I think they say Ms is ugly because it brings to mind Betty Freidan, Germaine Greer, and other radical feminists, who were first to adopt that title in the '60s. Their politics may have been ugly and now somewhat outdated, but I have to agree with them: when you write about a woman, it's not your job to know about their intimate personal lives. Thus, when reviewing a book it is not always possible to know whether the woman is married, single, married but using her maiden name, or for that matter, married for the fourth time but using the third husband's last name because it sounds better.

Now that I have got that off my chest, I think a guide for submitting reviews would be an asset for GEB, however, I would like to address the book itself and outline what is important to do and what is important not to do when submitting a review.

My first rule would be: entice with allusions to the plot but don't tell the ending. If you must give away plot surprises, give a spoiler alert. I have broken this rule myself, and was shocked at my sloppiness when I went back to reread my review.

This has given me pause to think. I have bought one book (Elaine Showalter, "A Jury of her Peers") on the basis of a review in "The Economist." I have bought countless books on the basis of reviews in "The Wall Street Journal." The reviewer in WSJ often plays Devil's Advocate in approaching the author's topic, but the review is enticing enough to make one want the book. I have discovered that the books I buy on the basis of reviews in either source have been well worth the investment, however. Now I'll have to look more closely at the way the books are approached in each periodical to see why I am more inclined to read those reviewed in WSJ.

Of course the reviewer does have an obligation to set aside her own prejudices when reviewing a book. I don't much like Willa Cather or Edith Wharton, but there are millions of folks who do. I try to remember that when reviewing their books. And as for "Wuthering Heights" let's hope I never have to review it!

Laura McDonald said:

Oh right, this is more a style guide for writing about politics (what they do) than for writing book reviews. Although they do write book reviews, and they’re usually pretty good but don’t generally have much to do with the book! Have you noticed that? And then sometimes I read one of their book reviews and I feel like I don’t want or need to read the book. In a way, I think that is a failed book review since I think a reviewer’s main goal should be to get people to read a book, right? If you hate the book, why write a review? Is there any reason to write a book review about a book you hate? What are you going to accomplish with that review–get people to not read the book?

Regarding titles, what do you do when it’s a pseudonym? You’re probably right, Ms is better. And I agree, no plot giveaways. I hate it when people do that!

I don't agree that it's the reviewer's job to 'sell' the book, anymore than it's a movie critic's job to try to get you to see a movie. It's a reviewer's job to assess a book honestly so that the reader or moviegoer can judge whether it's a book or movie that would appeal to them. If a book reviewer is merely a shill for a book company, then why would I want to read their review? And yes, if the reviewer hated the book, then they should review it just as honestly as a book they loved.

No shills, please.

As to 'Ms.' - it's been used in the Southern United States as a mark of respect since at least the middle 19th Century (although usually with a woman's first name, e.g. Miz Susan). It's neither new nor particularly political where I come from.

Perhaps East Texas isn't considered "Southern United States" but they don't use the term "Miz" or "Ms" with the person's first name. Instead, it is "Miss Laura" or "Miss Joyce" even though we are both married. The term is spelled "Miss" in letters as well. My solution in writing is to avoid having to use any of those terms. Rather, if I'm talking about Mary Shelley, I just call her "Shelly."

On the opinion regarding book reviews: Laura and I have an understanding about the books we review. She doesn't request that I read Wharton, Bronte (any of 'em), or Cather. It is very likely that I'll hate the book, so I am excused from reviewing their books. Does that mean these authors' books are duds? On the contrary. These women are giants of English language literature. They just don't suit my tastes.

Recently, Laura assigned the author program book "Alaskan Healing" to me. She had read the first chapter and saw a lot of my fantasies played out within the premise: cold weather, and oceangoing vessel, adventure, and a state that I have always wanted to visit. (I even have an Alaskan pen pal that I have corresponded with for 20 years.) Laura could have read the book and given it a good review, but she understood that I would probably enjoy it more and give a more enthusiastic review. This doesn't mean the book better than the classics mentioned above--it just means that my tastes run more in that direction; thus I should write the review.

If you get to know this site well, you know that adventure stories, such as Scarlet Pimpernel and Black Moth, and detective stories, such as those by Dorothy Sayers, Agatha Christie and Anna Katharine Green, will undoubtedly be assigned to me. This helps the site offer positive reviews of these books (because I like those genres) and keeps me from throwing verbal raspberries at the likes of Wharton, Cather and their ilk.

I can remember reading movie reviews from Roger Ebert. If he loved a movie too much, I didn't go see it, because I knew I would hate it. The converse is true of Joe Morgenstern. Reviews reflect the reviewer as much as they reflect the work being reviewed, so as in all things, one must consider the source.