As they say in other circumstances, it’s not the size that matters. The problem with most reviews is that they are just long summaries: typically, a reviewer has a paragraph or two of intro, then several paras. of summary, and then a para. or two of summary. This is completely inadequate, especially for fiction, when the use of language is arguably more important than the mere story line. I’ve read reviews, alas even sometimes in Q&Q, for fiction in which there was not a single word of the novel quoted. I notice in your last issue, I think (or was that the Globe?) where there was an obvious and noticeable (and commendable) effort to quote more.

As a reviewer concerned with my hourly wage, I have to say that the shorter the review and the bigger the cheque, the better…

Thanks, ZW – my response to the question of “thoughts on the ideal length of a book review” was going to be something along the lines of “It depends if you’re paying by the word or by the piece”.

Great minds, fools, etc.