There always seems to be one flap or another coursing though the blogosphere about the technique and quality of book reviews in today’s various media outlets. Whether it’s a prolific Amazon reviewer who farms his reviews out, or some crazy Swede who reviews books that haven’t been written yet, it seems that there is a never-ending supply of opinions and techniques. In print media, for example, more and more editors are asking for short, 400 word (or less) reviews along the lines of the seemingly ADD inspired thumbs up/down of Rogers and Ebert (or whatever the current incarnation is). Then there are those reviews, like the ones for Locus Magazine, for instance, that border on a critical analysis of the text.

Regardless of which you read or write, what it all boils down to is this…

As a reviewer, which do you prefer to write?

As a reader, which do you prefer to read?

Writing a 400 word review means being able to justify your opinion succinctly without a lot of need for textual support. Most often it revolves around not going into a detailed plot analysis of the story in question, and instead focusing on answering the question “why” by being both as specific and as broad as possible. A longer review usually means examining the plot and any important thematic issues the author broaches. Most often, it seems, a longer review has the same basic content of the shorter review with added textual support from the work being discussed.

Reading a review is totally different. For instance, I read reviews not for information on the book they are about, but rather to see how other authors write reviews. I am actually pretty careful to not read reviews for books that are on my reading list, primarily because I don’t want any “inside information” as to what the book has in store for me. As such, I am a huge fan of the short, 400 word, “I liked this and here is why” type of reviews. I simply do not want any kind of spoilers.

On the other end of the spectrum, I have a good friend who prefers the in-depth reviews that cover plot and theme. She has limited time to spend pleasure reading, and wants to make sure the book sounds like something she is interested in before she picks it up, as she views any time spent reading something she doesn’t like as time wasted.

What we both have come to realize is that it isn’t really the review itself that is important to us. It’s the reviewer. She has her two or three favorites she reads religiously because she has found that they share similar tastes to hers, especially when they are all in agreement. There is a certain familiarity and trust that she has developed with them, and she is in many ways dependant upon it.

I am much the same way, but for a different reason. The reviews I enjoy are much more casual and laid back. Like bumping into someone reading in a coffee shop and just starting up a conversation about the book in his hands. I don’t want him to tell me the story, I want to know if he is enjoying the story. I am more interested in the experience the book is giving him as he reads.

That’s how I try to write my reviews. Oh, I’ll throw up a graphic with some stars or something, maybe even slap a neat little “Must Read” ribbon on it, but in the end it’s my opinion of not only the book, but of the experience I had reading the book. Did I laugh out loud? Did I stay up late to finish it because I just couldn’t put it down? I usually don’t examine plot beyond a very brief overview, as I don’t enjoy reading those kinds of reviews. The rating stars I use are just my way of comparing it to other titles I have read. With any luck, someone out there will find them informational. Better yet, perhaps it will spark a little conversation in the comments, and we can go more in depth about a title as part of a discussion.

After all, what’s the point of voicing your opinion if it isn’t going to be well thought out enough to spark a discussion? I’d much rather do that than lay everything out on the line at once and be done with it.