What makes a fine critic?

The ability to situate a work in its context, to praise it without flattery, to argue against it without rancour, to be authoritative without being a know-all, to make difficult matters clear without condescending to the reader – and, of course, to be a good writer in his or her own right.

Do you accept most books on offer, or are you selective?

I am selective. Critics should know something of the subject matter and the opinions of key authorities in the area. I used to review fiction when I was younger, before becoming overawed by the immense intellectual labour required to create and sustain an imaginary world, even if it doesn’t work on an ontological or artistic level. I still think novels should be critiqued, but by someone more dispassionate than me.

Do reviewers receive enough feedback from editors and/or readers?

With some editors, it’s like writing into the ether: one presumes that, if the piece runs and one is paid, it must have been all right. With others, closer textual reading and face-saving queries come as a relief. My topics tend to be arcane – philosophy, European history, relations between Islam and the West, art history and so on – and editors take my views on trust. That’s as unnerving as being an aerial acrobat with no safety net below, but at least no one messes with the opinion. I don’t engage with readers. I would rather write for an Imaginary Spectator, to borrow from Adam Smith, rather than for real individuals who may admire or admonish me. I don’t want to be tempted to play to the crowd.

What do you think of negative reviews?

Reviews must be negative when the content fails to convince or is breaking the reader’s trust. I try to keep a measure of respect for the intellectual ambition and hard work that goes into writing a book, but sloppy research, bad argument, bad editing, and the whiff of charlatanry can’t be shrugged away. Having said that, I think a negative review should give readers food for thought, not merely display the critic’s ego.

How do you feel about reviewing people you know?

I prefer to review friends’ books only when I think their arguments are problematic. If the review is positive and people know the connection, they’ll just think, ‘Well, she would say that, wouldn’t she?’ and the praise loses value. I always give friends a heads-up, though. Philosophers, and academics in general, are used to friendly criticism – it’s how we advance our work – so all generally ends well, even if there are anxious moments for the critic and the author before the review comes out. Fortunately, most of the books I review are foreign, given the nature of my interests. In Australia, one can’t help reviewing the books of acquaintances, because the pool is so small.

What’s a critic’s primary responsibility?

The critic has two responsibilities: to the reader and to the public discourse in general. A good review is not a buyer’s guide. When I was a child, the people hotly arguing politics around my parents’ dinner table had the same sources of information: the ABC and The Age. So they were arguing about substantive policy, as citizens, not shouting past each other from ideological bases. The best compliment I ever had was having a couple of people say to me, ‘A person on the left like you ...’ and others say, ‘A conservative like you ...’ all in the same month.