What is a review? Why read one, why write one, what form is best? I’m aware there are entire academic disciplines of literary/film/music criticism but, as usual, I prefer a naive, layman’s perspective. It seems to me reviews are read for two reasons, sometimes complementary but mostly exclusive: to dissect and analyze a book, film or album after reading, viewing or listening to it; or to preview it before deciding whether or not to tackle it. Retrospective reviews enhance pleasure or understanding, prospective reviews filter the worthy from the marketplace.
I use reviews for the latter purpose, to decide yea or nay, I will or won’t. Only rarely does a book, say, so puzzle or intrigue me that I seek out major critical reviews to help me absorb the reading I’ve just done. A good example is Roberto Bolano’s 2666; anyone who has read it will understand why I’m still hungry for intelligent input on this amazing novel. But mostly I’m prejudging, sorting the wheat from the chaff, so my strong preference is also for short reviews rather than long. Multi-paragraph plot summaries are not for me. Rather, I’m seeking a reviewer I can trust to help me find what will most move or entrance me. Give me judgement.
Because I prefer prospective, short reviews (though I do read long book reviews, such as those in the New York Times Book Review, simply because they’re excellent, but then I skip the story details), that’s what I write. You’ll see me refer to my reviews as ‘capsule’ reviews, to distinguish them from substantive, analytical, retrospective reviews. I recommend or I don’t, hopefully with enough backing to let you make up your mind for your next cultural adventure.