Erica Wagner, Literary Editor of The Times

What does your job involve?
I edit the Books section of the Times. It's a job I have been doing in some capacity or other for the last 12-13 years, although the Books section is only 3 years old. I essentially choose books for review, as well as putting together interviews etc. There are eight people in my team.

What's the most unusual review you've ever read?
I'm not sure what I'd call "the most unusual" review. I loved Lucy Ellman's review of Chuck Palahniuk's new novel, Snuff, that begins: "What the hell is going on?" (in The New York Times). I also enjoyed Terry Eagleton reviewing Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion in the London Review of Books. I think it was a model of how these things should be done - it was witty and coherently argued: cogent without being alienating.

What makes a good review?
There are some basics, but there are different rules for different publications since the audiences are very different. At The Times, we try not to assume too much knowledge. Audiences might not know much about the book or author, so it's important to provide facts in a style which is clear, entertaining and lively. Writers should strive to be fair and back up their criticisms.

What aspects of a book should you focus on when you review it?
It depends on the book. You need to give the reader an idea of what the book is like, even if they might never read it. The review needs to be interesting in its own right. When I was a reviewer the literary editor at the time saw an interesting but obscure book on my desk. He said "I wouldn't want to read this, but I would like to read 500 words about it."

If you don't like a book, how destructive can you be with your criticism?
It depends. With some books, especially first novels, then if my reviewers don't like it I will tell them to review something else. There's no point in being mean about someone nobody's ever heard of. With established authors people will want to know more about it. However, I don't like gratuitously mean reviews. You always have to justify what you say. I appreciate that a horrid review is much more entertaining to read, but personally I feel it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

If you're short on time, is it okay to skim through it and make something up?
No, never.

Who's your favourite reviewer?
Writing right now, it's James Wood, who writes for the New Yorker. He's a remarkable critic. He has an enormous fund of knowledge which he is able to access lightly and in a way that is constructive. You're able to see where he's coming from and what he's trying to say. Another person I admire is Jenny Diski. I like her breadth of knowledge and style.

How does someone go about becoming a reviewer?
Personally, I became a reviewer by chance. I was freelancing in the publishing industry, and a publisher I met who knew I had been on a creative writing course put the idea into my head. He told me to send round letters to different people. One of the people I wrote to, the literary editor of The Times, had seen a short story of mine in a magazine and had liked it. When he saw my letter, he offered me a review.

Reviewing doesn't pay that well. At The Times we don't use many regular reviewers, and even the ones we do use regularly all have other sources of income... at least, I hope they do!