I have to say it's a willingness to admit not everything was perfect, or not everything was drek. For instance, I LOVE pretty much anything written by George RR Martin--we're talking borderline Misery, here. And his Ice and Fire series is so good I'm force-reading it to my teenage daughter. But I'm willing to admit that his last book, the bit with Circe came off a little contrived. Love a book or hate it, but be willing to give it props/boos where necessary.

I like a reviewer who can be clever but doesn't make me feel (he or) she is just trying to make herself sound good with obfuscating language. I like details (I almost always throw in a few quotes from the material so that readers can get an idea of the author's style) but not too many plot points. A plot summary is NOT a review! I never reveal secrets of the plot, and if another reviewer does, she has turned me off the material. I also have a pet peeve -- I can't stand it when a reviewer says a piece is "evocative." That's meaningless to me. Evocative of what? Explain.

Michael Dirda is my favorite reviewer. I think he only reviews books he likes, if not he always finds something good to say about the book. I don't like reviewers that give a book a bad review. Why give a bad review, someone else might like the book.

Michael Dirda is my favorite reviewer. I think he only reviews books he likes, if not he always finds something good to say about the book. I don't like reviewers that give a book a bad review. Why give a bad review, someone else might like the book.

As one of those 1000+ anonymous responders, I have to say that I think a strong resume really is important. Perhaps you should ask for a sample review if you want to examine writing style to see if it's suited to PW reviewer needs?

Reviewing a work is more than summation. It is an analysis, a dissection, which gives the audience a keyhole view, and it is more than merely taking the proverbial puzzle apart. The reviewer will often garnish the analysis with opinion, and rightly so. The opinion may seduce or turn-off a more impressionable reader, certainly, but for the intelligent, independent reader, reviewer opinion should not be the determining factor. Instead, the review should act as a highlighter, a bright yellow guide that teases the palate, hopefully, with the pieces of the work— characterization, conflict, themes, motifs, etc. These elements should take center stage, offering direct evidence of the work without spoiling it, so that potential readers can determine for themselves, individually, if the work suits or not, regardless of the reviewer’s opinion. Remember that good analysis will bring out the strengths and weaknesses of any work, which is all good and well. Who would want to read a computer perfect fiction? It is in our shared imperfection that we connect most often in literature and otherwise. It is this reader’s opinion that it is in striving toward the perfect imperfection, that artists are born. Rae Bryant is a writer, editor, and reviewer. Read more about Rae at www.raebryant.com.

I like a reviewer who incorporates her personal thoughts and experiences with the story, one who is perceptive of the themes and human conditions. Next, I like a reviewer who is honest. Readers can tell when you're schmoozing. I also like reviews to be succinct. The longer the review, the less likely I am to read it. My time is valuable; I'd rather spend it reading a story than a review. As one of the 1000+ applicants, this is what I strive for in my own reviews on my three sites. (www.randomwonder.com)