John Updike's 6 Rules for Reviewing · 5:23am Feb 3rd, 2015
From the introduction to "Picked Up Pieces," his second collection of assorted prose, and much later blogged on Critical Mass:
1. Try to understand what the author wished to do, and do not blame him for not achieving what he did not attempt.
2. Give him enough direct quotation--at least one extended passage--of the book's prose so the review's reader can form his own impression, can get his own taste.
3. Confirm your description of the book with quotation from the book, if only phrase-long, rather than proceeding by fuzzy precis.
4. Go easy on plot summary, and do not give away the ending.
5. If the book is judged deficient, cite a successful example along the same lines, from the author's ouevre or elsewhere. Try to understand the failure. Sure it's his and not yours?
To these concrete five might be added a vaguer sixth, having to do with maintaining a chemical purity in the reaction between product and appraiser. Do not accept for review a book you are predisposed to dislike, or committed by friendship to like. Do not imagine yourself a caretaker of any tradition, an enforcer of any party standards, a warrior in an idealogical battle, a corrections officer of any kind. Never, never (John Aldridge, Norman Podhoretz) try to put the author "in his place," making him a pawn in a contest with other reviewers. Review the book, not the reputation. Submit to whatever spell, weak or strong, is being cast. Better to praise and share than blame and ban. The communion between reviewer and his public is based upon the presumption of certain possible joys in reading, and all our discriminations should curve toward that end.
These are wise words when rating a story, too. I'll give thumbs up on stories I disliked, if I think the author did a good job telling the story.
Can I favorite blogs yet?
I've read this before, and I mostly agree with it; however, within the fandom at any rate, it is very hard to not review stuff which is written by your friends if you've befriended a lot of good writers.
I do need to include more quotes from stories in my reviews; it seems like a good bit of easy-to-include advice which gives people a nice taste of the work.
Excellent advice.
A shame that what I most strongly associate with John Updike is the sex scene in Rabbit, Run which made my ears burn and kept me from finishing the book.
A wise man is that.
I like these rules. I have run into the first one a few times when people have reviewed my work.
(In fact on one notable occasion, not only was I blamed for not doing what I'd never intended to do, I was *also* blamed for *doing* exactly what I'd intended to do very thoroughly.)
I think your sixth rule should actually be Rule Zero. There's a reason I won't even try to review a Gore or Horror fic; I would never be able to pull back far enough to give it a fair shot. I brushed up against this rule with the /fic/ review of The Traveling Tutor when the reviewer just hated and loathed my story. Suprisingly, it helped, once I filtered through the review and split out the flaws from the reflexive dislike, because the reviewer took the time and effort to detail everything that stood out for them, good and bad. In short, a good reviewer *can* review a book they hate or adore, but the best reviews come from a reviewer who only *likes* the book/story, and can see all the spots where it needed to be made better.
There are plenty of real-world examples in the New York Times book reviews whenever they review a best seller written by a conservative. In general with their reviews, the more vitriol, the better the book.
+1 would read more tips on reading/writing/reviewing from Bad Horse.
2766000 I always struggle with this one. I try to include quotes when some specific passage really calls out to me, or is very representative of something. However, those rules seem written considering physical books, where often getting a copy to check things out for yourself is very hard. On fimfiction, everything is just a click away.
Also, I can never find a good way to quote something without breaking the flow of the text.
Review quality around here would jump dramatically if more reviewers followed rule 1.
2766491
Good point. Tho most of the time, I don't click thru.
Dang. Does this mean I can't wear a viking helmet while reviewing anymore? Good rules to keep in mind otherwise.
2766729
No one can take that away from you.
Good points. I'll try to keep that in mind.
But what do you mean by "give away the ending?" Is it okay if I don't say what happened during the ending, but say that it was satisfying or unsatisfying, for instance?
2767612 I can't imagine any problem with saying whether it was satisfying or unsatisfying. I think he meant it as you would when speaking of a movie.
I like Updike's rules, but I have to keep in mind that he's a writer describing his ideal critic--his creative counterpart, his literary waifu.
And you don't get your waifu. You don't get the critic a writer wants. You get the critic that the critic's readers want (if the critic wants to be read at all). Because both writer and critic have to obey the same Rule Zero: be interesting.
There's no reason you can't do this and follow Updike's rules as well, and in an ideal world all critics would. But in our world Rule Zero is trumps, and you play 'em when you need the trick.
(Pardon me for pouring Bridge over troubled waters)
Two, three, four, and five are, like so many other things, stuff that should be common sense, but for some reason always seem to need to be articulated.
(Especially three. Cite your sources, people! It's important.)
I take issue with one and with some of the points raised in the "vulgar sixth", though. It is always important to try and engage a work on its own terms. Example: I've read a lot of golden and silver age utopian science-fiction. A lot of those stories are basically nothing but extended gazetteers of made-up future societies with a plot bolted on, and usually those societies are constructed in ways that are of... dubious functionality even if you assume magical technology. But rather than approach those stories from the standpoint "Your post-scarcity economy is ludicrously conceived" it is usually more helpful to approach them from the standpoint of "Oh, this is a story about how if we all try to build a better future, maybe we won't all be trying to murder each other for a few extra dollars at some point." That sort of thing.
But there are times when an author doesn't attempt things that they should have, and that, to me, is usually grounds for criticism. This often takes the form of "author raises plot points that really need to be addressed, but whistle right past said points respective graveyards because this 'isn't that kind of story' and it drags the whole thing down."
As for the vulgar sixth...
Everything is about ideology. The stance that we should try and be non-ideological is, in fact, an ideology in and of itself. It's like how the personal is always also political. These are two very unpleasant facts about life and society, but trying to pretend they don't actually exist does nobody any favors.
This. At some point I need to formulate some kind of "layman's theory of literary criticism"; despite having an honest to god English degree, they don't train you much at the undergraduate level to criticize; they train you to understand, which is different.
2769350
By "vulgar sixth" I think you meant "vaguer sixth." Which is what Updike actually wrote.
Unless of course you meant "vulgar Sith," which is an intriguing concept (and I wish to subscribe to your publication).
Thanks. I was starting to feel guilty, because it's hard to review some books without talking about how wrong their themes are, or about the author's literary ideology.
2769406 Yes. Yes I did. I parsed it as "vulgar." I don't know why. Apparently today I have lost the ability to read. You'd think that would be a prerequisite ability for reviewing, but apparently it is not!
2769416
You could just as well say "everything is about money," and of course there are ways of handling money without theft or extortion.
I think what Updike is saying is NOT "don't judge someone's ideology, even if it appears in their works," but rather, "judge the work honestly and rationally, even as you condemn the ideology if you must."
...pursuing the rabbit who kept muttering the mysterious phrase "Updike.' What's Updike? thought Discord--
...and froze.
What's Updike?
What's up doc?
Suddenly the tables turned--hunter had become the hunted--for Discord realized that this rabbit was not one you'd want to chase.
fimfiction-static.net/images/story_images/184182.png?1398031829
2770686
A. This comment is brilliant and bizarre, as usual.
B. Now I want an MLP / Looney Tunes crossover where Bugs and Angel team up. Or fight. Either is good.
2771309
Thanks. I stole the gag from one of the old MAD Magazine paperbacks my parents left lying around when I was a kid.
But the reference to Updike's "Rabbit" books was all my own