iterary criticism is taking on new forms in our digitised world. Gone are the days when incisive, balanced and well-reasoned book reviews printed in the literary section of a newspaper attracted genuine interest from casual readers. TikTok and Instagram are now saturated with bite-sized content promising ‘fast takes’ on literature.

It is unfair to assume that such content relies on a narrow interpretation of literary work. A vast majority of content creators on Bookstagram and BookTok are adept at offering candid critiques on an assortment of literary texts. Be that as it may, the reader’s perspective often assumes centre stage on social media platforms. As a result, we are more likely to encounter vociferous “yes, no, maybe” reviews and quick-fire verdicts on these forums.

The popularity of this style of reviewing prompts the question of whether literary criticism published in newspapers should replicate such techniques or actively resist them. Critics, though, cannot be tamed easily. They set their own parameters in these matters and seldom adhere to a rigid formula or checklist of criteria to assess the merits of a book. Some of them document their reflections on a book soon after they have finished reading it. Others require some time to allow their thoughts to gestate and develop a cohesive shape before they can begin writing.

Any attempt to police their approach to reviewing is tantamount to unwanted interference. In any case, it is a blessing that critics don’t follow a specific template. If they did, book reviews would be plagued by the curse of uniformity. Incidentally, this also explains why newspapers don’t hire one critic to review all the books they receive from publishers and authors. Every critic brings their own personal touch to their analysis. Literary criticism, therefore, is an art rather than a science. All opinions are open to interpretation and can be contested, even if that makes the reviewing process appear highly subjective.

Contrary to popular perceptions, the editor of the literary pages of a newspaper doesn’t instruct a critic to review a book favourably or unfavourably. Instead, the editor has to play the role of a skilled matchmaker who must choose a suitable reviewer for a book. This matchmaking process isn’t arbitrary; it is rooted in knowledge of the critic’s area of focus or interest. The aim is to ensure every book lands in the lap of the right reader and is assessed fairly. Even so, some of these alliances tend to go awry. Books are strange creatures that send different signals to different readers.

As things stand, the standard of literary criticism has diminished over the years. It is rare to come across a genuinely insightful review of a book. Many of them are unduly laudatory, while others become sites for self-styled critics to regurgitate key plot points and offer superficial insights into a text. On the other extreme, some commentaries are steered by scepticism over prevailing publishing trends and frequently lament the corrosion of conventional creative benchmarks.

The common thread running through all these reviewing styles is that they provide space for an assortment of opinions. Not every opinion will resonate with audiences. In a similar vein, not everyone is an avid reader of literary criticism. In fact, it is difficult to find readers of any kind of writing, be it fiction or non-fiction. Yet, newspapers continue to offer a weekly staple of reviews that are lapped up by a dwindling readership, many of whom still formulate their personal reading lists based on the views of reliable critics.

At times, it seems almost masochistic for newspapers to keep printing book reviews when there’s no guarantee that these pieces, or the texts they attempt to analyse, are being read. Nevertheless, mainstream literary criticism has to survive purely as an antidote to the seemingly reductionist standards of book-reviewing on social media. If book reviews are done away with in print media, readers will have to settle for snap judgments rather than carefully crafted long-form analyses on literary texts.

Literary criticism, therefore, is an art rather than a science. All opinions are open to interpretation and can be contested, even if that makes the reviewing process appear highly subjective.

We now live in a world characterised by a growing fatigue with the literary intelligentsia. Suspicion seems to be the order of the day. Cynical readers often misconstrue favourable reviews as a symptom of favouritism. I’ve even come across readers who skim through reviews to eagerly earmark passages filled with negative feedback. For such readers, the presence of critical remarks automatically redeems reviewers, making their opinions seem undeniably trustworthy on account of their scathing honesty.

The existence of book reviews in newspapers will serve as a reminder to such readers that criticism isn’t entirely rooted in brutal honesty, pessimism and an eagerness to be cruel. The aim of sincere literary criticism isn’t to put the author on trial but to build an architecture of ideas, insights and observations about a book.

As a reviewer, my primary role is to interpret a text to the best of my ability. This interpretive function becomes all the more significant in our inherently post-truth age, where subjective opinions overshadow facts and reading habits are fragmented.

At the same time, publishing has become something of a gamble in an era when readers prefer to binge-watch series on Netflix instead of reading a book. Authors aren’t making a considerable amount of money through the sale of their books either.

Amid these changing dynamics, a small community of authors continue to churn out books because they are driven by a keen interest in storytelling. All they have in these bleak times is the support of their readers. Newspaper reviews can play a critical role in ensuring that books find their desired readership. However, this requires critics to cast aside their hubris and recognise that they aren’t the intended audience for every book. They may occasionally have to rein in their personal biases and accommodate the tastes of a group of readers quite unlike themselves. This shouldn’t be construed as a form of self-censorship. Instead, it is merely a judicious reminder that not all readers are alike.

Over the years, I’ve concluded that reading as a critic is akin to visiting an unknown house as a guest. Entering that house for the very first time, critics are bound by the constraints imposed by the author. As a consequence, they cannot recklessly wander off to explore rooms that aren’t within reach.

Not every critic will agree with this analogy as it propagates a seemingly restrictive approach to reading that chains them to the author’s intentions. Any reader should ideally have the liberty to discuss the pros and cons of a book. However, book critics for a newspaper need to be a bit more discerning. They must attempt to work within the constraints imposed by the author, comment on why they exist and subsequently assert whether they make the narrative effective. These insights can’t be gleaned solely through guesswork and critics should conduct ample research to understand the author’s creative intentions.

In most cases, research of this nature helps broaden their perspective on a book, thereby enabling them to write a more nuanced review. If this exercise doesn’t lead critics to alter their initial reservations, they can always voice their objections in a measured, professional tone. Book reviews are a valuable tool through which we acknowledge authors’ triumphs as storytellers; perhaps also point out their weaknesses. On a strictly personal note, I don’t feel comfortable writing a review that doesn’t strike a fine balance between praise and critical remarks. Through this balancing act, I can gauge whether I’ve mined a deeper vein of truth.

I avoid writing scathing, sardonic book reviews on principle, as they draw attention to the critic and sound pompous. However, I don’t ever allow my reviews to mimic sycophantic PR exercises, even when an author is known to me. Whenever I choose to make a critical remark, I make the reader aware of my biases or highlight the author’s motivations. Even then, a skilled reader, usually an editor, another critic or a reader with a rare gift of discernment, can detect the sting in my tone or a diplomatic turn of phrase. For me, these subtle cues convey the essence of a book far more effectively than a scathing review ever could.

The writer is a freelance journalist and the author of No Funeral for Nazia.