What Are Book Critics For?
Hi! I have a novel coming out in August 2025 called Lessons in Magic and Disaster. It’s about a young trans woman who tries to bring her heartbroken mother back to life by teaching her how to do magic. It’s really about queer generations, and the struggle for liberation, and holding onto a healthy relationship with desire in the face of grief and trauma. This book is on Edelweiss now, plus you can pre-order it anywhere books are sold. If you want a signed/personalized/doodled copy, please pre-order from Green Apple Books — they ship all over the USA! I really, really appreciate your support in these scary times.
With that out of the way…
What Is Book Criticism For?
For as long as I can remember, there's been a running debate about the purpose of book criticism. On the one side, people say that book critics should call out the flaws in books and hold authors to the highest possible standard — or else readers will be stuck reading books that are mediocre or terrible. On the other side are folks who think it's better to focus on the books we especially love, and the things we love about those books, because celebrating books is more important than ever nowadays.
I have a lot of sympathy with both of these points of view, and I have espoused both of them at various times. I think it's definitely a spectrum, and there's a lot of middle ground between these two positions. But I also think this debate boils down to a different question: Who is book criticism for? What is the target audience for a particular book review?
My sense is that different book reviews are aimed at different readerships. I've noticed that when I review a book for the Washington Post, I’ll talk about it somewhat differently than the folks reviewing that same book for Locus magazine. My column in the Post is aimed at newspaper readers who might not know much about science fiction or fantasy, and may not have much interest in reading genre fiction. The stalwart and brilliant reviewers at Locus, meanwhile, are aiming at an audience of serious book nerds who are steeped in the genre and probably already read a ton of new books.
I tend to approach book reviews differently in different settings, and I think that's true of a lot of people.
Before I go any further, let me clarify that I'm talking specifically about people writing book reviews for publications, including newspapers and magazines but also blogs. I'm not talking about posting reviews on Goodreads, something I've done plenty of in the past. When someone posts on Goodreads, they're sharing their personal feelings about a book for an audience of fellow book lovers, and they're encouraged to be as subjective as they want. (I already shared my thoughts about Goodreads and its issues here.)
One wrinkle in this ongoing debate is that professional book criticism is a bit of an endangered species. Newspapers and magazines have been gutting their book review sections for decades, and the days of a robust public sphere for talking about new books may be coming to an end. And meanwhile, book reviews seem to garner less and less attention, perhaps because nobody is used to seeing them anymore. In my Post column, which I've been writing for just over two years, I work with my editors to package each column to get the maximum amount of engagement on the site, and I work really hard to promote my columns on social media and elsewhere. But it’s an uphill climb, because book criticism feels increasingly irrelevant these days.
Speaking of which.... My latest book-review column, about three great space opera books, is here. My roundup of my favorite science fiction and fantasy books of 2024 is here. (Both of those are gift links.)
In any case, my sense is that a healthy book-review ecosystem would include both cheerleading and harsh criticism. Possibly from the same person in the same place, possibly in different places for different audiences. We need to bang a drum in support of the great books that are possibly slipping through the cracks — which is also an increasing problem, as I wrote about a while ago. But we also need to point out the ways in which authors and publishers are short-changing us by failing to deliver the best versions of their stories.
One bedrock principle that I think applies for both cheerleading and harsh criticism? You have to review the story someone wrote, not the book you wish they had written. If someone wrote a book about pirates, there's no point in complaining that you wish they'd written a book about circus performers instead. You chose to pick up a book that wasn't your cup of tea, and you could have known in advance that it was about pirates if you'd bother to read the back cover. Get over it! (Also, if you hate books with yellow covers, just don’t read books with yellow covers. It’s not that hard.)
I've learned a lot about film criticism lately from reading reviews by Lisa Laman (who also co-hosts my new favorite podcast.) Lisa does a great job of talking about the nitty gritty of filmmaking in a very thoughtful way, including talking about camera work, lighting, sound design and acting choices. I feel as though I seldom reached this level of attention to detail in my own attempts at film criticism — though I’m still proud of this review of Guillermo Del Toro’s Crimson Peak, which I wrote on a very tight deadline. (If memory serves, I saw the film and had two hours to write a review, and there was a lot to talk about.)
Anyway, that's the kind of spirit I try to bring to my book reviews, to the best of my ability. I try to think about the ways that authors have constructed sentences as well as the overall shape of the story, and I will frequently try to include a short quote — even though my Post reviews only range from 150 words to 250 words per book, depending on how many books I'm tackling in each column.
Most of all, I think good book criticism starts out with an awareness of the critic’s own biases and preferences — you don’t need to include a paragraph laying those out, but it should be clear from the text where the critic is coming from. I also really appreciate reviews that place a book in the context of other recent books, or in the larger context of a particular cultural moment. If part of the point of a book review is to show why these books matter, it’s helpful to discuss them as part of something bigger.
The truth is, it’s not just book criticism that’s under threat lately — it’s all culture writing, and all journalism generally. As my protagonist Jamie says in Lessons in Magic and Disaster, anything “that makes the world make sense” is being systematically destroyed. (As Jamie also says, “Money turns everything thoughtful into shit.”)
So I guess my final thought is that part of a book critics duty is to help preserve a healthy public sphere for talking about books.
Those of us who take a mostly positive tack, as I do in my Post column, are doing so because we want more people to read and appreciate the books we consider the very best. People who take a more harshly critical approach, as I have in the past, are doing so because we don't want the book world to be overrun with mediocre or terrible books which get a free pass. (For what it’s worth, if I don’t think a book has a ton of merit, I tend to just not review it — mostly because I’ll quit reading a book in the middle if it’s not wowing me.)
But I think there is another way of looking at a robust public sphere of book discussion: We need a wide range of books to be in the conversation, and we want to avoid a monoculture.
This is something I think about a lot in my own work as a critic, and a lens through which I view the work of other critics. I'm not only talking about making sure to review books by marginalized authors, though I absolutely am talking about that. I cast a baleful eye on book reviewers who seem to always review the same handful of big-name mainstream authors that everyone else is talking about. I get that this is a surefire way of getting more attention, but it ultimately does your readership a disservice.
So when we talk about holding books up for harsh criticism, my worry is that we're going to pick on the books that everyone else is already screaming about, because those are the books whose flaws are most likely to be of interest to a general audience. "That book everyone is talking about actually sucks" is a much more compelling subject than "This book you've never heard of really sucks, so you should continue to not care about it." I think we need to expand the universe of books that get chattered about, as well as expanding the range of ways we talk about those books — both positively and negatively. I want intense, passionate discussions and arguments about books that never made any bestseller list, including books from smaller presses.
In the spirit of keeping the book conversation sphere alive, I want to close with a plea to readers. Talk about books more, please! Talk about what you loved and what you hated — but especially talk about the books are somehow left out of the mainstream narrative. Also, please support paid book reviews, because this should be a job and a craft. If a publication you subscribe to decides to run book reviews, please give them a click. Also, please support publications like Bookriot and any magazine with "Review of Books" in its title.
Finally, it's the end of the year and this is a great time to make a donation to Locus Magazine, which is an irreplaceable part of the conversation about science fiction and fantasy books, doing the work of expanding the conversation in so many, many ways.
[Corrections: a previous version of this essay drew a contrast between paid book reviews and reviews on Goodreads. Over on Bluesky, Roseanna Pendlebury pointed out that unpaid book reviews on blogs and other sites are an important part of the review ecosystem. Also, I clarified that the purpose of negative reviews is to help readers, not authors.]
Something I Love Right Now
I just got a month of Hulu, and I’ve been catching up on Abbott Elementary — but I’ve also been loving two other recent shows on there. Interior Chinatown is an adaptation of the award-winning novel of the same name by Charles Yu (with Yu producing the TV show as well.) The show feels very much like a remix of the book, with the same themes and ideas but a very different format for obvious reasons. It’s super fun and often hilarious. Ronny Chieng (Fatty) is a standout who basically steals the entire show. It’s very much worth bingeing right now.
Also, I’m obsessed with Davey and Jonesy’s Locker, a goofy comedy about two high school best friends whose locker becomes an interdimensional portal. The highest compliment I can pay Davey and Jonesy’s Locker is that I keep hearing people compare it to 2008’s The Middleman, and it’s a very apt comparison. (ART CRAWL!) Along with The Second Best Hospital in the Galaxy, Back to 15, and Extraordinary, Davey and Jonesy’s Locker is part of a new wave of silly/personal science fiction comedy shows that aired in 2024 and got almost no attention despite being the absolute best. It makes me sad that we have such incredible wealth, and almost nobody is paying attention. (Also tempted to throw fantasy comedies Hazbin Hotel and My Lady Jane into the mix.) Anyway, please do me a favor and watch Davey and Jonesy’s Locker immediately!
Music I Love Right Now
Boss in Drama is a Brazilian producer and DJ, who makes music that mixes disco, classic R&B and Brazilian funk. (With an Instagram that is full of thirst traps.) Boss in Drama has worked a lot with Karol Conká and trans icon Linn da Quebrada. Here’s a killer video, “Toda Doida” by Karol Conká with Boss in Drama (warning, total earworm):
Anyway, Boss in Drama’s most recent release, via Bandcamp, is a compilation of remixes from 2020, and I nabbed it on the last Bandcamp Friday. It’s pretty fun so far: mostly remixes of Brazilian dance songs by artists like Gal Costa, Bola de Fogo and Maria Bethânia, but with a sprinkling of U.S. artists. If you ever wanted to hear Taylor Swift’s “Look What You Made Me Do” reimagined as a Brazilian dancehall song, then this is your lucky day. (It’s the best version of that song I’ve ever heard, TBH.) Anyway, these remixes range from bouncy disco music to smooth, somewhat wistful pop. It’s a good compilation of dance music, and I feel like it gives me a window into what people might be dancing to on a Saturday night in São Paulo. Worth checking out.