The reason that most book reviews now are positive is down to a few things. One, there are almost no full time book critics left still working. Nearly all books are therefore reviewed by other writers working freelance, i.e. the peers of the author. There is more to risk with publishing a negative review because one is reviewing one’s peers, someone whom one might encounter professionally or socially and (gasp) be reviewed by in turn. By writing a bad review as a freelance writer, you risk making an enemy of not just the author, but that author’s agent, editor, publisher, etc. Not that these people are necessarily going to remember or hold it against you, but the concern exists. There is an understanding when one is simply a professional full time book critic, but I think it can feel trickier without the protection of this job title.

Two, and I think this is the stronger reason, is that it is harder than ever to get a book reviewed at all. There just isn’t the budget or space. The contemporary bad review, other than performative takedowns, is silence, the absence of a review. Why waste space and resources on a negative review when that space and money could be used to tell readers about a book the reviewer actually recommends? Why waste scarce resources to actively hurt an author, especially a non-famous one?

I assign book reviews, and I tell reviewers to let me know at the 50 or 100 page mark is they think the review would be negative, so I can assign them something else. A mixed review is one thing, or a review where the critic knows they simply are not the audience for the book (in which case they still shouldn’t really be reviewing it), but a review that can’t recommend the book at all doesn’t serve much purpose. The reason why the editors of book reviews are likely to want quotable language is that a publisher will be more likely to use and share that language in promotional material, thus providing visibility for the reviewing publication in turn. Book reviewing is a service to readers but also to the publishing industry at large. Readership within the industry is always going to be a big part of the overall audience.

Three, and this is related to the first two reasons, is that reviewing a book properly takes a lot of time, disproportionate to what almost any publication can pay. Just reading the book usually takes 5-10 hours or more, and then you have to write the thing. What is the point of doing all that if all you’re going to do is tell someone what not to read? The investment is higher for the reader as well, since most new release books cost more than a movie ticket and take much longer to experience.

I too find book reviews that are simply lazy summaries with blurb-language attached to be boring, but I think readers should examine what they are looking for in book reviewing as well. These kinds of reviews are intended to let you know that a book exists, not to confirm the taste of the reader who has already read the book and wants to see what others have to say. You’ll have to search out longer form criticism for that, which is even rarer because it’s expensive. It’s easy to criticize but better to think: am I reading the right publications for reviews? Am I reading discovery reviews or discussion reviews?

(Also, read The Book Supplement if you want honest and thoughtful discovery-based book reviews awritersnotebook.org/s/…)