In my opinion, reviews are not like hard news stories -- or even editorials. The writer doesn’t hide any emotions or biases; he celebrates them. The best reviewer is open about her perspective. We are reminded that a single person, with his unique history and set of standards, is interacting with the book. Years ago, The New Yorker’s Pauline Kael set the standard for reviews that gave a face to the writer -- an individual’s flavor to the examination.

Yes, these might be more self-involved pieces, yet they are the only honest ones. When someone evaluates her reaction to a book, she does a disservice to her readers and the book when she attempts to hide her own possible biases.  If he presents himself as some sort of arbiter of Truth, instead of an ordinary grubby human like the rest of us, the reviewer gains a false authority that should be held only by original works and not commentary on them.

Since this is not like the rest of the world -- my opinion actually matters for once -- I have to give Alyssa the prize. I must say the other reviewers are very good and are all clear in justifying their positions. To simply state a position with no evidence to back it up is a crime that should be punished, perhaps with sharpened pencils up the fingernails. (I will look for evidence that this is a truly criminal act later.)  Alyssa wins because she follows the strongest criterion I established for myself.