Re. Book Reviews

[Geoff Hart <geoff-h -at- MTL -dot- FERIC -dot- CA>]

     Keith Russell asked for advice on writing book
     reviews. I like the traditional "5 W's" approach
     used in journalism, as follows:

     1. What? Tell the reader what the book is about
     (define and limit its scope).
     2. Who? Based on this, who will find the book
     worth reading? If appropriate, who is the author?
     3. Where? Where can the book be useful (e.g., in
     what activities) and where can you get a copy
     (i.e., provide a full bibliographic citation)?
     4. Why? Why would anyone want to read the book?
     (i.e., what are its strengths?)
     5. When? In what situations would the book prove
     useful? When was it written (i.e., is it topical
     or out of date)?
     (Use this as a starting point. You'll discover
     other variants of these five W's depending on the
     context of the review and its scope.)

     Supplement this with a discussion of the book's
     flaws, and an assessment of whether these flaws
     render the book worthless, limit its usefulness or
     applicability, or are just the inevitable glitches
     that we all produce as writers. Focus more on the
     worth of the book than on the author's style,
     unless the style is either so good that the book
     is a joy to read or so bad that it's useless to
     anyone but an editor in need of a challenge.

     Ignore the minutae: if you don't like the font,
     who really cares so long as it's readable? Don't
     harp on production details like minor typos unless
     they're so numerous that they interfere with
     reading. Don't pick nits just to show how clever
     you are (and that you actually read the whole
     book); focus on points that would be important to
     readers of the review and of the book.

     Draw a strong conclusion based on two points: Did
     the author achieve the stated objectives of the
     book? (Read the preface or foreword: it's unfair
     to judge a book without knowing what the author
     intended to achieve.) Are these objectives germane
     to your audience (the folks that you, not the
     author, are writing for)? What's the bottom line
     when you tie these two results together?

     Two final points:
     1. KISS (Keep It Short and Simple): the longer the
     book, the longer the review, but don't drag on and
     on to the point that readers are better off
     reading the book itself.
     2. Be fair. The author will rarely have a chance
     to defend against your comments, so don't be nasty
     or spiteful... even if this would ordinarily suit
     your "confrontational" style of writing.

     --Geoff Hart    @8^{)}
     geoff-h -at- mtl -dot- feric -dot- ca

     Disclaimer: If I didn't commit it in print in one
     of our reports, it don't represent FERIC's
     opinion.