Reading in Public No. 66: How to criticize a book well

Strategies for crafting thoughtful and helpful negative reviews

A quick reminder that I’m collecting questions for a five year Substack anniversary Q&A session. If you’re looking for book recs or have questions about my reading practices, now is your chance! Submit them here or email me at fictionmattersbooks@gmail.com

---

Last week I wrote about why I simply cannot stand the phrase “I will not accept criticism of this book.” And you all had a lot of thoughts in response! Reading through your comments was fascinating—some of you agreed with me and others did not. But through all of the varying opinions there was a connective thread: it’s hard to find good criticism. Many people who avoid reading negative reviews of books they love do so because the reviews feel bad faith at best and mean spirited at worst. And I get that! So today I’m going to share a bit about how I try¹ to criticize books well.

First, a note on language. Things can get a little murky when we talk about criticism because the word means multiple things. Here are the two definitions from the Oxford Languages Dictionary:

1. the expression of disapproval of someone or something based on perceived faults or mistakes

2. the analysis and judgment of the merits and faults of a literary or artistic work

I have received quite a few requests to write more about literary criticism—or, the second definition listed here—in this newsletter, and I plan to. You can hear me chat a bit about the distinction between literary criticism and reviewing here and here.

But today, I’m writing more about the first definition. Of course they’re tied together, but this piece is operating under the assumption that we are talking about books we don’t like. How, then, do we express our “disapproval of” or distaste for a book? How do we criticize it fairly and adequately?² And how do we do this all in a way that encourages discussion rather than debate?³

Be mindful of your audience.

The first step to crafting any piece of rhetoric is a consideration of audience. In a book review, the audience is book readers—not other critics and not the author⁴. A well-done negative review must therefore keep readers front of mind. This means not only considering what readers need and want to know, but also adopting the appropriate tone for conveying criticism. In online discourse, negative reviews often take the tone of “I don’t like this popular book because I am smarter than you and noticed things you didn’t.” That is poor form. I believe these types of reviews want their audience to be literary critics and fail to consider who they are actually talking to. That is poor rhetoric.

Consider the book on its own terms.

In my opinion, the most important thing to do in a review is to consider what the book is trying to do and then determine where it succeeds and where it falls short. I’m always frustrated by negative reviews that can pretty much be boiled down to “I didn’t like this book because I wanted it to be a different book.” I’ve written about this a couple of times:

Reading in Public No. 8: The Expectations Game

Reading in Public No. 35: Five tips for discerning what a book is trying to do

Figuring out what a book is attempting isn’t always an easy task, and it’s something I’d like to figure out how to better articulate so I can explore it in greater depth eventually. But when it comes to criticizing a book, here’s my best advice: if you think the book was bad, ask yourself, “bad at what?” And then the followup: if the thing you think the book is bad at is not something the book was trying to do, well, then the book wasn’t bad at it. You just wanted a different book. Perhaps you didn’t like that you couldn’t relate to a character, but were you supposed to? Or maybe the book was slow⁵. Was the author trying to pace it more quickly and failing, or was the intention to demand the reader’s careful attention?

Is Fourth Wing bad, for example? Well, bad at what? It might not mine the depths of the human spirit or be written in luminous prose, but I don’t think that’s what it’s trying to do⁶. It is good at what it wants to do: keeping readers turning pages, inspiring fan theories, and creating obsession-inducing love stories⁷. Conversely not all literary novels are trying to keep you on the edge of your seat furiously turning pages, so to criticize them for that would be a failure to meet on their terms. Is it still useful information in a review to share these sorts of criticisms with readers? I think it can be, but not if the review makes little effort to understand what the book itself is trying to do.

Understand your personal taste.

Connected to the concept of considering the book on its own terms is that well-done criticisms understand that some elements of a book simply fall into the realm of personal taste. Is the distinction between taste and objective literary merit blurry? Of course! But when criticizing a book, I try to be very clear that literary merit and my idiosyncratic tastes aren’t necessarily the same thing. For example, things I dislike that aren’t necessarily objectively bad include similes, short chapters, and characters with cutesy names. But I would never say a book is bad because of these things unless these choices actually interfered with what the book was doing. If the similes don’t make sense, the short chapters prevent me from immersing myself in a character’s interiority, or the character names take me out of the time and place⁸, maybe those are worth more criticism. Otherwise I might note them not as true failures, but as an explanation for why I personally didn’t love the book, but someone else might.

Be generous about what might attract others to this work.

This circles back to audience. Often, negative reviews read as if the real intention is to show how incisive, biting, and smart the reviewer is. But what authentic audience does that serve? If your audience is other readers, it’s important to share what those readers might enjoy about the book. This doesn’t have to be as cutesy as a “compliment sandwich.” You don’t even need to name things about the book you personally liked. But I think the most helpful reviews try to get into the headspace of other types of readers so they can point out who might connect with the book.

Tell me your thoughts! What do you look for in a negative review? If you review books online or share thoughts with friends, how do you frame your criticisms?

If you enjoyed this post, you might also like…

Reading in Public No. 22: The state of book criticism with Traci Thomas of The Stacks

Reading in Public No. 31: What does it mean for a book to "work"?

Reading in Public No. 41: Thirty things good readers do

Reading in Public No. 45: What do you do when you don't like something in a book?

---

For questions, comments, or suggestions, please don’t hesitate to reach out by emailing fictionmattersbooks@gmail.com or responding directly to this newsletter. I love hearing from you!

This email contains affiliate links. If you make a purchase through the links above, I may earn a small commission at no additional cost to you.

If you enjoyed today’s newsletter, please forward it to a book-loving friend. That’s a great way to spread bookish cheer and support the newsletter!

Happy reading!

Sara

1. I review a lot of books and, trust me, I know not all of my reviews are equal. Sometimes I nail it, other times I don’t have as much to say or—quite frankly—as much time to write. So I’m not suggesting that I always get this right, but today I’m articulating what I do when I really make an effort to criticize a book well.

2. To be sure, we might overdo the fairness and thoughtfulness in the amateur book reviewer space. As my pal

Traci Thomas

reminds us often, we aren’t nearly as precious with our language when we talk about other art. We’re fine with saying we hate a song or think a TV show is bad—no explanation needed. In spite of today’s emphasis on careful reviewing, I do think it’s perfectly fine to talk about books in the same way we do other media.

3. One day I might write an entire post on the difference between discussion and debate, because often what we think are discussions are really debates. For now, I’ll merely say that discussions are collaborative and operate under the premise that every participant has a piece of the truth to contribute.

4. This is why, for me, criticism that feels more like editorial notes is less interesting. This type of criticism (which I have admittedly engaged in) positions the book’s author as the audience rather than potential readers of the book.

5. Full disclosure: this is one of my biggest review pet peeves. Not every book is supposed to be read quickly, and to have that expectation is absurd.

6. I could be wrong, in which case, feel free to correct me.

7. Also, let’s be real, selling books.

8. I’m looking at you, Debbie, Kenneth, and Bitsy.