I read a lot, on average four books a week. I live the maxim that writers must be readers. Because I love writing, I review many of them for one of my three blogs. When Amazon asked me to be a Vine Voice for them, I was flattered and wanted to see what had caught their eye. What made my reviews different from others? I spent time reading a wide selection of reviews and came away with a framework of what all critics included:
- a brief plot summary
- an overview of characters
- a discussion on the theme/plot/goal and whether it’s well-delivered
- the reviewer’s evidence-based opinion
- an appealing voice
Reviews I didn’t like often covered these critical areas, but got lost in the ‘personal history’ weeds. Unless the reviewer is Michiko Kakutani or James Wood (both listed among the top ten most feared literary critics), I’m ambivalent to a reviewers’ personal opinions.
As a result, I’ve developed a template for what to avoid in my reviews. See if you agree:
Opinionated
Book reviews aren’t opinions; they’re factually-based summaries. Sure, many books include the author’s opinion. A reviewer’s job is NOT to disagree with the opinion, rather discuss how the author rolls it out. Do they provide evidence? Is their argument well-developed or gratuitous? Do readers find themselves nodding in agreement or fuming in anger? They should feel the reviewer is even-handed, neutral, and an arbiter of the discussion rather than a participant.
Narrow perspective
The author writes from their personal experience. True, the reviewer’s personal fable is as unique as the author’s, but that isn’t what’s being reviewed. Show how motivation/theme/goals connect to a vast swath of readers even as the character/plot/setting are fresh and unique.
‘This isn’t my favorite genre’
Not only do I avoid that phrase, I hate hearing it as an excuse why the critic has her/his opinion. In fact, it tells me to ignore everything they’re about to say. If this isn’t the reviewer’s genre, research it. For example, literary fiction delves into characters; thrillers focus on plot. I wouldn’t down-star Ted Bell’s Patriot for the lack of Lord Hawkes’ personal thoughts.
If the reviewer isn’t willing to understand the book’s genre, stick with traditional traits like a compelling voice, developed characters, and well-paced plot.
Takes too long to get to the point
Usually, that happens because the reviewer isn’t sure of what they’re saying and hopes to throw enough words on the page to hit the bullseye for most people. Long reviews should be stuffed full of meaty information, not fat.
Conclusions without evidence
I love hearing a conclusion I may not agree with because it means I’m about to learn something. I feel cheated when that conclusion is unsubstantiated by evidence, unless the reviewer is part of my inner circle (people whose arguments I tend to accept at face value), cites sources, cites multiple sources, and gives me linkbacks so I can verify it.
Superiority
Reviewers aren’t there to judge writers, rather evaluate. A debut novel is different than the tenth in the series, and a young thriller writer should not be compared to Lee Child. Critics offer advice to inform the reader’s decision on whether they should read more of this author. That’s a weighty responsibility. Approach it with respect and humility.
For more on this topic, check out Adam Kirsch’s article (he’s considered one of the top ten reviewers by some). To see the review of what might be the most famous review ever (on John Keats), click here.
More on critiques:
7 Reasons For and Three Against Critique Groups
25 Take-aways from the Richard Bausch workshop
Writers Tip #52: Join a Writers Groups
Jacqui Murray is the author of the popular Building a Midshipman
Today's Author 
I think this a good guide for professional marketing reviews and magazine/newspaper critics, but I’m perfectly happy for regular customers to say anything they like, should they even wish to. They’re human beings learning their likes, dislikes and tolerances, not unpaid book promoters. I never set out to write books expecting readers to do homework on them 🙂
You are so right, Lisa. I am fairly non-confrontational and that certainly bleeds over into my reviews. I can always see the other side of the argument.
Jacqui, this is excellent guide for what to expect and how to write a good review. I’ve never come across this topic before, and your suggestions are spot on. A balanced review gives a potential reader an opportunity to consider whether to invest in a book or let it pass. I wouldn’t want to be swayed by someone’s personal rant but by thoughtful evaluation.
And that’s what I try to do. Not saying it always works. There are times I get too emotionally invested. Sigh.
I tend not to write reviews since most of my come out something like this: “I liked this book, you should read it.” Sometimes I can spin that out to maybe four sentences…
Hehe. I thought that’s how I would write so I started with books in my sweet spot, that got me excited. I found out I had a lot to say!
I’ll put this in the I-learned-something-new-today column. This is very helpful. I shy away from writing book reviews because I thought they came from an emotional place of why I did or did not like a book. But now that I have a framework for doing them more objectively, they’ll be much easier to write.
I read many reviews that discuss the author’s emotional reaction to the book. This is fine, for some, but doesn’t discuss how a different perspective would enjoy the book. that’s what this article deals with.
I am committed to reviewing every book I read, and I try to do as good a job as I can as I do it. But mine are always very subjective. I have learned a lot from this post. Thanks.
I think that’s OK, too, Norbert. Your readers will get used to that and you’ll attract those who think like you. Nothing wrong with that.