Where to begin always seems the most difficult decision, particularly when there's relatively little that's remarkable ensuing from any point on my timeline. I've been told that once I begin to seriously test the waters of publication, I will need to become proficient at condensing (embellishing?) my life into a few short sentences, this ostensibly to be known as my "short bio". I thought about it and came up with: "I've written a few things." I was rather pleased with that result and moved on forthwith to the construction of my "long bio," and felt absolutely inspired when I wrote: "I've written a few things, usually at the insistence of friends wielding cattle prods, and have never failed to include an adverb or two for the express purpose of inciting the disciples of Stephen King."
Without doubt, my insistence that "an adverb now and then never harmed anyone" will be my ultimate doom and downfall, but I'd be a pretty disappointing proponent of adverb use if I refused to use them myself. Now, before I'm showered with the literary slings and arrows hurled by anti-adverb holy warriors, let me say that I really, really, really, will make some small attempt to limit them in my writing. Well, unless their absence begins to rob me of my own unique voice as a writer.
So, there!
A beginning!
Fortunately, I haven't reviewed any books that are just so bad one cannot find any redeeming qualities. Sooner or later it will happen.
I read Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code last year - not for review, just to satisfy my own curiosity - and found it was, for me, a miserable read... I think the story's pace was fine, the plot was laid out and executed well enough, and the characters weren't entirely "made of cardboard" or "clipped from the Sunday newpaper comics section". To me, the various settings were plausible (considering I've never set foot in Europe, I was still able to conjure functional mental images). However, I thought the author's technique was just horrible - something about his style just made the whole experience unpleasurable for me in spite of all the things on the "plus side". I'm sure I would have placed the book on my "recommended" list, but I'm also sure the review wouldn't have been one of glowing approval. Reserved approval is still approval, folks.
Anyway, what I guess I'm saying is that when I begin reading a book for review, I begin with an optomistic outlook. I don't hunt for everything bad to say about it, I always look for the good points. If there's anything life will teach you it's that finding the good is rewarding, and that finding the bad is simply a fact. I keep this in mind as I read and write because I only have 200-400 words to summarize what an author has used 100,000 to 200,000 words to write. So, if you estimate it at about two of my words for every thousand of the author's, it means I can do some really "high yield damage" at "little cost", and that's not what reviewing should be about. It should be about honesty -- pointing out the things that readers may enjoy or may find less enjoyable -- and then presenting that information so that whomever reads one of my reviews may make an intelligent decision on whether to commit a portion of his or her time to reading that book.
Create a free website at Webs.com