Read, mark, digest and review

Book reviewing is an important component of newspaper journalism. Newspapers in developed countries devote several pages or separate sections to publish book reviews and interviews with authors.

“The New York Times Literary Review” is perhaps the best of its kind. It comes as a pullout carrying book reviews, news, interviews and advertisements relating to books. Nearer home, “The Hindu” carries a weekly supplement of book reviews and other related matter. It is a pleasure to read it because the newspaper published in India is available here.

Although many books are published locally newspapers in Sri Lanka do not carry literary supplements. For that matter, there are no literary editors in our country. Some newspapers, however, devote a page or two for book news and reviews. A few freelance journalists regularly write book reviews. However, there seems to be a severe shortage of literary men who are able to turn out meaningful book reviews.

Book reviewing should not be taken lightly. A good reviewer has to read the best of the latest books published here and abroad. A review, in essence, is viewing the author’s opinion in your perspective. Any reviewer worth his salt should be able to discuss, appraise and evaluate the book in question.

Readers are in the habit of judging both the author and the reviewer. Orville Prescott, the reputed reviewer, who contributed to “The New York Times”once said that all criticism consisted of only two things: information and highly personal opinion.

It is doubtful whether there is an accepted formula to write book reviews. Numerous books on different subjects flood the market.

Meanwhile, there are different types of reviewers. Some quote chapter and verse and ask readers to assess the book. Others comment on the contents of the book from a literary angle. Some reviewers praise the author without commenting on the contents. Then there are people who write reviews even without reading the book!

“Some reviewers write so pretentiously and obscurely that I cannot understand what they say. May be I should be blamed for my ignorance. But I think there is a communication gap between the reviewer and the reader”, a university undergraduate told me in a telephone interview. Then I turned to a retired university lecturer to ask for his comments. He said, “I think some reviewers try to impress readers with their own opinions rather than commenting on the book. However, I don’t expect the reviewer to comment on every chapter.

It may be necessary for a reviewer to summarise the text of a book. Otherwise readers will not know what the reviewer is talking about. This can be a useful exercise if handled with care. After doing so the reviewer should spell out the reasons why the book should be read or thrown away into the nearest dustbin.

Another problem associated with book reviewing is the length. Some reviews are longer than the text of the book. Others are written like a blurb. The length of the review, however, can vary depending on the subject matter. Meanwhile, some literary journals carry long critical reviews of books on selected subjects and they are avidly read. These are written by authorities on the subject such as university professors and professional reviewers. However, newspapers are reluctant to devote so much of space to a single review.

Sometimes we read reviews that are simply descriptive of the contents of a book. Readers are expected to read them and form their own opinions. This method does not work all the time. Therefore, it is always advisable to combine objectivity and subjectivity whenever possible.

It is generally accepted that book reviewing is the art of making discriminating judgements and evaluations. This should be an eye opener to those who think that reviewing is nothing but passing unfavourable judgements.

The relationship between the author and the reviewer is something interesting. Some authors do not like reviewers at all. They say critics are people who have failed to become authors. Samuel Johnson wrote about critics disparagingly: “There is a certain race of men that either imagine it their duty, or make it their amusement, to hinder the reception of every work of learning or genius, who stand as sentinels in the avenues of fame, and value themselves upon giving Ignorance and Envy the first notice of a prey.”

Apart from having your review published, the very act of reviewing helps you to remember what you have read. On the other hand, reviewing a book forces you to appraise its quality. Later on your review will be a ready reference to which you can turn for learning and teaching purposes.

Any sensible person will read, mark and digest the book before writing a review. Seasoned reviewers underline sentences and whole passages and write marginal notes. This helps them to go along with the author’s thinkings. Sometimes, reviewers do not agree with the views expressed by authors. After this laborious process, you have to write a review objectively and without bias.

Book reviewing is a serious job in the modern world. The reviewer must always remember the author’s hard work that has gone into the book. On the other hand, the author may have made some financial commitments to get his book published. Therefore, the reviewer should not do a slipshod job by simply skimming through the book. In other words, the reviewer has an obligation to the author and the reader as well. In the developed West and in India, critics are a powerful breed. If a reviewer writes a favourable review, the book will find itself among the Best Seller list. If the review is unfavourable, the book will not attract a large number of readers. In our country, however, there are hardly any professional book reviewers. Some fulltime and freelance journalists write book reviews whenever they find the time to do so. Therefore, those who wish to join the ranks of books reviewers should learn the finer points gradually and methodically.

Writers and critics are sometimes at opposite poles when it comes to literary criticism. Being a writer who occasionally dabbles in literary criticism. I have had some experience of both ends of the stick. However, the ancient rivalry between writers and critics appears to be essential for the growth of literature. Although many books come out of the press, they do not usher in a literary revival or renaissance.

The role of the reviewer or the critic is to act as a moderator. His function is not to predict the arrival of best sellers or condemn certain books as trash. So long as there are writers there will be critics who will read short stories, novels and other literary work and place their views in literary context and perspective. We have to agree with Anatole France who said, “The good critic is he who relates the adventures of his soul among masterpieces.”

Tel: 038 2238338