Professor Fleur Johns  offers 10 rules of thumb that have guided her ain reviewing efforts and may prove helpful to others working on book reviews, or thinking of doing then, in the course of their academic lives.

A recent experience prompted me to reverberate on the office of academic book reviews and about when, why and how to write them. I wrote a review several months ago of a volume that has received widespread and overwhelmingly laudatory attention. While acknowledging the importance and value of the volume'due south contribution, I took event with it in no uncertain terms and questioned its attainment of ane of its major goals. Several respondents on social media reacted with verbal frowns. One wondered if I had contacted the author prior to the review'southward publication (I had non). Another bristled at what they interpreted as audacity on my part, remarking that it was 'easier' to write a volume review than 'a volume of significance' (it is). I worried a scrap too. Had I been disrespectful, ungenerous? Should I have cushioned my remarks in a fuller recitation of the book's strengths?

Reflection on this experience led me to formulate, more explicitly than I had previously, some rules of thumb for my own reviewing efforts. I reproduce these here in example they might be helpful to others working on book reviews, or thinking of doing so, in the course of their academic lives. It goes without saying – only let me say it anyway – that these are conditioned by my own disproportionately privileged circumstances and that I nevertheless take much to learn, every bit a reviewer and otherwise. I have idea and written about lists in the past, and have an affection for them, and so I present these as ten suggestions:

ane. Reviewing books maintains one's sense of being part of a larger, longer, scholarly conversation. It should be every bit much of a regular responsibleness of academic life as peer reviewing (relative to opportunity). And similar peer reviewing, information technology needs to exist approached with greater care than it is sometimes afforded.

2. Everyone should write book reviews, at all bookish career stages. Information technology'southward not simply a practice recommended for graduate students needing free books. It keeps one in the habit of close, critical, comprehend-to-encompass reading. And what of the likely response: that contemporary academic work is structured in ways that make the continued cultivation of this addiction unachievable? That may be so for many of united states of america at many times. If we concede that across the board, nevertheless, then we accede to the very transformation of universities that we ofttimes lament.

Anybody should write volume reviews, at all academic career stages. It's not just a practice recommended for graduate students needing free books. Information technology keeps one in the habit of shut, critical, cover-to-cover reading.

3. Conflicts of interest, actual or perceived, are best avoided. Book reviewers should disclose anything that could be viewed every bit such. I have reviewed friends' books earlier, to endeavor to lend support to and foster appointment with colleagues' and collaborators' work. Upon reflection though, I should not have done so because of the possible perception that I might benefit professionally from advances in my co-authors' and collaborators' careers, and that my judgment might be coloured accordingly. I might instead have facilitated reviews of these books by someone at a greater distance from their authors. Of item importance amongst conflicts is the post-obit: call back very carefully before reviewing a volume in which your ain work features prominently. If there is any reference to your work in the book you're reviewing, permit information technology pass. Use of the offset-person vocalism tin can be refreshing, but a book review ought non to revolve predominantly around the reviewer. Professor Leslie Dark-green'due south 2020 review of a department of Professor Joanne Conaghan'south 2013 book (to which Conaghan offered a patient response) is illustrative of the kinds of perils that can be associated with domicile, equally a reviewer, on the treatment of one's own work in the book nether review.

four. Attend to power imbalances. If you are an established academic, don't review a first volume or a book of an early career researcher with which y'all fervently disagree. Unremarkably, disagreement can brand for engaging writing and productive argument (more on this below). However, in the context of a ability imbalance favouring the reviewer, discord may be misread and could exercise unintended damage.

v. Foreground the criticism. Continue summary to a minimum. Be sure to make an argument – well-nigh the book, but also by reflecting critically on the intervention that it makes in the field, and what it suggests about the land of that field. Be off-white, respectful and try to come across the volume on its own terms, merely don't shy abroad from critical appointment. It is a mark of respect for the seriousness of the author's endeavour.

6. Some say one should only review books that 1 loves. I disagree. My version would be the post-obit: merely review books by which you experience provoked, and that seem significant to you. This position counsels against reading books that hold you in their thrall. If you are utterly in awe of a book or its author, that might be a proficient reason non to review it (gushy reviews tin be a tad nauseating). At the same fourth dimension, it militates against reviewing books that yous think are expert, but which don't really excite you either positively or negatively. Critique can carry a caste of risk (recall the extraordinary tribulations through which periodical editor Professor Joseph Weiler was put by one disgruntled author). Even so, a fence-sitting, anodyne review wastes the writer's, editor's and reader'south energies and does the author concerned no service at all. Reviewing books that frustrate you, but that you lot still regard as important and worthy of attending – this tin actually help move scholarly statement along.

If yous are utterly in awe of a book or its author, that might exist a expert reason not to review information technology

7. Don't but review 'up' or focus on renowned and established authors. Seek out lesser-known works to spotlight. If you are bilingual or multilingual, seek out books in a range of languages to pitch to book review editors to assist disturb the dominance of English in scholarly publication.

8. Don't send the review to the author, at least not prior to publication. Don't imagine yourself in straight chat with the author so much equally with the book and its other readers. This does not, of course, override the imperative of being fair.

Don't imagine yourself in directly chat with the author and then much equally with the book and its other readers.

nine. Explore the genre, including the (ofttimes undervalued) review essay. Read widely in information technology. Approach the genre on its own terms, inspired by those book reviews that you have found most absorbing and illuminating every bit a reader. TheLos Angeles Review of Books, theNew York Review of Books, theLondon Review of Books,Biblio, theParis Review, theSingapore Review of Books,The New Yorker,The Nationand theLatin American Research Review all publish first-class book reviews, as do many other online and print publications.

10. At that place are awards for book reviewing: in the US, the Nona Balakian Citation for Excellence in Reviewing, for example. One might learn from taking a look at the work of those lauded for reviewing and trying to unpick what they do well. Accolades for book reviewing are, notwithstanding, very few. If you are a member of an editorial lath or scholarly association, you lot might consider introducing such an award. Or mayhap that proposition misses part of the indicate of volume reviewing. The poet Philip Larkin's letters may have presented him every bit a 'habitual racist and full-time misogynist'. All the same he was on to something, I think, when he ruefully celebrated the unheralded reading and writing of 'volume-drunk freak[s]' for precisely that – its ingloriousness. Perhaps, when one can, there is some small grace in doing difficult piece of work in honour of reading and readers, with little or no expectation of recognition.

This blogpost originally appeared on the LSE Review of Books, where readers can find a broad range of books to review. If you lot would like to contribute please contact the managing editor of LSE Review of Books, Dr Rosemary Deller, at lsereviewofbooks@lse.ac.united kingdom of great britain and northern ireland

Note: This commodity gives the views of the author, and not the position of the Touch on of Social Science web log, nor of the London School of Economics. Delight review our Comments Policy if you take any concerns on posting a comment below.

Image Credit: Adapted from Cottonbro via Pexels.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email