Capsule versus Analytical Reviews

Posted by Colin Harvey Apr 30, 2009

Another week, another review, and like last week, I wasn't planning on blogging today -- I've too much on, and don't want to blog when I haven't much to say.

Three things changed my mind.

A little while ago I received a mail from another writer about my review of his latest book. He wasn't taking me to task, but wrote a note saying that he had the impression that it wasn't my 'cup of tea.' (that I didn't like it) The note left me slightly bemused, as I thought I'd been reasonably complimentary about his book.

I gave it some thought, and while I'm not sure how the difference in perception arose, I can think of a couple of possible reasons.

First, I'm a Brit. You can add to my natural reserve a dislike of hyperbole. Calling every story junk or a masterpiece leaves no room for genuine masterpieces and junk, and demeans those stories that I do praise. So I mostly limit my pronouncements to 'recommended' and even 'highly recommended.' My correspondent is American, and perhaps mistook my reserve for dislike.

Second, the review in question was --unlike the capsule reviews for Suite101, which are 400 to 600 words and strictly third person-- an analytical review of nearly 1500 words. In such reviews, the writer is expected to examine in as much detail what didn't work for them as what did, and even to 'spoil' the work if the conclusion throws up points of interest. These analytical reviews are probably aimed more at scholars and aspiring writers than the general reader.

They're not easy for those fans and writers used to capsule reviews to understand, and leave many scratching their heads in bemusement.

I'll cover the other reasons tomorrow, both of which are specifically to do with the Black Static 10 review.