Time is not on the reviewers side because editors recognize that they have a certain margin of time (in most cases) that a review has to be released in order for the audience to care. Of course, as Pool mentions it is contingent upon the publication, etc.

But, to play devil’s advocate, in this fast paced world, things have to be readily available and convenient. For example, if a review for Harry Potter is released 3 months after the release of the last book, it is less likely to be read than a review that was released sooner. Pool discusses the inflexibility of the editors. Her argument is that the reviewer should have more time to sit with a book, to marinate on it, to become well-versed in the topic… I agree but the editor carries the pressure of the consumers/readers too.

Time will usually work against the reviewer, but it is also not the reviewer’s job to make a statement whether a book was overall successful. They will just help a potential buyer decide if the book would be worth the purchase.

Time will never be on the reviewer’s side because of deadlines. The reviewer might be reading numerous books between a short time spans. That little amount of time does not permit for a concise breakdown of the material up for evaluation. This is important when giving reviews because a reviewer’s first impression may change over time.

Difficult task. Deadlines for these also pressure the reviewer, causing for somethings being overlooked within the books being reviewed.

because in the reviewing business, time is of the essence. Reviewers are on tight schedules, and must read a variety of books in a short amount of time.

I agree with Pool, tradition does demand that the reviewer sound authoritative. When you are reviewing you are urged to pick a perspective/side and stick with it. It doesn’t leave too much room to pose questions in the review. In this paragraph Pool poses the question: should the reviewer be skeptical of facts within a book or should they also question the facts presented? If they question the facts then they have stepped out of the realm of reviewing to an extent, depending on the subject matter. It also doesn’t leave room to sound “authoritative”.

Pool states that tradition requests that the reviewer come off as authoritative. When you are reviewing you are obligated to pick a stance and stick with it. This is the backbone of the review and ultimately why people will read it. But there is a risk in seeming condescending.

in some sense, reviewers must be authoritative. After all, they are either recommending a book/movie/show or not. But the problem is that being too authoritative can make readers believe that the reviewer sees him/herself as superior.

Writing shorter means the writer has to be more concise. The process of curating the right words is difficult and time consuming.

Writing short is often hard, especially in the case of reviewing. A reviewer is trying to condense a myriad of thoughts, feelings, and critiques about a full book into a review of only a few hundred words. Trying to accurately express one’s opinion with limited space can lead to the reviewer choosing words and phrases that save space and word count but maybe aren’t as true to the feelings of the reviewer.

“Writing short” can be compared to poetry composition. Every single word must be appropriate, or else the end result becomes more of a disaster than a poem. In a 200-word piece, a writer has only so many ways to “get it right”; in contrast, a few errors in a 10,000-word piece may be considered more acceptable and will not necessarily ruin the overall work.

Every word must serve a purpose. Identifying which words are wasted space and getting the point across efficiently while maintaining good style is never easy.

It is way harder. First of all, you have to make your point in less space. Being concise but precise at the same time is no easy task. Writers need to say the most important things in a limited space, leaving less room for examples and illustrations.

Some shortcuts include comparisons, familiar adjectives and clichés, buzzwords or code words, the phrase “I like…”

All of these shortcuts aren’t thorough or original. Pool urges reviewers to aim to be more concise.