By DOUG STRASSLER

Happy rainy Friday, guys! I was trying to think of a different kind of subject for today’s column when a good friend of mine mentioned the rules of literary criticism as described by the late double-Pulitzer-winning author John Updike. This might appeal more to the critics out there, but since, as Stephen Sondheim said, “the art of making art is putting it together,” I wanted to share this list, as we all might benefit from it.

The list below comes from the introduction to Updike’s 1975 work Picked to Pieces, and though he specifically mentions works of literature, I believe this quintet of rules can apply when viewing any work of art.

Try to understand what the author wished to do, and do not blame him for not achieving what he did not attempt.

Give enough direct quotation — at least one extended passage — of the book’s prose so the review’s reader can form his own impression, can get his own taste.

Confirm your description of the book with quotations from the book, if only phrase-long, rather than proceeding by fuzzy précis.

Go easy on plot summary, and do not give away the ending.

If the book is judged deficient, cite a successful example along the same lines, from the author’s Å“uvre or elsewhere. Try to understand the failure. Sure it’s his and not yours?

This may be the first time in a while someone has used the word “oeuvre” and not pissed me off. These rules may seem like common sense, and yet I think they work as a great checklist. From time to time, I encounter various reviews – of all sorts of works, ranging from plays to books to concerts to movies – where I think the critic is discussing the work based on what he or she wanted it to be instead of what he or she actually saw. Basic as these tenets may be, it’s a good way to police oneself from succumbing to such a pitfall. Like everyone, I may have my favorites that draw me to something (Richard Russo, Jonathan Franzen, Julianne Moore, Elizabeth Marvel) and those that may repel me (Kate Hudson, Charlie Sheen). But when I review something, I’m able to tune that partiality out.

Can anyone think of examples where this might not have been the case, where someone was either too harsh or too kind because they saw what they wanted to see? And to the critics out there, have you ever caught yourself in such a predicament?

Thanks to Meg for the great idea!