But Who Reviews the Reviewers’ Reviewer?

Your books editor recently

reviewed some reviews over at Electric Literature, and talked a bit about what makes a good book review:

Stepping back, though, I believe it is very difficult to succeed with a book review if you lack generosity of spirit and a genuine love of books. There are plenty of terrible books, there are far more mediocre books, there are many good ones, and there are some that are great. Books that are terrible or mediocre are rarely worth your time to review. Which is not to say that a negative review has no place in your arsenal, but when I am reviewing a book, I try to imagine that I am speaking to the author, that that author wants to have written a good book and has proceeded with that desire in good faith.

Which is mostly true (I hope), but then, when I think about some of the book reviews which have really stayed with me, some of them are mean and brilliant. And I greatly prefer Anthony Lane’s more withering movie reviews to ones that are all, oh, Jessica Chastain is a revelation. So, hm, who knows? But you should read the reviews I showcased, because they’re good. And, of course, we can talk about whether novelists make better or worse reviewers than their amateur competition. Are there any reviewers you instinctively trust, either because they are particularly persuasive or because their taste is your own?