I'm not sure I agree about the value of a fair and balanced critique. It's all well and good to help folks decide whether to buy something, and that might be a big focus for your audience, but there's also an art to review writing (i.e., criticism in its other sense). I agree with you that every book has pros and cons, but sometimes trying to focus on finding a balance between them could take away from the art of criticism. Fwiw the introduction and two new essays in Andrea Long Chu's recent essay collection Authority tackle this issue, of what (if anything) the art of criticism consists in.
For sure. I don't think you need to find a balance just for the sake of finding a balance. I don't believe that "for every compliment there must be an equal and opposite critique." But I also don't think that legitimate critique should be stifled. Likewise, legitimate praise shouldn't be withheld.
Ah for sure, yes -- I was more referring to your description of looking harm for less-than-positive things to mention. I do think your restraint when you really don't like a book makes a lot of sense, though.
Once we're getting into the nitty-gritty process, I actually read books twice anyway before reviewing them. I give them a quick casual read-through once and then go back through them writing notes before turning those notes into the review. In the cases I mentioned there, I give the book a second casual read but with a bit more of an eye towards any issues I may not have caught the first time around since otherwise I'm hyperfocusing on the areas I was initially drawn to during the first casual round. I've never been in a situation where there was truly nothing to find worth criticism after two casual reads but it's theoretically possible :)
However, they stopped doing so after I wrote a negative review of one of their products. In that particular case, I had many positives to say as well, but the negative was so bad that I couldn’t refrain from describing it with a level of snark that I’ve since learned to avoid
I added this to the article and putting it here as well to maximize visibility: Baruch Hashem, I’m sent many more books to review than I have time to read so many simply end up on the backburner as I prioritize reviews I am paid to do or reviews for particular publications with particular deadlines. If I have not yet reviewed a book you sent me, it is almost certainly not because I had nothing positive to say about it. It’s probably just because I have not yet had time to read it or to write the review. If you sent me something to review and are wondering about when I will get to it please feel free to nudge me!
I'm not sure I agree about the value of a fair and balanced critique. It's all well and good to help folks decide whether to buy something, and that might be a big focus for your audience, but there's also an art to review writing (i.e., criticism in its other sense). I agree with you that every book has pros and cons, but sometimes trying to focus on finding a balance between them could take away from the art of criticism. Fwiw the introduction and two new essays in Andrea Long Chu's recent essay collection Authority tackle this issue, of what (if anything) the art of criticism consists in.
For sure. I don't think you need to find a balance just for the sake of finding a balance. I don't believe that "for every compliment there must be an equal and opposite critique." But I also don't think that legitimate critique should be stifled. Likewise, legitimate praise shouldn't be withheld.
Ah for sure, yes -- I was more referring to your description of looking harm for less-than-positive things to mention. I do think your restraint when you really don't like a book makes a lot of sense, though.
Once we're getting into the nitty-gritty process, I actually read books twice anyway before reviewing them. I give them a quick casual read-through once and then go back through them writing notes before turning those notes into the review. In the cases I mentioned there, I give the book a second casual read but with a bit more of an eye towards any issues I may not have caught the first time around since otherwise I'm hyperfocusing on the areas I was initially drawn to during the first casual round. I've never been in a situation where there was truly nothing to find worth criticism after two casual reads but it's theoretically possible :)
Ahh, totally! That sounds like a very good process. And point taken, I agree it's unlikely to find not a single thing to critique after two reads.
However, they stopped doing so after I wrote a negative review of one of their products. In that particular case, I had many positives to say as well, but the negative was so bad that I couldn’t refrain from describing it with a level of snark that I’ve since learned to avoid
Ok, which review was this?
I don't want to name the publisher publicly but sent you a link
I added this to the article and putting it here as well to maximize visibility: Baruch Hashem, I’m sent many more books to review than I have time to read so many simply end up on the backburner as I prioritize reviews I am paid to do or reviews for particular publications with particular deadlines. If I have not yet reviewed a book you sent me, it is almost certainly not because I had nothing positive to say about it. It’s probably just because I have not yet had time to read it or to write the review. If you sent me something to review and are wondering about when I will get to it please feel free to nudge me!