On Writing Book & Film Reviews, From Quail Bell's Senior Critic

By Alex Carrigan

A good book review, in my opinion, should lay out everything the reader should know before purchasing a book. Obviously, there are details the critic can’t explain in full, but they should give enough of an idea of the book’s plot, content, themes, and other details readers could find interesting. This primarily applies to fiction and nonfiction, since these are books that can sell based entirely on character descriptions and plot summaries. ​

​For poetry, I think the best thing to do is to go for a more thematic, emotional critique. A good collection will have a few themes and motifs, and demonstrating exactly what those are, how the author approaches them, and how successful the author is at conveying them are all things I consider important to highlight.

There are a lot of ways to consider a review “good,” but I think it helps to approach it like news writing and cover all of the five W’s. What is the book about? Where is the story set and how does that influence the tale? When in history does the book most resonate with, such as our present, our perception of the past, or our imagination of the future? Who is the author and what about them could have inspired such a work of literature? And lastly, why should the reader choose this out of all the books they could choose to read? Naturally, the “When” and “Where” are a little more complicated, but I think if a review gives some idea of all five, it’s a good review.

I’ve attended numerous panels at literary conventions to figure out my best way of writing a review. I’ve been writing reviews of all kinds on and off for about six years now, and there was a lot of playing around with how to best approach the review writing process. While others may not find my way of writing a review to be the best way to go forward, this is the method that I’ve found works best for me:

Before you write the review, obviously, you need to consume the entire work. You need to read the whole book, watch the whole movie, etc. I have bizarre reading habits, where sometimes I prefer to read an entire fiction or nonfiction book in one sitting before reviewing. My mom says this is how I’ve been since I was a kid, where I could read an entire Magic Tree House book from when I find it at Barnes and Noble to when we pull into our driveway. Add to it experiences where I’ve read entire books on long train rides and plane journeys, and I’ve found it’s what works best for me.

For poetry books, I try to read the book twice before reviewing it just to be sure I noticed everything and so I could remind myself which specific lines and poems stood out to me. I also try to look at some other information about the work before I review it. Sometimes, other reviews will be out, or if not, there will be information on the internet. When I do this, I try not to let other reviews influence how I write or what my opinion of the piece is, but it helps to see if what I took out of work is similar to what others took or if I’m completely going against the zeitgeist.

When you start writing, you first need an introduction of some kind that touches on the greater themes and elements of the story before you talk about the work itself. For example, if a book is a family drama about a broken family coming together following a tragic incident, I’d start the review by discussing elements on that premise alone. You can talk about family, grief, divorce, honesty and lies, etc. just from that basic plot synopsis. Depending on how the author spun the story in their unique way, you can find other topics to discuss in relation to the premise. For example, if the story is a period drama set in the early 1990’s, or if the family is of a particular religious/ethnic background, you can discuss those as well. It helps to write an intro that can speak a little more universally to hook the reader in, such as saying something like “With how much the divorce rate has risen over the last thirty years, it’s no surprise that the subject can be considered taboo, especially in more conservative Catholic families.”

It also helps if the author can relate to the subject in some way and draw their personal experience in. This is definitely not something you should do for every review, and I definitely think the critic themself shouldn’t be a major part of the review (it’s not about them, after all), but it’s something that can bring insight into the subject. Continuing the example in the previous paragraph, if a book is about a strict Catholic family, I can bring some insight in as someone who was raised Catholic but didn’t have as strict or conservative an upbringing. Again, this is something I’d recommend with caution, and in most cases I’d avoid bringing the critic into the review unless it can really support the review. Most times it won’t, but it can help make the review stand out if the critic’s own experiences add insight into the review.

Once the intro is done, I’d recommend a quick, one paragraph summary of the book. You should summarize the main plot, covering about the first 50-75 pages of the book, depending on what it’s about and how long it takes to establish the plot and motivations of the characters. You should absolutely avoid spoilers of any kind, but you want to tease enough of the story. I’d recommend talking about the most notable characters, the setting, and the rising action, leaving it to the reader to question where the story will go next.

After that, I usually discuss the parts of the book that stand out or would most appeal to readers. For fiction and nonfiction, I’d reiterate and go deeper into the themes, characters, and events that are safe to discuss without spoiling. For poetry, I’d go into the themes and provide examples of some of the best and most significant lines of poetry or whole poems in the collection. I try to write about 3-4 paragraphs for this part of the review, usually dividing the discussion into the parts I think are the most important to discuss. I usually like to figure out what the most important topics to discuss are before I write the review, although there have been cases where I realize more as I write the review, so don’t feel like you have to settle on what the most important details to discuss in the review are before writing it. I’d at least aim for one important detail to discuss per paragraph, but not limited to a single one if it can apply to further matters.

Usually, in the last two paragraphs, I try to go into how successful or unsuccessful the author is in his or her work. Contrary to popular belief, critics don’t go into their reviews looking to trash or highly praise work. If a review skews too far towards either end, it’s because the critic is trying their best to convey their extreme love or extreme disgust at the work, and while that can be funny or interesting, I think it’s better if a review goes more into the critic’s ruling, but also leave it open enough for the reader to decide for themselves. I try to never write a hatchet piece, so if I don’t like a particular work, I consider it more like the work failed to appeal to me, not that it will appeal to no one. I try to recommend what could have made it better, but I also try to acknowledge that others may see it differently. For example, the Catholic family drama book may have some interesting points about mental health, but if it’s too one-dimensional or it doesn’t go far enough into the subject matter, I could note that it was a missed opportunity to go further with a particular idea, and that doing so could have elevated the work or given it a unique spin. Others may not see it that way, but I’m adding an opinion for the discussion for them to agree or disagree with based on their own reading of the text.

This may sound like a lot to do and consider, and thank god some literary sites require a word count for book reviews, but generally if you do this, you can average around 600-800 words per review. I do have to consider the submission requirements of my intended publications, but more often than not, I don’t, which is one less thing to worry about. But if anything, please, please, please reread your review once or twice. Since you’re writing a critical analysis, you want to be absolutely sure of all the points you make and need to make sure there isn’t anything that can be confusing or misconstrued for the reader. You have to be convincing, and the last thing you want to do is contradict yourself or fail to explain your points as well as you can.

I’m obviously not the ruling authority when it comes to writing reviews (I wish I could have that much clout), but this is what I have found works for me, and I can usually get a review done in a few hours if I follow this. Maybe you can find your own process for writing a review, but this is what works the best for me, and I definitely recommend at least trying this as a start.  

If I try to think about why I am compelled to write reviews, I try to think back to those halcyon days of reading Magic Treehouse books in one sitting. Ever since I was young, I always had an interest in learning about media, reading opinions, and understanding a lot about the process that goes behind creating art. I took a lot of courses in high school and college that were film and literature analysis courses, and those helped me learn to appreciate the work even better than I would as a casual consumer. That’s not to make me sound elitist, but that kind of analysis changes how you look at art enough that you want others to know how to better appreciate it.

When I first started writing reviews seriously, I was writing film reviews for Quail Bell that were basically just me talking about particular movies I liked. Before that was a slew of crummy, half-formed opinions on a long-since abandoned Tumblr, but Quail Bell allowed me to really apply what I learned in school to what I was consuming. I primarily started in film because it was my college minor, but began to try other forms of media to expand my influence.

I think I started to do literature more because it just became much easier to engage with the author of the work. If I review a Marvel movie, I won’t be talking to the director. If I review an indie book, there’s a good chance I can communicate directly with the author. I was starting to get involved in enough literary circles and authors that it became really easy for me to want to read and support them, and reviewing their work and publishing it online is a great way to show that support. 

I decided last year to try and do more book reviews after attending AWP (Association of Writers & Writing Programs) in Portland, Oregon. I was looking to get back into critical writing after having taken some time off, and I found a few opportunities to review books and form connections. For example, I reviewed a book from one publisher that was offering review copies of a forthcoming novel, and after I reviewed that book, a staffer from that publisher asked me if I’d review their forthcoming book from a different publisher because I reviewed the first book. This year, that same publisher contacted me to review more of their books coming out this year. It was a great connection to make, and I greatly enjoyed reviewing the books they sent me because I made that connection. It was also in this AWP I found an organization that was looking for freelance critics, and signed up to review books for them. This allowed me to regularly receive review requests, and even get paid to write them, which made me feel like I was starting to climb the ladder even more.

At AWP in San Antonio this year, I really committed to being a critic, and decided to approach as many people with new releases or forthcoming books to offer my services. This was also the year I decided to approach more literary sites and look for more places to submit. At the time I had only two sites I had been published on as a critic (Quail Bell and Lambda Literary Review), and I wanted to start adding to my publication history in order to provide more writing samples for freelancing opportunities. When the AWP dust settled, I had 13 works to review, and I’ve completed all of them since then, with 11 of the 13 published online on seven different websites at the time of this writing.

Doing these reviews gave me some of the publication and literary success I had been craving. I started to find myself connected to more authors and publishers, and my experiences with some of these literary publications have been some of the most engaging publication experiences I’ve had to date. I’ve DM’d authors on social media to discuss the work further, I’ve been quoted on their author websites, and I’ve convinced some people to check out their works because I’ve reviewed them (I can’t guarantee that for sure, but I’m hoping my grandma was serious when she said she would buy Thaddeus Rutkowski’s Tricks of Light.).

Since this challenge came in the time of quarantine, it gave me a real goal to accomplish, and it’s making me feel a lot more worldly. So it’s the combination of professional and personal growth that has made me love reviewing and makes me want to continue it in the future, potentially as a full-time career.

When people ask me how I’d like to be approached for reviews, I really don’t have a lot that I want. Naturally, I want them to introduce themselves and explain the work. I usually hope they include necessary materials that can help me decide if I want to do this. A press packet is great, although it’s not required for me. Links back to their publisher website can be just as effective. The more information someone can give me before I decide to review a book would be great, however they choose to send it to me. It also helps if people let me know if there’s a deadline or a particular site they want me to write for. I rarely get either, and while I have enough sites I can easily submit work to, I like to know if they’re more willing to let me shop a review around. Some places also ask for the review to go live around the time the book will be officially released, but most are fine with me publishing it early to help build hype. This has meant there’s been a few occasions where I was the first person to publicly post a review of a book, which is just really damn cool in my opinion. 

I also prefer anyone who reaches out to critics to send as much media as possible. For publishers, I love it if they can send me a high-res file of the book cover along with the ARC (advanced review copy). Not every site I submit to wants me to provide media for the reviews, but I prefer to have them in case they do. Likewise, I prefer if film review requests give me enough stills or links to clips that I can share, since that can make the review look better or help entice the reader to the work.

Believe it or not, I’ve never had an experience where I’ve been upset to receive a review request. As I’ve mentioned before, I try to review as much as I can, and review many different things. I’ve never flat-out rejected a review request. If something doesn’t appeal to me, I just ignore it. A lot of places will send review requests to as many websites and critics as possible in hopes that the publication or critic decides to pick it up. They understand a review is not guaranteed just because they sent an email. 

Looking back over the reviews I’ve written this year and in past years, I do have a few favorite reviews in my publication history. I personally love the reviews that make me want to talk about a book as much as humanly possible while still keeping the details to a minimum. For fiction or nonfiction, I want to be excited to tell about characters, setting, themes, and how the author approaches them in a way that makes it stand out. For poetry, I love it when a book makes me want to cite as many lines or poems as possible. This isn’t to say that all of my longer reviews are my favorite ones, but I think the ones that are particularly challenging or engaging make me want to write a better review, and as a result, the review comes out really well.

If I were to say some of my favorites that aren’t on Quail Bell, I’d definitely mention my review of Kim Vodicka’s The Elvis Machine, which was published in Empty Mirror back in April. That is one of the most interesting poetry collections I’ve read in a long time, and one that particularly challenged me as a cisgender male reader. However, Vodicka’s wit and clever construction made it such a memorable and engaging read that I ended up stuffing the review with so many quotes that stood out to me, even though there were plenty more I wanted to include. Other reviews I’ve written that I really enjoyed are my review of Sarah Pinsker’s Sooner or Later Everything Falls Into the Sea for Lambda Literary Review and my review of Jennifer Roche’s 20, for Quarterly West. The former is a queer sci-fi/fantasy anthology with so many cool ideas for stories and such incredible execution that I knew people had to know just how good they are and how creative the ideas behind some of these stories are. The latter’s poetry chapbook was something quite different than what I normally read, but something that provided a lot for me to analyze for a collection based on erasing an extremely well-known book. It was a neat challenge and I really liked that I could compare the original text with Roche’s new poetry.

Quail Bell has been so integral in my critical career that a lot of my personal growth can be found here. Some of my favorite reviews have been my reviews of Maxwell Bauman’s The Mummy of Canaan, Charlene Elsby’s Hexis, and the review of Issue 1 of Mouse Magazine. Bauman’s pulpy horror tale was so wild and outrageous that it allowed me to have more fun with the review. Hexis was such a haunting and challenging read that I felt like I had to really explain how much the story affected me on an emotional and psychological level, almost as if I needed to write about it to process what I read. Mouse Magazine was something completely different and made me realize that there was a lot of potential to use it as a discussion on starting literary sites, forming an identity, and going into subjects one may not consider, such as the use of hyperlinks and section headers. Each of these gave me a challenge and made writing about them extremely fun and engaging, and I still find myself thinking back to these at times.

I feel like there’s a lot of reviews I could be missing, or maybe I’ll write reviews that could supplant some of these. However, I think that by being open to reviewing new works and seeing how they challenge me as a critic and as an individual, I’ll only get better as a critic and write better reviews, so I’m excited to see what comes my way. I’m definitely trying to read more works that are different from what I’m used to, and I’m especially interested in reading works by BIPOC and LGBTQIA+ authors. I really hope I continue to be challenged and engaged, and if so, I’ll be sure to let as many people know so they can experience it like me.