Inadequate book reviews

Either offer proper book reviews or dispense with them. The other day, the Herald-Leader picked up a review of an Agatha Christie bio from the Washington Post, but then edited it so sloppily as to make it incomprehensible.

Then the Herald-Leader wasted over half the front page of your Neighbors section on Kim Davis’ likely ghost-written tome about the time she was deservedly stuffed in the slammer for refusing to obey the law and issue marriage licenses to gay couples.

The article offered no insight, either in the way of news or critique. There is no literary judgment made about style or content. We get merely a chronology of events, coupled with quotes from Davis’ opus.

If the paper must squander this much ink on Davis’ flatulent literary endeavors, offer us an opinion on its merits as a piece of work — good, bad or indifferent. But a litany of culled quotes that read like jacket blurbs is neither good literary criticism nor good journalism.

This story was originally published March 26, 2018 at 6:44 PM with the headline "Inadequate book reviews."