The Kidlit Blogging Conference, Part 2

My presentation on advanced reviewing

(Cont'd from yesterday)

There was no getting around the fact that my 12-page handout (yes, it grew to 12, I don't know how) would not fit neatly into a 50-minute presentation. I had prepared for a 90-minute workshop.

I raced through the material and there were many salient points that I had to skim or drop altogether. In the future, I think I will insist on a workshop-length seminar for properly teaching this difficult and touchy subject.

Yes, this is me, courtesy of Mark Blevis.

People were slow to get started, perhaps lulled by the easygoing nature of the other presentations. Mine was pretty high key, and I think many were startled at the size of the handout and the announcement that there would an editing exercise.

More after the jump ...

Where we are now

I began with an overview of the print vs. blog reviewers animosity. I stated flatly that print reviewers have a human impulse to keep the barbarian hordes at bay out of self-preservation.

And one look around the book blogging world does indeed reveal a gap in skills, to put it gently. But the gates to the castle are easily opened; by knowing what a good, meaty book review looks like, you can join what Steve Wasserman, former LA Times Book Review editor, called, "a cultural conversation of critical importance."

Everything else is  book chatter (my term) -- also valuable,  of course, but it doesn't employ the same analytical thinking or provide the same depth of insight.

Forms vs. Formulas

Before I could launch into the forms of book reviewing, I reminded people that forms aren't formulas. I used a shopping analogy (payback for all those overused sports analogies -- I'm not much of a "team player" and I never "hit one out of the park"):

This isn't like going into a department store looking for size-12 sportswear and all you find are size-8 cocktail dresses. This isn't about one-size fits all.

Switching metaphors (you can do this when you're talking a mile a minute), I said imagine the structured review as a dinner plate. Just because everyone uses a dinner plate doesn't mean we're all eating the same meal. What you prepare and how you present it are entirely your own.

Having an Ideal Reader

I spent only a brief time asking bloggers to consider not just readers who routinely visit their blogs, since writing for this immediate circle eventually becomes limiting and self-referential.

You unwittingly erect your own gates, admitting only those who "get" you and your stylistic quirks. To reach a broader audience, you have to imagine who they should be.

I never imagined that Book Buds would draw so many librarians, and while I love every one of you dearly, my ideal reader is still the lost parent in the bookstore, afraid to venture beyond what they loved from their own childhoods into the wilderness of all those new titles. I always write for that parent, imagining him or her anew each time.

The Three Forms of Book Reviewing

Through our handouts, I showed how you can break book reviewing into three forms based on length: capsule reviews, mid-length or daily reviews (so called because they appear in the daily sections of newspapers instead of Sunday) and long-form essays topped by a billboard (explanation below).

We spent the most time on capsule reviews, because we find it most often on blogs and it offers the easiest opportunities for freelancing. It's also a bitch to get it right, and therefore the most flagrantly abused (though I didn't put it in those terms).

My advice: write tight, eschew too much plot rehash, have a distinct perspective, be authoritative.

I had people edit a short, highly critical review of a Hanukkah book that had been sent to me by a writer looking for editing advice. I was surprised when many people (authors all) stalled on the idea that the writer would even bother with a negative review.

Many authors simply couldn't emotionally grapple with the reality of negative book reviews, of their being a vital part of that "cultural conversation."

Daily Reviews

We moved on to the dailies, which I insisted must have two characteristics: thematic consistency and brisk writing (unlike this post, alas).

My advice:

Simply listing all your likes and dislikes doesn't make for a review, even if you think you're being thorough. Especially if you think you're being thorough!

Ruminate on the book as deeply as time allows. Where does it fit in its genre? Or into the author's body of work? Or in pop culture? If there's one notion in your head that shines brighter, there's your theme, which acts as a thread to pull readers through to the end.

Organize all your quotes, plot details and exposition around that ONE theme. That's all there's room to do in a daily. As with capsule reviews, keep plot rehash to a minimum. Weave in only those details that make sense for the theme you've chosen. If there are plot details that MUST be included that DON'T fit your theme, you may have the wrong theme.

Okay, much of the above didn't actually make it into my presentation in exactly those words. I hope I conveyed most of it though.

We spent a good deal of time analyzing Ursula K. Le Guin's recent review for the London Guardian. It was a scathing indictment of those who steal science fiction tropes but then insist their work isn't lowly genre writing. Le Guin, a giant in the science fiction and fantasy field, showed little patience for such high-falutin' rubbish.

Questions shot from the group, and I'm afraid we strayed far into the whole negative review minefield. I let people hash this out, with Ysabeau Wilce artfully pointing out how the British see reviewing as a blood sport. Again -- know your audience. This was, after all, in a British newspaper.

We also talked about who gets chosen to write reviews, whether newcomers or established authors bear the brunt of negative reviewing, etc. People loved the discussion, but I'm wondering if it more properly belongs in its own forum next year.

By the time I hustled people along to the long-form, our time was up! Liz, the next speaker, graciously loaned me five minutes to speed through a few more points.

The long form

The long-form essay deals not necessarily with one particular book -- unless it's a seminal work -- but with a writer's career, or a trend or movement in literature, or it paints some much larger picture than is possible in the 500-800 words usually reserved for dailies.

I didn't get to say this, but the long form can go very long -- up to 25,000 words or so, after which it's time to get a book contract!

To keep it manageable, the long form features what's known as a "billboard," basically a signal of what's to come. Its two characteristics are the anecdotal lead of 1 or 2 extremely large paragraphs or 3-6 shorter paragraphs, plus what's called the "nut" paragraphs because they contain the kernel of your arguments.

The opening anecdote -- often but not always drawn from the subject's life -- ends in an "aha" moment when the reader finally learns why he or she's reading this.

That's when biography stops and the hard work of laying out your themes begins. A longer piece needs more than one theme, and EVERY SENTENCE in the nut graphs lays out a different theme, each subsequent sentence building on the one before.

I used an excerpt from a recent piece on Jack Kerouac (his "On the Road" turns 60 soon) and quickly pointed out where we shifted into "nut" mode and labeled the anecdote as "A" followed by themes  B, C, D and even E.

Throughout the piece -- indeed, every long piece -- writers will wheel through ABCDE (or however many letters) again and again. To put all the plot rehash or anecdotes or quotes (the "A" stuff) together would make little sense except as a book report; to put all paragraphs on theme B or theme C, etc., together gets wearisome. People like patterns and the mind absorbs them without effort.

If, each time you dip into the well for "A" matter, you then work it through each theme, you create a circular movement that propels readers along, always coming back to A again, and so forth. You build momentum.

(This is tough to explain without showing, but if you want to peek in at Book Forum, any Sunday book review section or the New York Review of Books, you'll find plenty of examples to dissect this way.)

And that's all I had time for! People seemed generally enthused, and I think the discussion on negative reviewing did some good. I had all positive feedback, and you'd never know I'd never led such a session in my life.

I'm grateful for the one or two readers who ever made it this far, and I wish you many happy reviews -- even if they're negative.

Comments

[brettdl]

You should teach a college course on this!

[Liz B]

It was a great presentation, and I was surprised at some of the reactions in the audience. I've been given a ton of stuff to think about.

[Mark]

Your presentation was fantastic, Anne. It was incredibly informative, delivered in an engaging way and your handouts will serve as great resources for many people for a long time.

Mark

[Susan T.]

Thanks, Anne. I linked this piece and talked about it some at a post at C.S. today.

[Cheryl Rainfield]

Wow, Anne! Thanks for posting this! It's thoughtful and wonderfully detailed and gives us so much to think about.

[Anne]

Many thanks! All I was trying to do is to give you a broad outline of the possibilities. I'm so glad people were interested, even if the introvert in me still has trouble believing it.

And if you all haven't checked out Mark's podcast presentation, you should (unless you had the good fortune to see it in person).

Thanks again.

[cloudscome]

This is fascinating stuff. I am learning a lot from you!

[Alysa]

Is there any way I can get more on this? Your handouts, perhaps? I'm relatively new to blogging and the kidlitosphere -- I didn't know about the conference until it was over and couldn't have attended anyway, but I'm interested.

[Anne]

Yes, Alysa -- email me with your snail mail address at anne (at) bookbuds (dot) net and I'll drop one in the mail later this week.

Thanks!

[Kelly Fineman]

Phenomenal post, Anne. Helpful and useful, both. I wish I'd been there!

[bookbk]

I too wish I'd been there! I have to admit that I've shied away from proper reviews on my blog, having somewhat burned out on 200-word capsule reviews; after years and years of writing them for a local review group, I wanted to be able to be looser and more conversational en blogge. But I'm ready now to think about other ways to approach reviewing and maybe make it both interesting (for me and whoever my readers are) and rigorous.

[jenny meyerhoff]

It was a great presentation. I was rapt, and I don't even review books!

[Jen Robinson]

It was a great talk, Anne. And I'm so impressed that you found time to write it all up to make it accessible to more people. I should do that for my discussion panel, too. Yes, I really should...

[Mary Lee]

It was a GREAT presentation! You really made me think about how I've been reviewing and how I can do a better job. Thanks!

[Sheila Ruth]

Thanks for posting this great information, Anne. It's really helpful, and I wish I could have seen your presentation.

[Zee]

This is a lot to think about. How did you get to be so smart?

[Anne]

Hey all: Ohmigosh, I should stay up late for weeks on end fretting more often! Oh wait, that does pretty much describe my whole life.

I'm grateful to many good professors and editors over the years, where much of this information came from (distilled into 55 rapid-fire minutes).

Thanks for everyone's support. I worried this wouldn't go down easily, since everyone already works so hard on their blogs.

You all rock! Now get out there and slam something ...

[Jennifer, Snapshot]

This info is so helpful. There is so little professional help available for writing reviews. I have tried to take advantage of one of the things that you suggested--reading quality print book reviews--but I wish there were more resources.

[Anne]

Jennifer:

Susan over at Chicken Spaghetti had a post on the heels of mine about book reviewing:

http://chickenspaghetti.typepad.com/chicken_spaghetti/2007/10/dont-miss-anne-.html

She mentions a book that's now on my wishlist about reviewing. It sounds like it might be the resource you're looking for.

Thanks for stopping by!

[PiLibrarian]

Anne,
Your handout sounds really informative -- but rather than have you mail out oodles of hardcopies, would you/could you post it for download or e-mail it? I write hundreds of 2-sentence annotations a year, and lots of what I suppose are capsule reviews. Any and all help is welcome!

[pamliptusia]

Hello!
Nice site ;)
Bye