: Complimenting on solid structure with no major flaws When reviewing fiction, there's a certain quality that's very important to me, which I can best describe as being "solid." By which I mean:

Vote Up Vote Down

Don't use adjectives.

Adjectives accomplish nothing.

Adjectives are the weakest words we have.

Find book reviews you respect, ones that make you think, ones that make you care about the book. Find reviews that are written by genuine critics who stand at the top of the profession and who have been showered with meaningful awards, and see how many adjectives you can extract from their reviews. Not many, I'll warrant.

Reviews that sing, reviews that make you run breathlessly to find that book by whatever means possible, reviews that make you grateful to be present in the same world with that book, are reviews that tell you what the book does, what the author thinks and why the author thinks that, why the book matters, how the book will change your life or someone else's, anyway, and what will go wrong in the universe if everyone doesn't experience this piece of art.

Life is very, very short. Don't waste it on adjectives.

(0)

Vote Up Vote Down

I was watching a movie at the weekend that made me think about this question. I think when something is "solid" and "well constructed" whether this is proper praise or faint praise depends very much on one other criterion. Whether it is plain that the author was writing to some plan they had dug up from some where and ham-fistedly played a game of join-the-plot-points or whether they had constructed it solidly because of a thorough knowledge of their chosen genre/story and out of an implied duty of care to the reader to deliver a minimum standard of craft in their writing.

Which of these two you mean should really be conveyed before you deliver the compliment i.e. you either give the story a pasting and say that even though it was terrible it showed some knowledge on the part of the author of what a good story should be even though they failed to convey it. Or, alternatively, that the story was filled with imagination, well-crafted characters, deftly executed plot twists and was, in addition, solid and well constructed. In the former case it is obvious the author has paid lip-service to good writing whilst cynically filling out a checklist, in the latter it is clear a dedicated artist has applied technique and garnished it with brilliance and flair.

P.S. The movie was in the latter category, solidly constructed with care and attention to detail.

(0)

Vote Up Vote Down

I like two words you use:

plausible and believable.

(0)

Vote Up Vote Down

I think you're spot-on with your assessment. "Solid" is overly used and has become a word I simply gloss right over, it doesn't stick with me. If you were to use "Flawless" I would think that you were being hyperbolic and the credibility of the review would be questioned. And "competent" and "well-constructed" don't have much rhetorical punch.

Some words that might work as replacements:

Tight
Careful
Sensible
Cogent
Precise

(0)

Vote Up Vote Down

I don't think there's anything wrong with 'solid', 'consistent' or 'well-crafted'. From the sound of things, you MEAN this to be faint praise... you're saying that the book has achieved "the minimum requirements to be enjoyable". It's what you say AFTER this that adds the shadings.

Like:

This book is a well-crafted, light beach read. It won't stay with you forever, but you'll enjoy the time you spend with it.

Or:

This book is well-crafted and truly memorable. The prose flows easily, the characters are unique and fascinating, and the conflict is gut-wrenching.

(0)