My interest in writing reviews was sparked early in my career by prominent Canadian arts reviewer Jamie Portman, while I was a junior reporter and he a columnist in the newsroom of The Calgary Herald. Beginning at about the same time, while I was working with other writers, attending professional writers’ workshops, and studying reviews written by others, I learned a certain ethic that I followed when writing reviews.

Two important elements characterize this ethic: be honest and be helpful (that is, don’t just praise or pan, but explain why and suggest ways to improve the weak bits in the work being reviewed). For more than four decades now, I’ve adhered to that ethic while writing professional reviews of works in most disciplines of The Arts. Hundreds of these reviews had been published in everything from local newspapers to national magazines, broadcast on local and regional CBC radio, and hosted online.

A few days ago, this ethic was tested. After I had submitted an assigned book review, the editor proposed “edits” that amounted to rewriting my review to remove all but the most positive bits. In effect, this would have reversed the sense of my review to be undiluted praise rather than my intended honest commentary on a far-from-perfect poetry collection, including some helpful suggestions for the author. In suggesting her revisions, the editor wrote “our reviews section is part of our commitment to community-building, rather than perhaps a critical hub for poetry.”

Here’s where my long-standing ethic as a reviewer was challenged. Should I just take the money–yes, it was a paid review–and let the review be redacted to create the illusion that the book reviewed is much better than it is? Or should I stand by what I believe is the purpose of any review, an honest and helpful analysis of the work reviewed?

In my experience, rather than faux and patronizing praise, authors appreciate warts-and-all reviews that are informed, honest, and helpful. Whether novice or master, amateur or professional, these writers welcome the opportunity to learn and to improve their craft. An article that offers up only praise, no matter the actual merits of the book, is not a legitimate book review. It’s purposeful flattery and, in my opinion, no way to “build community.”

This brings to mind the difference between the “book reports” we wrote in school and professional book reviews. Book reports, meant to test the student’s understanding of the book’s content, tend to uncritically reprise the content in précis or condensed form. On the other hand, a book review is meant to be informative to both the author and the prospective reader about the book’s successes and failures. A puff-piece that features only undiluted and perhaps undeserved flattery benefits nobody.

I learned to be honest in critiquing another writer’s work whether in a writer’s workshop or in a written review. To “critique” is to do fair analysis, never to “criticize” but to support and uplift and to suggest improvements where they may be needed. It’s always best for artists to learn about problems in their current work–as well as ways to improve their skills in present and future creations. Certainly, in workshops and reviews, I have always appreciated the comments and suggestions others make regarding my own work. I believe the quality of my writing has benefitted from this input.

I turned down the payment and asked the editor not to print the review as revised.