I think you have to read closely in order to write a good review, simply in order to cite specific details supporting your judgment of the book. I am suspicious of a "review" that offers an alternative take on the subject of the book under review because it makes me wonder if the reviewer actually read the book he is "reviewing". Also, while reviewing involves an exercise of one's critical faculties, a review isn't the same as criticism. A reviewer must assume that the reader of his review has not read the book he is reviewing. The writer of criticism may reasonably assume otherwise.
No comments:
Post a Comment