reviewer to skim academic works. Just as an experienced chef can read and evaluate a recipe without paying attention to the level of basic detail that a home cook would (how to prepare a demi-glace, how to make vegetable mirepoix), someone familiar with the content of a subfield can read just the new information presented in an academic work.
posted by Miko at 8:51 AM on January 24, 2007

I was paid to write more than 50 reviews last year. I read every word of those books, and most of them I read several times before writing the review. (My trick? I review children's books.)
posted by The corpse in the library at 9:34 AM on January 24, 2007

This is not a new practise. Sidney Smith:

"I never read a book before reviewing it; it prejudices a man so."
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 10:27 AM on January 24, 2007

>I once reviewed a book and read every word of it, because I thought that's what reviewers did.

>When I interviewed the author for the article I was writing, she was surprised and flattered that I had indeed read every word.

Almost exactly the same thing happened to me (it was a radio interview).

I don't know about proper reviewers, but you can take it for granted that if someone's interviewing an author on TV or radio that they haven't read the book.

They haven't even skimmed it. One of the show's producers or assistants has skimmed it for them.
posted by AmbroseChapel at 11:35 AM on January 24, 2007

mdn

just to clarify, I'm talking about my personal reading. I don't review books. I think reviewers should read the books they review, but then I'm hopelessly niave.
posted by johnny novak at 12:12 PM on January 24, 2007

Response by poster: Bonaldi — Sydney Morning Herald.

Once again, I thank you all.
posted by Wolof at 1:59 PM on January 24, 2007

CSPAN recently showed a tour of the New York Times Book Review.

I listened to this show on XM while driving cross-country so I don't remember it in detail but, if my memory isn't failing me again, their reviewers do read the books in full. The skimming part comes in as they evaluate the hundreds of books that arrive every week and determine which one makes the cut.

Highly recommend this show as it will tell you more than you ever wanted to know about the process.
posted by pandaharma at 2:25 PM on January 24, 2007

I typically review music, but I have reviewed books as well, and a book would have to be very, very, very bad for me to stop reading it before I write the review. If I did stop, I'd have to make that fact the angle of my review, because to do otherwise would feel dishonest. (And also because someone would probably be able to tell and would call me out publicly on it.)

When writing music reviews, I usually listen to the entire disc at least twice -- once before starting to write and once while writing. The records I've skipped tracks on have been those which are track-to-track totally undistinguishable, like death metal or frou-frou ambient "noisescapes".

When reviewing live music, I plan to see at least one opener and the majority of the main act's set. I have left before the end of the headliner's set, because I am old and I need sleep at night. I won't leave until I feel confident that I've taken in what I need to take in about the band. I also try to avoid drinking because when I get drinking I stop paying close attention to the band. (Bad reviewer.)

I generally consider it an obligation to consume what I'm reviewing. I try to hold to that as much as possible.
posted by loiseau at 2:25 PM on January 24, 2007

AmbroseChapel: In a similar vein your blanket assumption, I was absolutely gobsmacked when I discovered that one of the most popular radio interviewers* here in Australia actually DOES read her subject's books, often more than just the most recent one. Some of her interviewees, particularly the USians, usually seem similarly amazed.

Leads for some damn interesting interviews, though.

* Margaret Throsby, on ABC Classic FM. She might not be the most popular, but she's certainly the most interesting. Interviews one person every day, for an hour -- hearing her talking to everyone from Terry Pratchett to conquerers of Everest remains the high-point of my day.
posted by coriolisdave at 4:58 PM on January 24, 2007

Response by poster: the reviewers who actually read the entire goddamn fucking book are a sad, often not very successful minority. many of them even brag about it -- they quit reading if they don't like it and they're going to pan it anyway, they skip to end, they speed-read, whatever.

You might want to proofread that. As it stands, it's easily read as an insult coupled with a logical inconsistency.
posted by Wolof at 10:40 PM on January 24, 2007

I review books and literary magazines, and I read everything I'm reviewing all the way through. I usually read it, shelve it for a week to let it soak in, then return to my notes and reread parts of it while preparing my review.

I'm a writer as well, and I would rather not have a review than have someone review something of mine they hadn't actually read.
posted by mdbell79 at 10:52 PM on January 24, 2007

Just ran across this quote from Ezra Pound (Paris Letter. September, 1921. Dial, LXXI. 4): "The new Proust [Sodome et Gomorrhe], or the new lump of Proust, being the tail end of one book and the beginning of another, is good, that is by the supreme test: one picks it up intending to read only enough to do a book-review and continues the perusal for one's pleasure."
posted by languagehat at 12:16 PM on January 29, 2007

Response by poster: As rejected by André Gide.
posted by Wolof at 3:24 AM on January 30, 2007