A Guide for the Perplexed Reviewer

I'm one of these people who usually find it hard to come up with an idea for discussion without a lot of painful preliminary hemming and hawing. However, once the light-bulb is switched on, I can go like sixty. Yes, I know, I know. I just mixed my metaphors. Be that as it may, I have finally, after three and a half months, come up with a topic. But it was not without a little help from my friends. Thanks are due to my new GR buddy Brannon, who switched me on to this post by suggesting I write about the reviewing process.

Is there a protocol for writing reviews on Goodreads? Well, GR has its own set of official guidelines of course. But do I have my own personal rules? The simple answer is: Yes and no. There are some things I try to do, and others that I try to avoid. But it's not like I use a checklist or anything.

In fact, I try not to use a set formula. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Often people need fixed patterns and manage to let creativity flower within them. But for me, spontaneity is important too. So I try to find the approach that best suits the book and my reaction to it.

Sometimes I provide some background material. This helps if the author comes from a different culture or time period, or if the book is relatively little-known. This angle can be overdone, so I try not to be too long-winded about it.

At other times, I do plot summaries. It's easy to fall into traps here. One must be careful, I think, not to spend the majority of the review rattling off what happens in the story; this is the gradeschool approach to writing book reports. And obviously, spoilers should be avoided. Otherwise, why should the reader even bother opening the book? This is not always easy though. Sometimes it's extremely difficult to say anything meaningful about the book without alluding to a major plot twist. It can be a veritable tight-rope.

Occasionally I do some good old-fashioned literary criticism. I was, after all, a literature student for years, and old habits die hard. And some books, especially literary classics and collections of poetry beg for this. But I try not to make it too exhaustive, so as not to exhaust the reader's patience. I might take just one or two poems to analyze. Or I might touch on some of the themes that struck me as I was reading.

And fairly often, I try to include a personal anecdote. The whole point of reading is to connect with a book on a personal level. And books have been a big part of my life since before I even knew how to read. So I will try to say how I first encountered a book or why it is meaningful to me. When it's well done, this can be very effective. I have occasionally been moved to tears by my friends' accounts of how they connected with some very special books.

But the bottom line is: Did I like the book or not? Why, or why not?

On the one hand, there's my proverbial Canadian politeness, complicated by my ethnic background. I am originally from a culture where people are often very forthright (read: blunt) about their opinions. Honesty is important. But there's a difference between telling the truth and beating someone over the head with it. I've witnessed first-hand how hurtful this brutal sort of forthrightness can be, and I've learned that it's possible to disagree with someone and still treat their opinion with respect. So when I review a book I try to be honest about the negatives, especially if the author has asked me for an "honest review" (always a bit risky!). But I try to explain my opinion so that readers and authors alike understand where I'm coming from. And I also add in some positives. Because if you can't say anything nice...

And last but not least: humour. I love humour, as many of my friends know. For me, a review isn't a review without a good joke, or a bad pun.