The Art of the Book Review

The timeless wit of "Advice to a Young Reviewer"



When I was writing my first book, my editor advised me to put everything I wanted the review-reading public to know in the first and last chapters, because those are the only chapters that most reviewers read. In the years since then, I have discovered that indeed most of the quotes pulled by reviewers from my books have come from the first and last sections. In nonfiction books at least, reviewers tend to skim the middle section and read only the summaries of the argument at beginning and end.

But this is only one of many crimes against authors committed with impunity by many of their reviewers. Most elements of the art of the book review serve the purpose of making the reviewer look more intelligent or erudite than the author whose work is under review. There is The Omitted Subject: “For all its merits, this book about the South Pole suffers from the lack of any discussion of the North Pole.” And there is The Book the Author Should Have Written: “By focusing on the South Pole, the author misses the opportunity to discuss a far more important subject: the Equator.”

These and other tricks of the book reviewing trade are centuries old. The proof is Edward Copleston’s “Advice to a Young Reviewer, with a Specimen of the Art” (1807).

Edward Copleston (1776-1849), who served as Provost of Oriel College, Oxford and Bishop of Llandaff, deserves to be remembered for this satirical essay, published in 1807. Copleston begins “Advice to a Young Reviewer” in mock-heroic fashion:

You are now about to enter a profession which has the means of doing much good to society, and scarcely any temptation to do harm. You may encourage genius, you may chastise superficial arrogance, expose falsehood, correct error, and guide the taste and opinions of the age in no small degree by the books you praise and recommend.

Copleston follows this, however, with a summary of the purpose of book reviewing from the reviewer’s own point of view:

Now, as in the conduct of life nothing is more to be desired than some governing principle of action, to which all other principles and motives must be made subservient, so in the art of reviewing I would lay down as a fundamental position, which you must never lose sight of, and which must be the mainspring of all your criticisms — write what will sell.

Following this principle produces great advantages for book reviewers: “In particular, it will greatly lighten your labours to follow the public taste, instead of taking upon you to direct it.” The objective of pleasing rather than instructing readers “does not stand in need of painful research and preparation, and may be effected in general by a little vivacity of manner…”

Indeed, if the plan of your Review admits of selection, you had better not meddle with works of deep research and original speculation, such as have already attracted notice, and cannot be treated superficially without fear of being found out. The time required for making yourself thoroughly master of the subject is so great, that you may depend upon it they will never pay for the reviewing.

Then as now, part of the art of the reviewer involved convincing the reader that the reviewer knows more than the author. “Tables of contents and indexes are blessed helps in the hands of a Reviewer,” Copleston writes. So is a preface.

Here then is a fund of wealth for the Reviewer, lying upon the very surface; if he knows anything of his business, he will turn all these materials against the author, carefully suppressing the source of his information, and as if drawing from the stores of his own mind, long ago laid up for this very purpose. If the author’s references are correct, a great point is gained; for, by consulting a few passages of the original works, it will be easy to discuss the subject with the air of having a previous knowledge of the whole.

Another trick, according to “Advice to a Young Reviewer,” is to praise the opposite of what the author has done: “That is, when a work excels in one quality, you may blame it for not having the opposite….[W]hichever the author has preferred, it will be the signal for you to launch forth on the praises of its opposite, and continually to hold up that to your reader as the model of excellence in this species of writing.”

A shrewd reviewer prefers “the censure and not the praise of books,” for many reasons: “The chief are, that this part is both easier, and will sell better.” Rather than act as an impartial judge, the reviewer should emulate an attorney cross-examining a hostile witness: “He may comment, in a vein of agreeable irony, upon the profession, the manner of life, the look, dress, or even the name of the witness he is examining: when he has raised a contemptuous opinion of him in the minds of the court, he may proceed to draw answers from him capable of a ludicrous turn, and he may carve and garble these to his own liking.”

“Advice to a Young Reviewer” concludes with a “specimen of the art” in the form of an anonymous review of John Milton’s poem L’Allegro, the composition of which must have been fun for Copleston, who when he published the essay was Professor of Poetry at Oxford. After ridiculing passages from Milton’s poem, Copleston’s exemplary reviewer concludes:

Upon the whole, Mr. Milton seems to be possessed of some fancy and talent for rhyming; two most dangerous endowments, which often unfit men for acting a useful part in life, without qualifying them for that which is great and brilliant. If it be true, as we have heard, that he has declined advantageous prospects in business for the sake of indulging his poetical humour, we hope it is not yet too late to prevail upon him to retract his resolution. With the help of Cocker and common industry he may become a respectable scrivener; but it is not all the Zephyrs, and Auroras, and Corydons, and Thyrsises, aye, nor his junketing Queen Mab and drudging goblins, that will ever make him a poet.

“Advice to a Young Reviewer” holds up this dismissive review of Milton’s poem as a model to ambitious reviewers, because it “exhibits most of those qualities which disappointed authors are fond of railing at, under the names of flippancy, arrogance, conceit, misrepresentation, and malevolence; reproaches which you will only regard as so many acknowledgments of success in your undertaking, and infallible tests of an established fame and rapidly increasing circulation.”

Copleston’s wonderful satire has long been out of print, although on-demand facsimiles can be purchased. I found it in my brittle 1886 edition of Famous Pamphlets, edited by Henry Morley. An enterprising publisher should bring out a 21st-century edition of “Advice to a Young Reviewer.” It would deserve to be widely reviewed. •

Feature image courtesy  Lawrence OP via Flickr (Creative Commons).

Michael Lind is a contributing writer of The Smart Set, a fellow at New America in Washington, D.C., and author of Land of Promise: An Economic History of the United States.


More To Read...

  • The Freedom WorldThe Freedom World I try to get away from the damn thing, but it keeps coming at me. A friend visiting announced he had finished it on the airplane — did I want a look? There were emails, blog posts, […]
  • Which American Dream?Which American Dream? Many across the political spectrum assert that the American Dream is endangered. No American politician would dare to question that the American Dream must be preserved. But what exactly […]
  • The Dancer UpstairsThe Dancer Upstairs Like the namesake of his most recent novels, J. M. Coetzee speaks to us in parables. The Childhood of Jesus and The Schooldays of Jesus, like Disgrace and Summertime before them, give us […]


  • As someone who reads every word of every book review I write I have to say I’m–shocked? No, not shocked. Appalled. On the other hand, I know that there are reviewers who will trash a book for personal, not literary, reasons.

  • Very funny stuff. However, the problem with modern reviewing is that it isn’t critical enough. Every author is now a budding genius, every work a certain masterpiece, as reviewers increasingly become the tools of publicity and marketing.

  • I’m glad that there are people rediscovering Copleston! The background to this is actually not so much a controversy about book reviewing but part of an ongoing battle between Copleston and the Edinburgh Review over Oxford education, and particularly the value of classical philosophy (Copleston was an avid supporter of teaching Aristotelian logic; the Edinburgh opposed). Interestingly, it was published just before Byron’s “English Bards and Scotch Reviewers”, also an attack on the Edinburgh Review. In a sense, it represents an ongoing battle between the ancients and the moderns, with the ancients (such as Copleston) favoring the arts and tradition against the moderns who favored science and progress. Two of my articles might be of interest to those who want the background details: “Pedagogy and Bibliography” and “Theology, Canonicity, and Abbreviated Enthymemes”, both of which can be found at my academic website:

  • I’ve used a quote from Copleston in a course I taught on Milton years ago. Probably to the same effect that this review has on the reader. It, and the article in general, put me in mind of something I’ve read online that’s making a bit of a stir at Berkeley, since its author had been a graduate student there many years ago. The “book” he wrote and is circulating for free is about many things, but along the way it’s main character has is to say about book reviewers: “As a result, I’ve come to the conclusion that most critics review the book that wasn’t written, pointing out what’s missing or not addressed. And academic reviewers always seem to be writing the book they’re reviewing that you haven’t written.” This and other bon mots can be found at I’m not quite sure about it’s provenance, and it came to me via an anonymous email, but it’s well worth a look.

  • There are already at least three Kindle edition’s of Copleston’s ‘Advice to a Young Reviewer, with a Specimen of the Art’ on… Pity. I was considering publishing it myself.

  • Not since Made in Texas has such artful, ironic satire of “gobbledegook” been better explained. If most reviewers are such turkeys, I’m pleased to say you’ve escaped common Thanksgiving by happily giving in to it. Indeed praise be to Copleston.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.