From what Pool states, reviewers are of many other professions. Some are lawyers, authors, editors, professors, etc. There are some that Pool considers to be professional, salaried reviewers belonging to a publication.
This is an important question for Pool because reviewers can be anyone, Pool does not want people to be steered away from reviewing because they believe they need certain degrees.

It is important to know what knowledge, bias, motivations, professional ground, grudges, or acclaim the reviewer may or may not have because these will influence the review. Knowing that many reviewers wear other hats /because/ the pay is not enough or whether they were chosen because /of/ those other hats makes a big difference in the reviews written.

Such a simple sentence has so much meaning. Pool wants to know who are is reviewers of his work. He wants to now his real audience and how good they are.

According to Pool, anybody can be a reviewer. They are either “professionals” or “amateurs”. For Pool this question matters, because it is both encouraging and discouraging, but more encouraging because if they enjoy writing reviews they don’t have to do it as their career. They can do it on the side while they earn “their living elsewhere.”

it is important because it is not clear who is a reviewer. It is not even clear the difference between a reviewer and a critic. Is someone who rates a product on eBay or Amazon a reviewer, for instance? Anyone can review something, but not everyone is qualified.

Developing a good style while being able to judge fairly and thoroughly takes a lot of practice, especially when under the pressure of meeting a deadline.

Reviewing is not like any type of writing. Reviewers must be objective, fair, accurate and knowledgeable about the subject their reviewing. In addition to that, they work on tight deadlines.

Sometimes I’ll enjoy a movie and go to write a review on it. When I write the review, I think about what I liked and what I disliked. If nothing stood out to me as a huge negative, I’ll have to think about it for a minute… Then I’ll come up with a bunch of negatives that never really bothered me during the initial viewing. In any future viewings, these negatives become all I can focus on. I guess sometimes critiquing something can ruin a positive initial impression.

It brothers Pool because when reading under pressure she doesn’t have time to read carefully and think about the book. Instead she starts taking notes. She says that when writing under pressure: “writing can easily become formulaic; the reviews begin to sound the same.”

Approaching the book as a reviewer can take away from the experience of reading the book, and the experience is a crucial component that affects the review of the book. It is a catch 22- either Pool takes notes to remember her initial thoughts towards the book, or she spends double the amount of time by reading the book twice, once to experience it as a reader and gain a feel for the tone of the work, and a second time to experience it as a reviewer and explore it from a more critical standpoint.