'Hatchet Job': a term first used in 1944, denoting 'a forceful or malicious verbal attack'. So who would want to celebrate 'hatchet jobs' in literary criticism? The Omnivore would, that's who.

Too often, the Omnivore believes, the review sections of newspapers, especially the books section, go ignored by readers because the writing is "inward-looking and self-serving." The publication, which aggregates and showcases criticism relating to literature, film and theatre to provide readers a "cross section of critical opinion", is running the 'Hatchet Job of the Year' award that aims to reward book reviews that are "not simply informative, but entertaining". Anna Baddeley from The Omnivore team explained to the Editors Weblog why celebrating the hatchet job is the ideal way to encourage great quality literary criticism.

The prize is described in its manifesto as a 'crusade against blandness, deference and lazy thinking', but most people would think of a 'hatchet job' as an unbalanced piece of criticism that isn't really worth celebrating, but The Omivore team is attempting to reclaim the term in favour of opinionated, expressive writing, Baddeley says. "In no way are we encouraging malice or personal attacks: the book should be the thing getting bludgeoned, not the author. The main aim of this prize is to promote literary journalism to a wider audience, but it's also supposed to be a bit of fun - which is why we're awarding the winner a year's supply of potted shrimps!"

The role of the professional critic is becoming ever more uncertain in an era where the traditional media is facing large scale disruption; subsequently, the traditional outlets for quality criticism, such as newspapers are being superseded by crowdsourced reviews and social media recommendations.

Baddeley believes that the "cacophony of opinion on the internet, while a great, democratising thing in itself," makes the role of the professional critic "even more vital." After all, "a book might have 100 five-star reviews on Amazon, but this is meaningless if we don't know who's written them. We need people to stand up and be heard above the throng; people who are accountable and authoritative, with recognisable tastes. And who write well - that's really important."

Although this hunger for informed opinion should provide the ideal environment for professional criticism to flourish, Baddeley explains that "too often...readers are let down by books pages that are an uncomfortable mix of lit crit lite and vacuous opinion. Too many reviews are plot summaries with a handful of clichéd superlatives thrown in: 'masterful', 'utterly compelling' etc." Her solution to the problem: "fresh thinking, stringent editing, and a higher value to be placed on entertainment. These are newspapers after all, not academic journals."

Baddeley explains that "good criticism is more than just having an opinion: it's being able to express it lucidly and convincingly." That is precisely the criteria for winning the Hatchet Job of the Year award. The winning entry "needs to be well written: if you're calling someone a bad writer and you can't write yourself, then no one's going to take you seriously. It needs be persuasive, with opinions backed up by deftly (and subtly) deployed evidence. Crucially, it needs to work on more than one level - the best reviews are ones that can be appreciated equally by the expert and the intelligent ignoramus."

At the end of the day, good criticism "comes down to the entertainment factor"; as long as critics keep offering informed and entertaining opinion, they will have an audience.

Sources: Hatchet Job Of The Year (1), (2), Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, interview with Anna Baddeley