Kate posted some thoughts on John Updike’s rules for reviewing (as posted at the NBCC blog), so we thought we’d throw them out here for discussion:

1. Try to understand what the author wished to do, and do not blame him for not achieving what he did not attempt.

2. Give him enough direct quotation--at least one extended passage--of the book’s prose so the review’s reader can form his own impression, can get his own taste.

3. Confirm your description of the book with quotation from the book, if only phrase-long, rather than proceeding by fuzzy precis.

4. Go easy on plot summary, and do not give away the ending. (How astounded and indignant was I, when innocent, to find reviewers blabbing, and with the sublime inaccuracy of drunken lords reporting on a peasants’ revolt, all the turns of my suspenseful and surpriseful narrative! Most ironically, the only readers who approach a book as the author intends, unpolluted by pre-knowledge of the plot, are the detested reviewers themselves. And then, years later, the blessed fool who picks the volume at random from a library shelf.)

5. If the book is judged deficient, cite a successful example along the same lines, from the author’s ouevre or elsewhere. Try to understand the failure. Sure it’s his and not yours?

To these concrete five might be added a vaguer sixth, having to do with maintaining a chemical purity in the reaction between product and appraiser. Do not accept for review a book you are predisposed to dislike, or committed by friendship to like. Do not imagine yourself a caretaker of any tradition, an enforcer of any party standards, a warrior in an idealogical battle, a corrections officer of any kind. Never, never (John Aldridge, Norman Podhoretz) try to put the author “in his place,” making him a pawn in a contest with other reviewers. Review the book, not the reputation. Submit to whatever spell, weak or strong, is being cast. Better to praise and share than blame and ban. The communion between reviewer and his public is based upon the presumption of certain possible joys in reading, and all our discriminations should curve toward that end.”

What about you, fellow bloggers? What do you think of Updike?s rules?  Do you disagree with any of them? Would you add any to his list? Is your reviewing practice different on your blog than it would be (or is) elsewhere?

What a great list. I’m printing it up right now.

As I said in my post, I think it’s a good list overall.  I wholeheartedly embrace rules 2, 3, 4, and the general spirit of vague rule 6. But I think that too careful an adherence to rules 1 and 5 risks catering to the author, and reviews are written not for the author but for the reader. I do believe in showing respect to the author, but showing respect to the author means taking the work seriously, and taking the work seriously means not shying away from honest criticism.  Regarding rule 1, I do get annoyed when I read a review in which it’s clear that the reviewer wanted a different sort of book and as a consequence can’t seem to see the book that is in front of him or her.  But I think it’s fair game to suggest in a review that, for example, an author ought to have been more ambitious rather than accepting uncritically the limits that an author has set for him or herself.  And to advocate, as in rule 5, that a negative judgement ought to be countered by a positive example “from the author’s own ouevre” strikes me as implausible and as a move designed more to salve the author’s wounded ego than to illuminate the reviewer’s point. I don’t think authors require that sort of kidglove treatment.

I think it’s a good list.  An extension of the first rule - “Try to understand what the author wished to do, and do not blame him for not achieving what he did not attempt” - that I try to apply is to consider how the piece works separate from my own feelings about it.  It is important to recognize quality, even in cases where one’s taste diverges from the work.  It’s about recognizing greatness without feeling it resonate personally; objectivity.  There are plenty of things that a person can dislike without needing to try and point only at why they disliked it instead of discussing how it is a quality piece of work and - if the format calls for it (the blog “book talk” versus the review) - then sharing about why it didn’t work on a personal level.  This is a good description of my conundrum recently when I reviewed “Realm of the Dead” - I had a sense as I was reading it that it was extremely well written, and worthy of attention, and yet for me it missed the target.  These reviews are an exciting challenge - how to convey that a piece is very good and also convey how, on a personal level, it is not - and how to make that personal level relevant to the reader.

Saw this at Terry Teachout’s blog and since he might not know about this forum, thought I’d post it.

Alas, I no longer buy Updike?s first rule: ?Try to understand what the author wished to do, and do not blame him for not achieving what he did not attempt.? To find out why, go [here].