Stacy at Tor just faxed over the Kirkus Reviews dated June 1, 2010.

I think I can't quote the whole thing, as it's proprietary, but let's see if I can give enough abstract to give you a sense of the flavor of it:


It may surprise readers schooled in Heinlein's stern, even quasi-fascistic visions of the future to learn that their author was a sometime liberal Democrat involved in postwar party politics in his adopted California. It will not surprise them to know that Heinlein, on the road to a lifetime's service in the Navy until being drummed out for medical reasons, was infamous among subordinates as a by-the-book disciplinarian of a Captain Bligh -- or perhaps Queeg -- bent . . . . The author clearly has a handle on every moment of Heinlein's life, including the unpleasant (a nasty divorce) and controversial (trash-talking L. Ron Hubbard) episodes, but sometimes trips over awkward, overworked locutions.

Less engaging than Asimov's autobiography, which remains a standard, but still a welcome account of the development of an important popular writer.


Someone at work who saw it called it a "fabulous review." Frankly I thought it unpleasantly snotty, not quite clear on what he wanted to say and how, and somewhat ignorant -- which always makes self-righteousness just that bit more hard to take.

Still, this will sell books to libraries, which is the main thing: "Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof."

"Still, this will sell books to libraries"

I'd rather see a review in Booklist to sell to libraries. (or perhaps Library Journal or for academic libraries Choice) We don't get Kirkus at our library. I don't think we have for over 25 years. We do get Booklist and LJ. If it gets in Booklist it is a recommend to purchase, except the Reference book section. What you really want is for people to ask their libraries to get that new biography about Robert Heinlein.
Kirkus will sell, its just the first that you need.

Hope all your reviews are excellent.

Rosie

No reviewer feels they have done their job unless they come up with something negative to say, so pay no attention to anything you don't already agree with.

You may be an exception, but I can think of very few book or film reviews (and I read many of both) that can escape the need to find something, no matter how trivial or labored, to tap-dance upon. There is a germ of truth in Peter's comment; perhaps it's because readers won't accept a completely glowing review without a contrary point for... scaling.

I will tread lightly here, but I don't perceive Locus as an impartial entity in the field. It exists both as part of, and in service to, the overlap between writers, readers and to some extent publishers.

In other words, I would look to Locus more to find lengthy book notices than critical reviews. That's not intended as any insult; as notifier to the community Locus consistently serves with distinction. It's just not positioned to be a critical observer.

I suspect that really crappy books are either not mentioned or mentioned briefly, in that "notifier" role - hence "no negative reviews."

So why frame your comfort as a universal proposition? If a friend had just been high-hatted by an old girlfriend and you said, "Hey, buck up--women are like that," you might expect a dirty look from any woman within earshot.

As for the function of reviews--The buyer's-guide end of the job is pretty dull and in any case amounts to "you'll like this, if you like that sort of thing." The standard advice is to find a reviewer or three whose taste you share (or at least have calibrated against your own) and use them as your bird-dogs. Otherwise, you're better off going to a bookstore and just reading the first page or two.

For some of us, though, the review is a place to talk about books--how they work (or don't, as might happen), about the topics and issues they raise, about what enjoying a work of fiction feels like, about how this book fits in with the rest of the books in the world. If one doesn't enjoy that kind of conversation, then a review won't have much to offer, nor will most literary discussion. But it's my experience that some people do enjoy reading about books (or music or painting or architecture or any number of other pursuits), which is why there are still reviews and blogs and on-line forums.

Glad you found the TEFL essay useful. It was written in '75, right at the tail-end of grad school. I've always thought that the oubliette down which academic writing vanishes is even deeper than the one reserved for software and computer-equipment reviews.

I suspect that most of us who write for publication rather than the trunk have some taste for public performance. The same applies to, say, teachers--I discovered my inner ham in the classroom, and that kind of performing is the other thing I miss about not-teaching. (The big loss is not having an excuse to talk about books and ideas, even if often to a captive, restless, or napping audience. Thus the consolation of reviewing and, to a lesser degree, posting.)

I'll cop to being old (permanently) and grouchy (on occasion), though I've never managed the mass or pelt required for bear status. Two out of three ain't bad, though. (Enough for a C- these days.) Don't know about engagement--I'd have to ask my wife.

I think I started the TEFL piece in late '75 or early '76; it was certainly finished it by Labor Day of '76, because I took a copy to MidAmericacon and left it and a cover letter at the hotel desk for Heinlein, just as a courtesy. (Later I got a Mr.-Heinlein-doesn't-read-these note from Ginny--I mention same in passing in the Locus review.) It was commissioned for the Writers of the 21st Century Series by Joe Olander, as were all but one of the essays (Dave Samuelson's is a reprint). There were all kinds of delays wrapping up the project, so it didn't come out until 1978. Years later, I wrote the Heinlein entry for Jim Gunn's not-entirely-successful New Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, and that one experienced delays as well. Maybe there was a Heinlein Jinx operating. (And there's an awful line that some editor at the packager or at Viking inserted in the NESF piece--I just reread it and am embarrassed all over again. Charles never did that to me.)