As the chief book reviewer for Bird Watching magazine, I've got a few comments to add to some of the points made.
In a typical month, something like 12-20 books arrive in the office for possible review. In a good month, I get space to review three, usually less. So of course I have to choose which ones go in and you tend to pick the most interesting titles or the ones that will appeal most to your readership. Please write to the editor and complain that you would like to see more reviews!)
This last point is important, not least in the tone of the review. Our readership would not claim to be as scholarly a sthat of, say, British Birds. The tone of the review reflects that.
By selecting such a small proportion of titles submitted, you are always going to get a large percentage of 'nice reviews' because you tend to pick the best books rather than the mundane.
It doesn't follow that every review heaps praise on the title. I hated the book about trying to see 1000 birds in the year and said so despite the fact that we had a special offer going. I also took a huge amount of flak for my review of one of the identification guides with all sorts of letters flying back and forth.
With the limited space available, there just isn't room for a decent criticism. Usually the best you can do is give a flavour of what the book is about and suggest what sort of person it would appeal to.
As to picking up the spelling errors on page 89 or whatever, this is a device to show that the reviewer has actually bothered to open the book in the first place and not review it from the press release (grin) It also serves to suggest that the book has not been edited or proofread as well as it might have been and is indicative of a genaral slipshod quality
I would be the first to concede that I don't have the ornithological skill to pass comment on the technical skill of every artist and the veracity of everything written but against that, in our magazine, there would be neither the space nor the interest in doing so.
Against that, I have reviewed more bird books than anyone else in the country by a considerable distance. I have a huge library, mostly self bought as I don't get to keep many of the review copies - they go back to the office library.
There is a huge second category of birders who just like collecting bird books regardless of their technical merit and it is probably these people that I relate to more. Books aren't cheap these days with many titles coming out at £50 or so. You always have to ask 'How would I feel paying that sort of money for this book.'
What you get with my style of reviewing - which, as with all book reviews is at best a subjective view - is a sense of consistency. Because I have seen so many books, I get a genuine feel for what is good and what is bad in my opinion. You might disagree totally with my review but you will know that if I don't like something, then you will or vice versa.
Similarly, I have had letters from people saying that they wouldn't normally have touched a book but because i said it was worth a look, they sought it out.
It is just the same with film reviews. You either like or loathe Johnathan Ross or Barry Norman but you get to know their likes and dislikes.
Which brings us to the whole point of reviews in the first place.. On one level of course, they serve no purpose whatsoever. You're intelligent, go and make your own mind up. It's not quite as bad as a review of a one-off concert that you have no chance of seeing but it's not much better.
Against that, if you are going to South Africa for your holiday, it is useful to know that the field guide you were going to buy has been bettered by something else. Or, if you are going to spend all your Christmas book tokens, that you don't waste them on XXXXXX by XXXX
Gordon
PS And yes, I did praise the gulls book to the skies when it came out and I stand by review even though the book was subsequently recalled - most of the problems were of a technical nature rather than bad text and artwork.
