I&#039;ve not read the comments on the Burke piece though did read the article. My view from the amateur review that I am (student newspaper, small press poetry mag, blog), is that reviews should give some idea of the book itself and what to expect from reading it and then say how well that was achieved. That&#039;s easier with a book that&#039;s good but not awe making as you can make points that reflect what went well and what didn&#039;t. I must admit that as I don&#039;t commissioned I rarely get the problem were I have to review a book I loath. And I guess that if you&#039;re getting paid to put words out about something you hate why not be snarky. You didn&#039;t like it so why would someone else? I&#039;m a bit gentler than that though I have been known to blast a few novels that had me so enraged I really had to vent. As I reviewer I want to love the novel and say good things and say people should be it. When they manage to be good not great that&#039;s OK. But if they disappoint... snakiness comes in from the sense of wasted time and emotion especially if it&#039;s down to a miskey between expectations and what you actually experience. That experience could be technical - like poor writing or more emotional like characters doing things aren&#039;t within what they should be doing. But then I guess in the end that if you want to take notice of reviewers you have to look at the reviewer as a whole and see what else they&#039;ve said about other books and if you share their opinions of them before accepting what they say about your own work.