Crime Fiction Dossier (Old)

Deciding what to review

How do you decide what to read/review?

This question comes up a lot (in fact, it could be an Ask the Critic entry), so I answered it for M.J. Rose's excellent blog, Buzz, Balls & Hype:

Deciding which book to review, or even which book to read next, is one of the hardest parts of a critic's job. I receive somewhere in the neighborhood of 200 books every month. I try to read 12-15 and review 6 or 7.

On rare occasions, the selection is made for me, as when I'm reviewing something on assignment or writing a piece on someone and need to read their book first. Usually, though, the decision is up to me, and it's a tough one to make. I want to read as many different types of books (all within the crime fiction genre) as I can, and don't want to miss anything important, but I also want to be entertained.

The choice can be daunting, given the sheer numbers involved. Due to the constant inundation of books, I often feel overwhelmed with the possibilities. (I have read that many shoppers feel the same way when walking into bookstores. I sympathize.) Forget reading for pleasure; I'm just trying to make a small dent in the huge stacks that line the walls of my office.

On a good day, the choice is obvious. If a new book by someone whose work I love (like Laura Lippman, Barry Eisler or Robert Ferrigno, for example) comes in, I will usually read it as soon as I can. I'm not very good at delaying gratification. (Christmas mornings were always a bitch for me.)

Most of the time, though, it's harder than that.

Continue reading "David Montgomery on What to Review" over at Buzz, Balls & Hype.

You too can write for free!

If you've ever wanted to join the big-time world of non-paid book reviewing, now’s your chance!

I’m looking for another reviewer to join the staff of Mystery Ink, the book review and author interview site that I run.

I haven’t been able to update the site as much as I’d like over the past year or two, but I’m hoping to change that in the future.

If you’re interested in possibly contributing, please send me a few of your reviews, or links to where I can read them. (It’s okay if you’ve never reviewed before, assuming you have talent.)

I have a preference for reviews that are around 400 words, are a reasonable mixture of summary and analysis, and are journalistic rather than personal. (Hint: the review is about the book; not about you.) I don’t like long quotes from the text or lots of “I, I, I.”

Ideally, I’m looking for someone who is strong on the cozier end of the genre, although a love of books and the ability to write about them intelligently is paramount.

Requirements: You should be willing to write one or two reviews per month. You should be reasonably tech-savvy so that you can post your reviews to the site, using TypePad’s interface (it’s easy). You should be passionate about reading and writing and willing to take advice.

What do you get out of it? No money. Did I mention that yet? You will, however, get a few free books, the chance to help decide the Gumshoe Awards, and the opportunity to be read by tens of people!

I look forward to hearing from you.

The elephant graveyard of books

I review somewhere between 5 and 10 books most months. I get a lot more than that, though. Here is what I got over the past 2 months or so that I decided not to read for one reason or another.

(I have a slightly smaller set that I received over the same period of time that I hope to read, even if I can't review them.)

So in response to the question, "Why didn't you review such-and-such a book?" here is the answer.

Post apologies for John Irving review

The Associated Press reports today that the Washington Post has apologized for a negative review of John Irving's new novel that they ran last month:

Irving's Until I Find You, an 824-page novel based partly on the author's relationship with his father, was panned in a July 10 review by Marianne Wiggins as a "mass of lazy, unrefined writing."

Wiggins, herself a novelist and National Book Award finalist, also declared that "The story reads as if Irving woke from a recurring nightmare and started dictating compulsively."

Wiggins wasn't the only reviewer to dislike Irving's book, but she was likely the only one once married to author Salman Rushdie, a longtime friend of Irving's. Noting that he had a personal relationship with Wiggins, Irving complained to the Post, which requires critics to sign agreements that "any contact, friendly or otherwise, with the author of this book" should be disclosed to the paper.

In an "Editor's Note" published Sunday, the Post stated: "Had we known that Irving had dedicated one of his earlier novels (A Son of the Circus) to Marianne Wiggins' ex-husband, Salman Rushdie, and had we known that Irving and Wiggins had socialized with each other in the past, we would not have made the assignment.

"We apologize to our readers for this misstep."

Having written for the Post, I remember that contract they make you sign. (They're the only newspaper that has required me to do that.)

It definitely raises a few eyebrows to have a novelist review a book from a good friend of her ex-husband, most importantly because she apparently didn't disclose that to her editor. (I'm a little surprised, though, that they didn't know already. These are hardly unknown people in question here.)

Now if they'd just apologize for another hatchet job they published: the "review" of George Pelecanos' last book by Maya Angelou's son.

Joe Queenan on The Hillary Book

Joe Queenan, the "Look how funny I am, ma!" non-book-reviewer, has finally found a book that is deserving of his attention: Edward Klein's The Truth About Hillary.

To suggest, as the talented John Podhoretz did in The New York Post, that this is "one of the most sordid volumes I have ever waded through" is to raise serious questions about Podhoretz's sordid wading experiences.

As an expert on sordid nonfiction, I would not put The Truth About Hillary anywhere near the top of my list; it pales by comparison with Geraldo Rivera's sublimely vile autobiography, Exposing Myself, and seems demure, nuanced and levelheaded by comparison with masterpieces of partisan venom like the 60's cold-war classic None Dare Call It Treason.

No, I am not suggesting that Edward Klein is a fair, balanced, persuasive, scrupulously honest reporter or a gifted writer. Resorting to chilling Rip Van Winklisms like "Bill and Hillary often grooved the night away at Cozy Beach, spinning the latest Jefferson Airplane platters," Klein sometimes sounds like a cryogenically preserved Maynard G. Krebs. Like, dig: the cat is far out.

What I am saying is that if Klein purposely set out to write the sleaziest, most derivative, most despicable political biography ever, he has failed both himself and his readers miserably. The Truth About Hillary is only about the 16th sleaziest book I have ever read. Though, in fairness to the author, reading creepy, cut-and-paste books is my hobby.

Granted, it's a waste of time (and previous review space) for the New York Times to have someone like Queenan cover a book that is so obviously a huge, stinking pile. But at least this time he was funny. (Thanks to Sarah for the tip.)

Reviewer Poll: Authors contacting critics

As regular readers of this blog will know, one of the things I do here on the Crime Fiction Dossier is talk about the world of the book critic, and try to shed some light on the process of book reviewing.

Last week I wrote about “How books get chosen for review,” specifying how the last several books I reviewed had gotten into my hands. Author Bob Morris then brought up an interesting point in the comments section:

I'm not quite sure how, or even if, I should approach reviewers. Some book critics I know have told me that it is bad form for a writer to contact a potential reviewer and that to do so will actually work against you. Rather, they say, we should rely on our publicists to get the books to the reviewers and hope for the best.

I always tell authors that it’s okay, that they should notify reviewers when they have a book coming out. (There are so damn many book published that it’s impossible to keep up with everything, so this can be helpful to critics.)

That advice is fine if writers want to approach me. But what about other critics? How do they feel about being contacted by authors? That, I did not know.

So, at this week’s meeting of the Super Secret Book Critic Cabal, where we all get together to decide which books we’re going to praise, which to pan, and which to make bestsellers, I asked.

Suggestions, please?

If you have any suggestions for what I should read and review in the next week, please send 'em along. I'm having a helluva time finding stuff. The summer doldrums are upon me.

Thanks.

Anonymous reviews

Author Quinn Dalton has an intriguing piece over at Media Bistro about the flogging her new short story collection, Bulletproof Girl, received by Kirkus:

The unbylined review deemed my writing "pat," my stories "flat" and the collection as a whole trivial for dealing with "overly familiar domestic issues." (I guess I should've seen that coming: Stories by women about women are by nature domestic, and therefore overly familiar; one might as well put the kitchen sink on the cover.)

Negative reviews are part of the territory, of course, but what has Dalton upset in this case is the anonymous nature of Kirkus' reviews:

There are some good arguments to be made for trade publications reviewing books anonymously. Nobody wants to read a review that is a thinly-veiled tool for self-advancement or a little back-slapping between friends. But anonymity causes as many problems as it solves, and I think reviewers—at least the professionals—should cut it out.

She goes on to write that:

...anonymity doesn't remove personal bias on the part of the reviewer—for or against certain authors, or certain types of books. It just cloaks bias behind a brand name, and is therefore untraceable for librarians and booksellers and the authors whose careers suffer or are nurtured as a result.

That seems like a rather sound argument to me. Dalton is right: anonymity is just as likely to hide bias as it is to remove it.

How to get your book reviewed - an ongoing series

I've been planning a comprehensive discussion on the subject of "How to get your book reviewed." I'm too busy right now, unfortunately, to sit down and actually write up what I have in mind, though. (Guyot is snapping at my heels and my boss keeps almost catching me writing reviews when I'm supposed to be working.)

I thought I could offer some tips, though, in the meantime. Here's the first one:

Address your letter/email to the correct person.

I wrote last week about how I feel when I get emails addressed simply to "Mystery Ink." Recently, I got a book in the mail and an accompanying letter addressed to "Vince Darcangelo, Boulder Weekly."

As the old saying goes, you only get one chance to make a first impression, and that made a poor one on me. We all make mistakes -- I've made similar ones myself -- but that is a time at which it's especially important that everything go right.

That didn't kill the book outright for me, but it sure didn't help. The book was from a publisher I'd never heard of, by an unknown author. I was already a little skeptical of the book's chances for being any good, and this just added to the amateur factor.

So for those of you who are thinking of submitting a book to a reviewer, or even just making a query, spend the time to find out the person's name and then correctly address your correspondence. Even if you're not a professional, you can act like one and nobody will be the wiser.

Another lesson in how not to promote your book

I got an email today from a hopeful new writer asking me to review his new book:

Dear Mystery Ink:

I am an attorney on the eve of launching [a new series of novels], which are hard-edged legal/crime thrillers. I would love to get a review from you for the first novel in this series...Chapter One is available on-line at [omitted] and we would be happy to mail you the entire book (galleys) upon request or e-mail additional chapters for your review.

I thoroughly believe that you will find this book compelling and that your readers will be very interested in it.

He went on to include some product details, plus a long list of "representative blurbs received from notable authors," all of them unsigned.

Finally, he closed by promising:

If you could provide a review by June 30, 2005, we would be in a position to excerpt it for the cover and/or elsewhere in the book, which would be good advertising for your review site and also the indiviudal [sic] reviewer who would be named.

For all I know, the book is wonderful. This pitch, though, is misguided on several accounts.

Your humble reviewer complains

I'm currently working on two review columns (one for the Chicago Sun-Times, one for the Washington Examiner) and am struggling to get them done, which is unusual for me. I still have another week or so before my deadlines, so I don't anticipate having trouble finishing them, but it's proving to be more frustrating than usual.

I'm planning to include 6 books in each column, for a total of 12, but it looks like I'm going to double up a couple of them, so there will be maybe 10 different books between the two pieces.

Ordinarily, I can read and review 10 books in a month, no sweat -- especially considering I read one of them a couple months ago. I'm having a helluva time, though, finding good things to review.

Nasty reviewers, nasty reviews

One of the things that really gets my shorts in a bunch is when a reviewer goes out of his/her way to be nasty or insulting in his critique of an author's book. Unfortunately, this happens more frequently than you'd think, and even some otherwise good reviewers are guilty of it.

For whatever reason, the Washington Post seems to have published several of these pieces recently, with victims ranging from George Pelecanos to Lawrence Block. Perhaps their worst, though, was reserved for a pair of unknowns.

Those pieces seem mild-mannered, though, compared to some of the "reviews" that get published. For example, Joe Queenan has written a couple things for the New York Times recently that have been particularly nasty.

Misconceptions about Reviewing, Pt. 1

There are so many misconceptions about reviewing out there that I am continually surprised by the things that people report as fact. It’s futile to try to answer all of them, but I thought I would try tackling a few at least.

First one up: “Reviewers don’t review paperback originals.”

I hear this all the time from writers. Granted, it’s tough for a PBO to get reviewed. But it’s tough for any book to get reviewed. Reviewers do consider paperbacks, though.

Of the last dozen or so books I’ve written newspaper reviews for, four of them have been PBOs. Sarah Weinman, Dick Adler and Adam Woog also regularly review paperbacks, just to name a few people that I read.

There are reasons why reviewers tend to favor hardbacks over paperbacks – some of them good reasons, some of them not so good reasons.

An example of a good reason: most hardbacks cost around $25, most trade paperbacks around $12, most mass markets around $7. Buying a mass market PB doesn’t require as much financial risk as a hardback. You can afford to take a flyer on an unknown more readily. It helps to have as much information beforehand as possible, though, before you plop down 25 bucks. As a result, a review of a hardback can provide more value to the consumer.

On the other hand, a not so good reason is that it can be hard to tell when the books are coming in whether or not a paperback is an original or a reprint. Sometimes reviewers don’t have the time or inclination to figure it out. Like I said, not a very good reason, but it happens.

Authors of PBOs face an uphill battle in getting ink. But to say that they don’t get reviewed simply isn’t true.

Book selected

Thanks for the suggestions, folks. I finished Naomi Hirahara's Gasa Gasa Girl last night and it looks like that will be the book I include in my column. Excellent read.

Quick! Which book should I review?

One of the books I had slated for my May Chicago Sun-Times column has just dropped out due to its publishing date being pushed back. That leaves me with a slot I need to fill.

If you have any suggestions for a book that I should review, including your own book, please post a comment ASAP. I'm working on a tight deadline here.

(If you're shy, you can send me an email.)

The following criteria apply:

• The book must be a mystery, thriller, or suspense novel.
• The book should be available in stores by the first week of May at the latest.
• The book needs to have been published no earlier than the beginning of April. (In a pinch, I might go mid-March, but that's pushing it.)
• The book can't be published by Putnam. (I've already got 2 Putnam books in there and need to share the wealth.)
• The book can't be self-published or from a vanity press. (The paper won't run 'em.)

Fire away! I await your suggestions.

The mail I get

Lee Goldberg uses his blog to share some of the emails he receives and reply to them in public, in the hopes of disseminating useful information to his readers. I thought that I would do the same, using an exchange I had today with someone who emailed me.

Leslie J. Weddell wrote:

This is my first attempt at writing a full Novel. OK, you see this kind of letter most days!

But, could I ask you to find time to read it in the next two months?

I only published it because I took a survey from fifity friends who are avid readers and they said it was very good, and should be published. five years on, I did as they suggested, and got Authothouse to do it for me.

I replied, as I always do to such requests:

I don't review self-published or vanity novels, I'm afraid, but I wish you the best of luck with your endeavors.

That usually satisfies most inquiries, but Mr. Weddell was apparently offended and thus replied:

Then you are really missing something.

I am NOT Self published -my publishers are Authorhouse.com  - and they are very particular in what material they accept on their books.

Remember, JK Rowling wrote her first Harry Potter book FIVE years before getting it published, against all odds.  now all that turned her down are kicking themselves.

I'm sorry, but I think there is an element of snobbery in your reply.

You need not bother to reply to this message.

Initially, I thought to just leave it at that, but I did feel that he might benefit from an explanation. So I wrote back:

I know you said I don't have to reply, but I thought I should, just to explain. I think it's important to understand.

AuthorHouse IS a self-publishing company. The front page of their website clearly states, "Since 1997, AuthorHouse, the leading self-publishing company in the world, has helped authors achieve their book publishing goals..."

There's certainly nothing wrong with vanity publishing, if that's the route you choose to pursue. However, it does mean that most outlets, including all the ones I write for, will not review your book. (I have tried to review vanity novels in the past, and no papers will run them.)

Ultimately, it comes down to a numbers game. I receive submissions of hundreds of books each month from trade publishers large and small. I am able to review, at most, 10 or so. There simply isn't time to include self-published books in my plans, especially considering that no paper would run the review anyway.

As I said before, though, I do wish you the best with your endeavors. I hope you will take my remarks in the positive spirit in which I offer them.

I could have added that the vast majority of self-published novels are pure crap, but I was trying to be polite. I doubt Mr. Weddell will learn anything from our exchange (apparently he failed to realize that AuthorHouse is a vanity publisher), but perhaps someone else might.

If you pay someone to publish your novel, the chances are that very few people will want to read it and that nobody will review it. That might not seem fair, but it's reality.

There's nothing wrong with vanity publishing, per se, just so long as you go into it with your eyes open and with realistic expectations.

(By the way, if anyone's interested in his book, you can get it here.)

The books I get, pt. 3

As part of my continuing series on the flood of books that invade the home of this humble reviewer, I report on today's receipts:

Hardbacks: 11
Advanced galleys: 9 (plus a duplicate copy of one of the books)
Trade paperback: 1
Paperback originals: 2
Paperback reprints: 3

Total books received: 26

My initial sort resulted in 4 ARCs set aside for possible reading and review. Of the hardbacks, I already read two of them in galley form; one I liked and am reviewing, one I didn't care for. One of the paperbacks I read and reviewed a couple years ago.

The rest didn't make the cut. They're set aside for now in the towering stacks that line the walls of my ofice. It's possible that something will make me revisit them, but it's not very likely.

My current "to be read" piles consist of:

55 Advanced reading copies
26 Finished hardbacks
24 Paperbacks

Now that I think of it, it's time again to go through these and cull out the ones that I won't have time for.

In related news, I've written two full-length reviews today, both for the Philadelphia Inquirer. I've also got a column due in 2 weeks for the Chicago Sun-Times. (I'm pretty sure what's going to be included in it, although I haven't written it yet.)

I haven't had much time to read, but I'm about halfway through Dylan Schaffer's new book, I Right the Wrongs, a sequel to last year's Gumshoe Award-winning Misdemeanor Man. It's good.

All in all, it's been a busy book day.

A.J. Jacobs vs. Joe Queenan

A.J. Jacobs, author of the humorous memoir The Know-It-All: One Man's Humble Quest to Become the Smartest Person in the World, has a piece in tomorrow's New York Times rebutting the review he received from Joe Queenan in the same pages a few weeks back.

Jacobs takes exception to Queenan's venomous pseudo-critique, which seemed to either miss the tongue-in-cheek point of the book entirely, or else have been motivated by something approaching sociopathic loathing.

Queenan described Jacobs as "criminally stupid," "a poor man's Dave Barry; no, a bag person's Dave Barry" who has written a book that is "misguided...mesmerizing uninformative...idiotic." Ultimately, he dismisses Jacbos as a "pedigreed simpleton."

Jacobs responds that he was shocked that Queenan "seemed genuinely angry with me, as if I had transported his niece across state lines...He referred to me as a 'jackass.' A jackass. In the New York Times Book Review. I flipped around to the other reviews. Did they call Philip Roth a doofus? Did they call Gish Jen a nitwit? No, just me. A jackass."

Eventually, Jacobs goes on to take a rather philosophical approach to the whole matter. After finally putting his anger behind him, he accepts that "as a writer, I have to accept the lack of control. Publishing a book is like having a child. You can do everything right -- feed him, clothe him, show him Baby Kierkegaard videos -- but a bully at kindergarten can still make him eat clumps of dirt. You have to come to terms with that."

Jacobs’ attitude is a healthy one, and probably the only one to take if you want to maintain your sanity.

This episode is emblematic, though, of something that is very wrong with the state of reviewing today. The problem with too many reviewers, especially those writing in publications like the New York Times, is that they have ulterior motives which prevent them from doing a conscientious job.

In this case, for example, it seems clear that Queenan either was on a bizarre, manic tirade for some unknown (and irrelevant) reason or else he was trying to be funny and thus promote himself. In either case, he seemed to have little interest in actually reviewing the book. What's the use of that? (Especially considering that the piece was nasty, but not particularly humorous.)

A bitchy review can be funny and even insightful (think of Chris Buckley a few years back, touching off a shitstorm by describing Tom Clancy as "the James Fenimore Cooper of his day, which is to say the most successful bad writer of his generation."). The piece, though, still has to offer some truth and reasoned analysis, along with the humor. Otherwise, it’s not a book review.

All too many critics see their allotted review space as their chance to demonstrate their wittiness, put forth their opinions, promote their own work, or otherwise fill the page with nothing having to do with the book supposedly under review.

Writing a conscientious and useful review takes thought and skill and care, and that, unfortunately, is more than many critics are willing to do.

There are some good reviewers out there. But it takes time to find them and follow their writing to see what they're up to. That is more effort than most readers are willing to put out, though, so instead this is what we end up with.

The books I get -- updated

I made a post recently on how I decide "What to read next" which has generated some discussion elsewhere.

For the record, in today's mail (and via courier service) I received:

9 Advanced galleys
5 Hardbacks
1 Paperback original

This is a larger total than most days, but it gives you an idea of what I'm trying to keep up with.

My immediate sort produced 3 ARCs and 1 hardback that I might read, plus 1 hardback and the paperback, which I've already read. The rest went into the "not likely" pile.

My "waiting to be read" stacks of new titles now consists of 83 books.

Go ahead and put it on my tombstone: "I'm reading as fast as I can."