Weekend Update with Gray Skies

And it's an abbreviated one this week, so bear with:

Marilyn Stasio gives the business on recent crime fiction by Reginald Hill, Christopher Fowler, Pablo De Santis and Jeffery Deaver, not to mention PARIS NOIR.

Maureen Corrigan rounds up recent noir and thrillers by Dave Zeltserman, Arnaldur Indridason, Ann Cleeves and Linwood Barclay for the Washington Post.

Tom & Enid Schantz have their say on new mysteries by Christopher Fowler, John Lawton and Serena Macksey at the Denver Post.

The Chicago Tribune's Paul Goat Allen looks at recent crime offerings by J.T. Ellison, Ken Bruen & Jason Starr, Craig McDonald and Lori Andrews.

Andrew Pyper raves about Kate Atkinson in the G&M, which also includes Margaret Cannon's latest crime fiction roundup of recent releases by Laura Joh Rowland, Marcia Muller, Ken Bruen, Ted Bell, Frank Tallis, James Doss and Sandra Ruttan.

Jack Batten is underwhelmed by recent offerings from P.D. James and Ian Rankin.

James gets the Q&A treatment from the WSJ's Lauren Mechling. The paper also reviews Pablo De Santis's excellent historical pastiche THE PARIS ENIGMA.

Dick Holland pays tribute to James Crumley in the Texas Observer.

Both Mark Athitakis and Ed Champion are in this weekend's Chicago Sun-Times reviewing new books by Kirsten Menger-Anderson and Tony Vigorito, respectively.

I feel like the solution to Joe Queenan's "dilemma" about over-enthusiastic book reviews is to stop reading them. And then to stop writing them.

R.I.P. Paco Ignacio Taibo I (father of crime writing legend Paco Ignacio Taibo II.)

Obama won't have his Blackberry to be addicted to anymore, it looks like.

And finally, I know a number of people who will geek out over this. Enjoy.

Comments

[Dana King]

Queenan's piece is interesting. I write reviews for an online source (New Mystery Reader) and have developed the reputatin with the editor there as being pretty tough. I equate writing effusive reviews with empty flattery: how can someone know if you're genuinely complimenting them if you scatter praise like bird seed at a wedding? There can be no true priase without some counterbalance, though not, of course, necessarily in the same review.

[Laura Benedict]

From Mr. Queenan's article: "Authors know that even if one reviewer hates a book, the next 10 will roll over like pooches and insist it’s not only incandescent but luminous, too."

So, where does a girl sign up to get these incandescent and luminous mystery genre reviews, anyway? I think Mr. Queenan is making a gross generalization. Frankly, I'm just not feeling the love and I know many, many other writers who could say the same thing. But does it matter? No. I have said elsewhere, and will say again, that if a writer is going to believe the positive reviews, she should take the negative to heart as well. (Here I definitely agree with Mr. Queenan.) But both attitudes are equally self-destructive for a writer.

Some reviewers might be said to operate in suck-up and kick-down mode, asking themselves: "Do I like this writer? Do I want this writer to think well of me? Does it cost me anything to dis this writer? Is this writer going to be important? I've written three raves in a row, is it time to write a negative one?" There are also many ethical reviewers out there, but no reviewer can work in the business and be 100% objective.

As a reviewer, I like to think that I take the work at face value, but it's hard to do. Peer reviews seem to be a lot more common in the so-called literary fiction world than in other genres--I've recently excused myself from reviewing books written in the mystery/thriller/horror genres because I no longer feel I can be reasonably objective. I also used to imagine that, by offering published criticism to the writer, I was helping him or her to become a better writer. (Talk about delusional. I was much, much younger then.) Now, I confess, I am more likely to damn a so-so book by faint praise than to bother to review and trash a badly written book. Readers buy badly written books for all sorts of reasons. Who am I to stand in their way?

[Laura Benedict]

I'd just like to add that I believe that the vast majority of book reviewers are, indeed, ethical and take their jobs very seriously. The "suck-up, kick-down" folk seem to me to be a small minority. But being my usual intemperate self, I foolishly gave them more vociferous coverage.

[I.J.Parker]

Reviewers also have to establish a reputation. With serious readers! At no point do I see a reviewer as having to "suck up" to an author or publisher. What does he have to gain?
The author, of course, has a lot to gain from a good review. A good review by a reputable reviewer may be the only promotion his book will get. But even an author would much rather have a fair review than empty gushing praise.
The only requirement should be that the reviewer give a reason for liking or (more important) for disliking a book.