erin!balser

Papercut, the fabulous NY Times book blog, came up with the “seven deadly sins” of book reviews today–popular words in books reviews, used to sound “intelligent” and “literary.”

The list includes the gems poignant; compelling; intriguing; eschew; craft (used as a verb); muse (used as a verb); and lyrical.

In the comments section, nuanced, subtle, masterful, magisterial, engaging, and luminous, among others, came up.

Would a review saying something like (stolen from Papercut, because it’s way better than the review I concocted!) “Mario Puzo’s intriguing novel eschews the lyrical as the author instead crafts a poignant tale of family life and muses on the compelling doings of the Mob” entice you to pick up the book and read it? Probably not.

If the above words may never be used in reviewing a Sophie Kinsella novel, why should they be used in a review about the latest Ondjaate novel? Wouldn’t doing so further alienate certain readers? I’d argue that not only is this language unnecessary, it can be inaccessible.

I wonder if we need to review how books are reviewed. Who reads book reviews? And why? And, given the changing media and social spaces today, where are book reviews going? How would such elaborate and flowery language translate on Facebook and other social media sites, where you get a sentence to attract readers to your review? Or, more interestingly, Twitter? How would you write an effective book review in 140 characters?

That being said, when such words are used correctly, they’d make for a powerful and persuasive review. But reviewing literature doesn’t mean trying to write literature. Don’t write like you’re smart, just be smart. Then the review will be fantastic.

And if you’re really smart, you’ll show me how to write a review in 140 characters. Or less.

Image by Zephyrinus. Licensed via Creative Commons.