I was recently asked about my method of reviewing a novel by both a reader and a fellow writer. Below are my guidelines.
1. Chart the suspension of disbelief, which is very important in sci-fi, fantasy, horror, and period pieces. If the author fails early or lapses often I will not even review the book. This is the reason for my generally high marks for fellow writers. I will not review a contemporary work of fiction that I dislike, or cannot get immersed into, as I will not squander my time trudging through it.
2. I note quotes, for use in possibly titling the review with the writer’s own words, and for quotation. The quality of a work can often be judged by how many potential titles are found in the text. Generally, when reading how-to books, or books by economists, the reviewer will be hard-pressed to find a single catchy quote. A novel that only provides one or two good quotes is usually bland reading.
3. If the plot is painfully deterministic I will lower my assessment by 20%. I am not a mystery reader and do not require surprise to be able to enjoy reading.
4. Exposition of the human condition is in my mind the subtle load that the gross plot and characterization is structured to deliver. I read for the subtext as much as for the text, even in works that are obviously written without an implicit subtext.
5. Characterization is to me the lifeblood of good fiction. A book or a film—Goya’s Ghosts comes to mind—which brings to life deep and complex characters without getting bogged down in excessive rumination and soap opera conventions, always rises above the mean in my mind.
6. I’m a teenage reader at heart. Though the adult in me is looking for a subtext I want to get carried away by the action, or the wonder, or the drama, of the story. The writer needs to make me turn the page, especially as I sleep little and am often in a state of exhaustion when I read.
7. I never read the last chapter of a novel before writing the review. While the writer’s job is to get me to turn the page, beginning at Page 1, the novelist’s job is to get me to care enough about at least one of the characters to get me primed for the conclusion. Not reading the ending also helps me write a review from something of the review reader’s perspective, neither of us knowing the ending of the story. It also prevents me from accidentally spoiling the tale.
Ultimately, all of my reviews are written about books I care enough about to want to be able to recall. The review is written as much for myself as it is for the reader. I read many borrowed books and have limited storage. If forced to move in the future I may once again have to give most of my library away. Writing book reviews is in part a replacement for a dog-eared library of my own.
Reviewing the works of other novelists—and thereby encouraging my readers to read a competing author’s work in an age of reduced readership—is an act of economic suicide, or so I have been told by well-meaning capitalists who advise me. I don’t see it that way. The better his or her novel is, the more I want to hold it up as a measure to be bettered, hopefully by this novelist.
