The Art of Book Reviews
Our conversation with Andy McCarthy contained an interesting sub-thread about Conor Friedersdorf's review of Andy's book The Grand Jihad. I promised to open a separate thread for this discussion--here it is--but I thought I'd also raise a general question: What, in your view, are the elements of a good book review? A fair one? Your candidates for "best book reviews in history?"
Ricochet should have book reviews, I declare. (I have made this decree unilaterally and without consulting anyone. If you want teamwork, colleagues, adjust your time zones accordingly.) Perhaps even a book-review section. And given that we're almost in 2011 and books are increasingly obsolete, we should have a website-review section. What would the elements of a good (and fair) website-review section be?
Don't forget that we're giving away five copies of Andy's broadside. They go to the authors of the best five comments on that thread, as measured by the "like" button, and you're on the honor system--one vote, one member, and not for yourself.
- Comment (19)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Oct '10
Re: The Art of Book Reviews
Conor Friedersdorf wrote a review without reading the book? What else is new?
I would think that actually reading the book one is reviewing is certainly an element of a good book review.
And another thing: how is it that Friedersdorf is still considered a conservative? He's about as much of a conservative as Meghan McCain is a Republican.
May '10
Re: The Art of Book Reviews
Its about time somebody reviewed the Bible.
May '10
Re: The Art of Book Reviews
If the book is making an argument, then the purpose of the book review should be to assess the argument. Some of the questions the review must answer are:
1.) What are the premises of the argument(s) made? Are they supported or unsupported by evidence?
2.) Is the form of the argument(s) valid? If not, what fallacies does the author commit?
3.) If the author commits some fallacies and/or adopts false premises, does it ruin his case entirely or are there still merits to his case?
Edited on Dec 16, 2010 at 11:25pmOct '10
Re: The Art of Book Reviews
Another element to consider regarding the quality of a book review would be determining whether the author of the book reviewed has considered all of the available evidence in making his case. This is particularly poignant where reviewing works of history is concerned, considering that much evidence (depending upon the subject under research) may be difficult to access, and to a large extent the reviewer might have to take it on faith that the author properly understood the evidence upon which his argument rests.
Nov '10
Re: The Art of Book Reviews
Beyond all doubt, Samuel Johnson (1709-1784) was the greatest critic and reviewer of all time, in English or any language. His Preface to the Plays of William Shakespeare (1765) is a masterpiece, and his Lives of the Poets (1779-81) was considered downright revolutionary in its day. In that work, Johnson pioneered the method of using telling details from a writer's personal life to illuminate relevant passages in the text.
No other critic, living or dead, is even in Johnson's league.
Johnson believed that a good review should highlight the significant faults and virtues of a given work, and that the reviewer should take real pains to increase the reader's understanding in order to better his appreciation.
Johnson would have been amused (not to say appalled) by the shallow blurbs, political screeds, ad hominem attacks and dreary obfuscations that pass for reviews these days. To paraphrase Chesterton:
A good review tells us the truth about the work being reviewed; but a bad review tells us the truth about the reviewer.
Edited on Dec 16, 2010 at 11:53pmOct '10
Re: The Art of Book Reviews
If one considers contemporary book reviewers, certainly Florence King would be a standout.
And on Claire's Facebook page, I see that someone made mention of Ambrose Bierce.
Edited on Dec 17, 2010 at 12:07amAug '10
Re: The Art of Book Reviews
I'm not sure what I'd list off the top of my head as the best book review in history, but the greatest movie review in history, bar none, is here.
May '10
Re: The Art of Book Reviews
Ed,
Thanks for the link. The review, being likely multiple times the length of the movie's script, practically begs for a review itself. My back cover blurb for the review's hardback edition: "Grenier proves once again that a sprinkling of movie magic can make **** (excrement) look like sunshine".
Sep '10
Re: The Art of Book Reviews
For positive reviews, I think the review should make you want to read the book and give you a sense of not only why the book is successful but also how it does what it does. For negative reviews, it occurs to me that the best negative reviews I've read were very funny.
My vote for best review ever is here:
http://www.harpers.org/subjects/AlanFurst
it is about an authors work not just one book but it really helps the reader understand and also tantalizes and draws you to the work
The funniest I ever read was Joe Queenan's trashing of Kitty Dukakis' autobiography that appeared in WSJ quite a few years ago. I can't find a link
Sep '10
Re: The Art of Book Reviews
The best ever review was of a movie and it has the greatest one liner I've ever seen that trashed an entire movie with one stroke. Unfortunately, it violates the CoC, which is why I wish the (oops) darn (I typed something else originally) private messaging was working so I could message the link.
Sep '10
Re: The Art of Book Reviews
What would the elements of a good (and fair) website-review section be?
A ranking system. Ricochet is a perfect 10.0; everything else HAS to be lower.
Dec '10
Re: The Art of Book Reviews
Claire Berlinski, Ed.:
Ricochet should have book reviews, I declare. (I have made this decree unilaterally and without consulting anyone. If you want teamwork, colleagues, adjust your time zones accordingly.) Perhaps even a book-review section.
Yes please! A new tab would be fantastic.
Re: The Art of Book Reviews
I think another element the reviewer should cast judgment upon is whether the book is actually written well. Who wants to read dry, dull prose?
Re: The Art of Book Reviews
Yes, I was thinking this specifically of The Grand Jihad. Critics who fail to note that it's superbly written would be doing a real injustice to the book and its potential readers, whatever they thought of the argument.
May '10
Re: The Art of Book Reviews
I like those that serve as a stand alone essay almost independent of the Book. Orwell was exceptional at this.
Sep '10
Re: The Art of Book Reviews
The best book review I've read was Whitaker Chambers's review of Ayn Rand's "The Fountainhead." The review was titled, "Big Sister is Watching You." NRO has it in their archives.
Nov '10
Re: The Art of Book Reviews
I read that review when it was published and I agree: Mr. Grenier wielded the sharpest rapier I ever have seen drawn and this one was hiss masterpiece..
Nov '10
Re: The Art of Book Reviews
I think that the idea of book reviews is a good one. Will the editors vet them and what will be the criteria for selecting the books to be reviewed?
As for Ms. Berlinski's comment that "books are increasingly obsolete", I very much hope that that is not the case. I am at this moment most of the way through her fine book Menace in Europe and find that, although I ordered it for my Kindle and am reading it there, I shall have to obtain the "real" book from Amazon because it is one that I need to be able to "flip" through from time to time to refresh my recollection about specific points and one that I shall want to mark for reference in days to come. There are many instances when and ways in which electronics cannot adequately substitute for paper and ink.
Oct '10
Re: The Art of Book Reviews
I write between four and eight book reviews a month because I enjoy writing them. If they'd work here, I'd be glad to mirror them on your site.
Here they are.
Decide for yourself
Edited on Dec 18, 2010 at 3:27pm