Today I chat with Laura Miller, the Senior Books Writer at Salon, who also contributes to the New York Times books section and the New Yorker.

You've done a lot of interviews for Salon: what have you learned about what makes a good interview, or how to salvage a mediocre one?
A few things: Have a list of questions so you don't panic about forgetting what to ask, but be willing to toss it out. Listen closely to what the subject says and branch questions off of that -- this way you're more likely to hit on a topic that the subject cares about. If she mentions that she once considered being a baker, ask her what appealed to her about that, etc. (a lame example, but still). Focus on drawing out anecdotes, stories, specific details rather than generalities and lofty pronouncements. One of the most interesting and newsworthy response I ever got was when I asked a novelist who'd just written (but not yet published) a memoir, "People often find that when they write about their past, the process dredges up old memories they'd entirely forgotten. Was there anything like that with this book that really surprised you?" He told me he'd remembered being molested by one of his parents' friends as a child!

In what ways do you feel Salon has evolved over the last three years or so?
I'm the wrong person to ask about this. When I became a staff writer three years ago, I became much less involved in setting the editorial direction of Salon. That's only become more accentuated in the last two or so years, after I went part-time.

What's your method for writing book reviews? Do you write as you read? Do you have time to re-read?
I don't write until I've finished reading the book at least once, underlining passages and taking some light notes as I go. What I do next depends on the nature of the book. Something really challenging, or dense with information, may require a kind of intensive skimming. Sometimes I will go through the book transcribing passages I might want to quote. (Ideally, I type them into my computer, so I always have them in searchable form, which is valuable with nonfiction in particular, since it may feed into another piece.) A less demanding book, especially certain novels, I can review after a very light skim, but in almost every case I will re-read the first chapter or two.

Do you ever directly hear back from authors who disagree with your review of their book? How do you handle that?
Very rarely. Most people who manage to get published know better than that. Once or twice someone has made a scene at a party or something. If it's that bad I'll usually just leave. But that's incredibly rare. I will avoid people I've reviewed negatively in social situations, but that's more because I think it's likely to bother them than because it bothers me. A few times, where an author has made an effort to be civil or even cordial despite a review I suspect they didn't like, I'm immensely impressed. A few authors will write, usually a letter to the editor, to protest a review. This is considered unprofessional unless they are calling attention to a factual error, so again, few do it. I've never had anyone accuse me of the kind of thing that would be an ethical concern, such as using the review to serve some personal end. That would be a serious allegation, and my editor would mediate it. It's actually much more of a problem explaining to people that I don't review books by authors who are more than just acquaintances. If we go out for coffee or some other significant social (as opposed to professional) interaction, I'm not reviewing your book.

Is it difficult to review genre books like sci-fi, fantasy or comics? If a reviewer is working with a book that's really outside their usual realm of what they normally read, how can they do it justice?
With comics, I can't really say. I've seldom reviewed them, mostly because I don't have a firm grasp on the form and I tend to read them too fast, for story, and not pay enough attention to - or give sufficient weight to - the art. All fiction belongs to one genre or another and it's important to take that into consideration while reviewing it. Some genres are much more a world unto themselves, with very developed conventions, so I can see why reviewer more practiced with that genre might seem called for. But it really depends on your audience. Someone who reviews a very tech-focused SF book for a general interest publication is not out of line to, say, complain that hardware takes precedence over character, because the publication's readers are likely to be approaching the work in the same relatively naive state. But if you're writing about it for LOCUS, you better know your stuff. It's very hard, by the way, to find a critic who knows a genre well and yet can still figure out
which books in it are likely to appeal to readers who are not aficionados of that genre and explain why.

That said, it really helps to be flexible and to try to enter into
what you think the writer is trying to do. If you have
inflexibilities or prejudices, stay away from those titles. I, for
example, hate really emotionally involved mother/adult daughter
stories. If I start a book and that's what it is and it's not
overcoming my bias, I just don't review it. I like fiction with a
fabulist element, however, so if a novel like that doesn't win me
over, it's probably safe for me to say it's not that good. Other
critics are uncomfortable outside the confines of traditional realism
so they should probably recuse themselves from reviewing that kind of book, UNLESS they love it. It's such a testimonial to a book if it
overcomes our readerly prejudices that I'd want to hear about. I'll
often start a review that way: "I know you're tired of romantic historical novels inspired by famous paintings and so am I, but wait!
This one is really great."