Rules of book reviewing: No. 1 -- Read the book

Being a book critic can be an arduous task. You have to read all those books -- or do you?

How often I have sat upon a midnight dreary pondering weak and weary over another volume of dull contemporary fiction and then decided, that rather finishing it, I would not review it. Luckily, there are a lot of new books out there, so I can grab another off the pile and another cup of coffee and get going, hoping to find that rare spark of inspiration and originality that makes the job worthwhile.

What happens, though, when you just have to read the book, and review it  like Tom Wolfe's last mega-dump? On you plow, making nasty notes along the way until the chore is finished.

“American Rust” is one of those gotta-read books, boosted in part by a strong media effort by Random House and its Spiegel & Grau imprint. Plus, first-time author Philipp Meyer has an intriguing background – working-class family in Baltimore, a handful of jobs including emergency medicine technician and a stock and bonds trader.

For Post-Gazette readers, the setting is key – the Mon Valley. I read the advance copy over Christmas, but turned the reviewing task over to the sharp mind and pen of Peter Oresick, whose piece runs March 8. I in turn interviewed the author and that can be seen on the P-G Web site:

http://www.post-gazette.com/multimedia/?videoID=101620

The big publications rushed to review it and since I wasn’t, I read them all. One was troubling – Ron Charles’ rave in the Washington Post Feb. 25. At the risk of offending many, including the National Book Critics Circle which this year named him best book critic, it seems to me Charles really didn’t read the whole book.

Why? Because he never discusses the central character – police chief Bud Harris, who is also the moral center of the novel. To omit Harris is to completely miss the theme of the book – good people stayed as thousands left.

Plus, to cast “American Rust” against the background of today’s financial collapse only reveals a lack of understanding about Rust Belt America, a territory that was dying for years. Belt-tightening is nothing new there and, in many cases, the people have brought a new life and vitality to the culture based on the heritages and traditions of their ancestors.   

Finally, when you’re not really sure what to say about the story, invoke a few usual suspects like Hemingway and Steinbeck and throw in Cormac McCarthy for good measure to cover the other bases you missed..

Several other book editors discussed this concern of mine with me and all reported that they had a few examples of reviews written by critics who never really read them. Sure, we all get tired and take shortcuts now and then. Some get away with it.

 

 

 


Posted Mar 05 2009, 07:17 AM by Bob Hoover

Comments

PatrickM wrote re: Rules of book reviewing: No. 1 -- Read the book
on Sat, Mar 7 2009 5:38 PM

Good to meet you last night at Gist Street, Mr. Hoover.  I agree with you about critics who's reviews end up resembling "author salad", i.e. so-and-so is a pinch of Fitzgerald, some chopped up Ford, etc.  Though in many cases there are relevant comparisons to be made, the practice can easily come across as the reviewer attempting to illustrate how well-read she or he is.  More importantly though, and as you suggest, the habit diverts a reader's attention away from what we want to hear about: the book!

As for the "short-cutting"...well, I can't say I am surprised.  I am pleased though that someone has called him on it.  Solid post.

Any other readers/commentors disagree with me about my dislike for "author salad"?  

- Patrick