By Anna Herve

Personally, I find that it's less a case of the reviewer being too reverential but of not actually reviewing the book, in the most obvious sense, in their review at all. How many reviews these days just regurgitate the plot or blurb or are simply used as an excuse for the reviewer to boast about how much he or she knows about the subject themselves? You get to the end of the review and still have no idea, on a basic level, what the reviewer actually thought and whether they felt you should buy the book (a bad review, by the way, if it actually gives a proper assessment, doesn't necessarily turn the reader off buying the book - it just gives you an opinion that helps you form your own judgement prior to purchase). Mind you, one look at how sales figures spike on Amazon alone after a feature review in the ST's Culture section shows how many people are still guided by the reviews they read, even if they do offer very little in the way of guidance anymore. So, bearing in mind how influential reviews obviously still are, why don’t the literary editors on newspapers keep their reviewers on a tighter leash? Should not reviews be ‘fit for purpose’? And I also feel that we should follow the US in having a far stronger code of conduct as to who can review certain books – the general public put their trust in the reviewers to be fair and objective, but all too often the reviewers are personal friends of the author (or share the same agent or publisher) and so give a falsely glowing report, or there is professional jealousy/competitiveness in play due to some feud or because the reviewer has written a similar book (which, sadly, is frequently why they’ve been chosen to do the review in the first place, in the hope that it will generate some inches in the gossip columns), which is all very entertaining for those of us in the industry who know what’s going on behind the scenes, but the general public, who have no insider knowledge, end up being utterly mislead. One notable exception, whose reviews are always a joy to read, is Professor John Carey. But surely you don’t need to be the former Merton Professor to give a decent analysis and criticism of a recently published book, rather than the wishy-washy tripe that has so often passed for a review in the past few years?

17 Oct 07 12:24

Unsuitable?

By Nicholas Murray

Of course there mustn't be backscratching but Howard Davies' view that "Diary of a Bad Year" didn't "come off" is no more valid an observation than those of the critics at whom he sneers. He is so circumscribed by his view of what a novel should be that he can't see the point of the new Coetzee. He is perfectly entitled to his view but the populist platform of the Man Booker judging chair as ever makes him think that he is the fount of common wisdom instead of just another opinionated geezer - like me.

17 Oct 07 16:43

Unsuitable?