Four books into my writing career and I finally got a major book review! Woo-hoo!
The Washington Independent Review of Books reviewed my book, The Smithsonian Castle and the Seneca Quarry. The reviewer, architect Ellen Sands, wrote glowingly, "Interwoven with the history of the C&O Canal and the Civil War skirmishes raging around the fringes of the city, Peck's compact book is an immensely readable account....His affection for his subject shines through the book, prompting you to hop on your bike and pedal out to the ruins of the old quarry." You can read the full review online - and below it you'll see a video of Katie Dvorak interviewing me at the Gaithersburg Book Festival.
Why am I so excited? Because getting a review these days is like being struck by lightning.
The publishing world has changed significantly in recent years, largely because of the Internet and changing consumer behavior. A decade ago, a publisher would mail out review copies and send the author on a nationwide book tour. The reviews would be picked up by major publications; authors would quickly hit a mass audience, and the book would sell well.
The old model no longer works. Along came the Internet and free online content, which seriously put a crimp in subscribers to major publications. The publisher for my first book, Rutgers University Press, sent out around 100 review copies of The Prohibition Hangover. We only got a handful of nibbles, mostly from bloggers and an academic journal a year after publication. Nothing earth shattering like being reviewed in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal or The Washington Post (all of whom got copies of the book).
In order to cut costs, The Washington Post stopped publishing its weekly Book World section, which was a national outlet for book reviews. The Post has cut back significantly on reviews, and the books it does review are scattered throughout the week in the Style section, which lessens their impact. The newspaper rarely if ever touches local history books such as mine. Sadly, there is only one newspaper that even has a standalone book review section anymore: The New York Times.
With the demise of the Post's Book World section, a few enterprising book readers decided they had to do something to replace it. And so was born the Washington Independent Review of Books.
Why are book reviews so important to authors and readers? A review is a literary critique by one's peers, usually by a subject matter expert who has an informed opinion about a topic. A review can make or break a book's sales. And book reviews are still an important way to reach a large audience of readers. How often have you gone to a movie without first reading a review about it? Likewise, book reviews help readers find the content that they might enjoy.
Without formal book reviews such as the Washington Independent provides, authors are heavily reliant on word-of-mouth, part of which comes from citizens writing reviews on Amazon and other websites. Now then, it's painfully difficult to get people to write reviews. Only a teeny, tiny fraction of readers ever bother. Some online reviews are less than helpful. You've probably seen five star reviews on Amazon that simply say, "Great book! A must read!" which is, honestly, next to useless. You might suspect that the reviewer is one of the author's friends who didn't take the time to read the book, but thought they'd be helpful.
If you ever want to review a book, what should you include? It should be a literary critique (I'd use the word criticism, except that has a negative connotation). Did you enjoy or dislike the book? If you're a subject matter expert in a particular field, did the author widen the scholarship or thinking about the topic? Was the book easy to read and entertaining? Does it tell a good story? Did it make you laugh or cry - or cringe? Did you learn something you hadn't considered before? Your review doesn't have to be an essay - one well thought out paragraph suffices.
I write reviews for the Washington Independent as well. With every book comes an instructions sheet which includes this vital statement:
"Don't pan a book unless absolutely necessary. Don't flex your writerly muscles, show off your superior knowledge, or trout out your bitingly clever ripostes at the expense of another writer's dignity. Be true to your critical assessment of the book but never forget that behind the author's name on the title page stands a person who is feeling exposed and vulnerable right now and who may have spent years of his or her life trying to make that book the best it can be. Don't cut your career teeth on the flesh of a fellow or sister writer."
You can follow the Washington Independent Review of Books on Facebook, or set up an RSS feed to get alerts. They post about two reviews daily. Go Independent!
Garrett Peck
Garrett, I like your list of things to include in a review and appreciate that you should recognize that the author is a person, too. You definitely shouldn't criticize them as human beings. But things become a little fuzzy when the author's personality is a big part of the book. I review cookbooks for a friend's food blog and I see a ton of not-very-good ones, particularly from celebrity chefs. Some of the faults may be due to the editor and publisher, but the content is also author-driven and reflects his or her personality, philosophy, etc. It's difficult to criticize those without seeming like you're piling on the author as a person.
ReplyDelete