Reviewing: the long and short of it
Following up on Steve Wasserman’s recent essay calling for longer book reviews (previously mentioned on Quillblog), Michael O’Donnell says less is more. In an essay on the book reviewing blog Critical Mass, O’Donnell argues that 800 words or so should be plenty, thanks.
I’ll take a lean review, spare as a runner headed round a quarter-mile track. I know I can’t be alone in disagreeing with the notion that it takes 2500 words to express an idea, or in feeling a little impatient with those writers who are too grand to pick the important things, say them, and then stop. Full stop.
Any reader thoughts on the ideal length of a book review are welcome; let us know what you think in the comments field.
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.