What are the ingredients for a good book review?

Your list is pretty good, but it's missing something a bit fundamental.

Most reviewers tend to think that they're trying to help someone make up their mind whether or not to buy a book based on the what they think of the book's contents.

This is only half the equation.

What a reviewer also needs to do is show that their opinion is worth a damn. Who cares if you didn't like the book? Lots of people like and dislike books, so why should I care what you have to say?

A successful review is one that demonstrates to me that the writer is an authority that I should pay attention to and, perhaps more importantly, someone I can identify with in terms of likes and dislikes. If the reviewer has similar tastes to mine, it's a sure bet I'll be a lot more interested in what they have to say.

So, these are some of the questions you need to answer for the reader:

• What other work can you compare this book to that I may have read?
• How does this book stand in relation to its genre?
• Is the author established enough that I may have read some of his previous work, and if so, how does this book compare to those other works?
• If the book is derivative, unoriginal, or isn't good, what would you recommend as being similar, but far superior?

All of these give me hints and clues as to what your preferences and tastes are, which in turn helps me decide whether your opinion actually matters. That's the trick of a good review.

posted over 13 years ago

CC BY-SA 3.0

Craig Sefton‭

325 reputation 2 19 59 0

• Distinguish between a review and a critique. A review is meant for people who haven't read the book, and is largely intended to help them form their opinion of it; a critique is a discussion of the book which assumes the reader is familiar with the book (or, at least, is willing to read significant spoilers, because he's interested in the critique).
• If it's a review, a major component should be introducing the piece to the reader. Let him know what it's about (no spoilers!), tone, theme, why it might (or might not) be interesting. I usually make an effort to leave the introduction largely unbiased in either direction - I think that helps readers be able to judge both the book and my review in proper context and on their own merit. It also helps ground them - if they don't know what I'm talking about, it'll be hard for them to understand my opinion and comments!
• Back up what you're saying whenever you can. Don't hesitate to quote passages that demonstrate the parts you adored, hated, or found problematic. Look for passages that you feel will give an accurate representation of the piece. Give details - not "Character A is a complete airhead," but rather, "Character A is portrayed as being obsessed with clothing and cars, and he shows no empathy when Character B is in trouble - coming across like a complete airhead."
• Consider what the author was trying to achieve. If the author was aiming for a blockbuster thriller, then complaining that the characters were dull and superficial is legitimate criticism, but might be missing the point. It's fine to mention faults that the author might have accepted willingly - but do devote some attention to the goals the author was actually aiming for. Again, this also helps readers with different tastes than you figure out where their tastes diverge from your own.

Hope this is helpful :)

posted over 13 years ago

CC BY-SA 4.0

Standback‭

680 reputation 38 269 122 1