In Praise of Bad Reviews

“In the arts, the critic is the only independent source of information. The rest is advertising.” — Pauline Kael, U.S. film critic. Newsweek (New York, Dec. 24, 1973).

I recently received an email from a  writer who gave up his book review site. Why? Because he’s trying to break into the publishing industry. He found that he couldn’t be honest about his reviews without potentially offending other authors and/or jeopardizing his chances of publication. So he closed up shop. I applauded him — not because he stopped reviewing books, but because he refused to be dishonest when he did so.

I wish all book reviewers would follow this guy’s lead.

When it comes to book reviews, many reviewers deserve a thumbs-down. Is it because they are too harsh, too nit-picky, or too critical? On the contrary, it’s because they’re not harsh, nit-picky, and critical enough! Which is why I ignore certain reviewers — not because they pick everything apart, but because they praise everything. A reviewer who likes everything they read is either biased, dishonest, or dense. I can forgive a reviewer for liking a book I hate. I can’t forgive them for liking everything they read.

Trying to find bad reviews on some review sites is like trying to find conservatives at NPR. They just ain’t there.

I brought this subject up to another author / reviewer once who responded, “I’ll be happy to give you a one-star review, Mike.” My response was, “If I deserve it, please do.” But then, I thought that was obvious. Truth be told, said reviewer did not post one-star reviews. Which is how many bloggers get around writing bad reviews: they only review books they like. Question: Is this honest? I mean, what’s the point of presenting yourself as a reviewer if you only review things you like? That’s like calling yourself a weather man but only reporting the “fair and sunny” days. At some point, the weather is awful and you need to say so.

So there are two kinds of bad reviews: bad, bad reviews and good, bad reviews.

A good, bad review is

• objective
• honest
• not personal
• constructive

This is the kind of review that actually helps me understand the work, not just the reviewer’s opinion of it. It points out strengths in the story and the writing, as well as weaknesses. It suggests ways that the book could be better and does not attack or embarrass an author in the process.

A bad, bad review is not just one that pans that the book. A bad, bad review may actually be a good review (a five star, must-read). However, the author of said “good review” is

• not objective
• unaware of the book’s flaws (and won’t bother to be made aware)
• dishonest about the book’s flaws
• has ulterior motives for seeing the book / author succeed

Sometimes bad reviews are bad because they are biased, thinly-cloaked, puff pieces. Which is why I am skeptical of Amazon ratings… especially books that only get five star reviews. Do some books deserve five stars? I think so. But I am suspicious of a book that only gets five stars. It is either (a) The Greatest Book Ever Written or (b) Not being objectively reviewed.

I vote for (b). Mostly.

On the other hand, sometimes bad reviews are bad because they are biased, unsubstantiated, hit pieces. Not long ago, Jim Rubart’s debut novel Rooms was made available as a free Kindle download. What ensued was a wave of one star reviewers who hated the book for no other reason than that it had Christian themes.

Memo to reviewers: Just because a book has religious themes does not automatically make it a bad book.

Now, I can hear the critics. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, they say. Art criticism is a subjective affair. Who are you to say what people should and shouldn’t like? Fair enough. Just because Grandma Fanny Apton’s self-published novel about buffalo breeders is awful, does not mean it has no merit. However, someone who can’t tell the difference between Granny Apton’s novel and “The Great Gatsby” is either dense or biased.

Or they are related to Granny Apton.

I recently received an Amazon review of my first novel, The Resurrection, entitled Room For Improvement. The reviewer, interestingly enough, still gave me four stars. My one gripe with the review, however,  was not that the author suggested that my work needed improving, but that she did not specify where my improvement was needed.

Listen, I expect that some people will find my book boring, poorly written, and preachy. It’s inevitable. I can handle that. But please don’t tell me I need to improve without telling me what to improve. That, to me, is one difference between a good, bad review, and a bad, bad review.

* * *

Question: What constitutes a good, bad review? What constitutes a bad, bad review? Do you agree that the person who reviews only books they like is being disingenuous?