This morning I've been working on a review of a book for a Baptist publication.  Sometimes I wonder why I set myself up for this - invariably I get reqeusts to review books by people I know about subjects that are (a) close to my heart (b) emotive and (c) complex.

There's the review I'd like to write, and the one that I need to write - and there is often a huge gulf between them!  A gulf of emphasis and adjectives I guess.  A book can be 'important' and worth commending to others and still be 'dull' 'repetitive' and even 'annoying in places'.

Of course I won't mention the dull, repetitive, annoying bits, but I also won't say this was a right rivetting read that got to the nub of a topic.  I guess what isn't said is as significant as what is!

The other book is a tad easier to review in many ways - don't know the author, like his approach and can simply stick to facts about it.

Maybe the world of book reviewers is just too small - and I sure am glad I don't have any whole books out there!