“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?
Good post, Mike. Four stars. 😉 The only reason you didn’t get five is because you failed to mention one point–the one I’m struggling with in my reviews. That’s when the novel is written for a certain audience and meets the specs for that audience. That audience doesn’t happen to be me. I don’t care for the book, but I recognize it wasn’t written for me. I can’t really criticize the author for delivering the expected fare for his/her audience. I just wish I didn’t have to slog through it.
“Do you agree that the person who reviews only books they like is being disingenuous?” Not sure I do, Mike, only because it’s just no fun to review what seems like a bad book. “Disingenuous” might be too harsh. After reviewing a few “bad” books, it gets old.
I don’t consider the majority of “reviews” on Amazon to have much merit. Half the people giving their opinions have grammar, spelling, and general English issues so they don’t instill a lot of confidence in what they’re discussing.
The good bad reviews were well assessed, and I agree the gushing over novels without any specifics or the basic hateful tearing down of a book and author constitutes bad reviews.
Good post.
Nicole, I don’t think fan expectations should change the reviewer’s job at all. For instance, I did not like The Notebook (the movie). However, I admit it was well done and probably hit the bulls-eye of its target market. That does not, however, prevent me from questioning the characters’ motivations and the overly sappy ending. I think it goes back to objectivity. Are we reviewing as a fan, a hater, or an independent observer? Appreciate your comments!
Perhaps that means people would have to know why I review when they read my reviews. I am not a professional reviewer earning and make nothing for doing what I do. As a result, I am free to write reviews for my own reasons. If others find them of value, great. If not, then that’s okay too. My goal is really more one of exposure. So many readers are stuck in one genre or on a short list of authors. Some have have never been exposed to a book like The Resurrection. A frequent visitor to my site read my review of your novel, Mike, and because of my review read it. She is a bonnet and buggy person all the way and a fellow church member. A week later she politely told me it wasn’t her cup of tea but she passed it on to her son who loved it. He now can’t wait for your next one.
Someone else has commented this is why reviews aren’t reliable. My reviews are very reliable. You can rely on the fact that if I review a book I liked it and think there are a group of readers out there who will also. After that you are on your on. A large number of people told me I would love Avitar. They were wrong. Do I blame them and say they were shills for the movie? No, just different tastes.
Since I’m an Amazon and Epinions reviewer, you’ve hit a subject near and dear to my heart.
I do review everything I read. That lead to a bad situation when I gave an honest, negative review to someone I sort of knew from church. That’s the only review I’ve taken down.
Most of my reviews are positive. Why? Because I do this as a hobby. I am still reading what I chose to read. Generally, I chose to read stuff that I think I will like. If I find the first book in a series/from an author just okay, I probably don’t go back to them. But I do review them honestly. And with authors I love, well, I generally tend to love their next book, too. I am being honest; I honestly loved it.
I do try to mention flaws when I write positive reviews, but honestly I don’t tend to notice them. (Okay, I’ve got one movie review out there where I rip it to shreds and still give it 5 stars, but that’s because of childhood nostalgia. And I freely admitted it.)
I do find that writing a negative review every once in a while is refreshing. It cleans out the system. No, I don’t go looking for things to review negatively. And I do try very hard to remember that there is an author on the other end of the review. I try to be polite when I trash the book. And if it is a case of me being the wrong audience, I try to say that up front, too.
It’s a very fine line, especially for those of us who do it as a hobby. After 10 years of doing it, I’d like to think I’ve figured one or two things out, but I know I still have a ways to go.
I understand how that book reviewer feels.
It’s difficult to be a book reviewer and still be honest. I love to read which is why I began book reviewing. Also, the free books provided fairly decent door prizes for my Praise and Coffee ministry. And, yes, I’m trying like that other guy to break into publishing. Motives are running amuck.
Still, all of my reviews are honest, but it is true that I do check out the authors websites first, read the back flap, and rarely pick blindly a book in which to review. I do this because my schedule is so tight that I don’t want to waste my time by reading a horrible book.
Occasionally, I do pick a book blindly when the offerings are so-so on a publishers site. The last one by Tracie Bateman I gave a poor review. But after writing so many reviews I realized that writing them is an art and you don’t want to squash a writer’s self-confidence if they know how to write by giving them such a bad review that they slam the book shut and never write again especially if the book is a personal testimony.
I begin a bad review with positive reinforcement before digging into why I didn’t like the book. If it’s a personal testimony, I tread more carefully because I don’t like to question how God uses someone’s testimony no matter how poorly written or how topical. After reading a blog or two by those in the industry on book reviewing and breaking into publishing I struggle to make sure that I don’t alienate anyone.
Of course, there’s no accounting for the guilt I feel after a bad review. That’s the life of a reviewer though…we have to be honest or our review is a waste of time for those reading it and for the writer writing it. In fact, I am in the middle of a Bible Study review that I began with a cynical heart because it was backed by a church I didn’t care too much about and yet I found to my delight that it’s helped me grow as a person and really dug deep into God’s Word.
It’s too bad the book reviewer quit. I know it’s discouraging, but maybe if he tried again and took the challenge, the risk, seeking to find a better way to critique without alienating anyone?
HOW could that reviewer had said The Resurrection needed room for improvement???? I can’t imagine the research you did on that book, the reading that was required, and the thought you poured into it constructing the plot. Very rarely am I unable to put down a book and stop reading or wish to keep it in my library. It must not be their type of book to read?
I know this seems to be a topic close to your heart but here’s my take one reviews. I have read (in full) and reviewed over 100 novels in just over a year. Because of my schedule and personality type I just don’t have time to plow on through a book that doesn’t measure up to what I like in a story. Hence, I never review a book I dislike because I didn’t finish it. Over at FictionAddict.com we have more than 10 reviewers. In the last few months it was decided to simply return books we couldn’t recommend. We are a recommendation site not a 1-5 star site.
I also hear what your saying about the subjective argument but it really is true. Another reviewer at FictionAddict just sent me a note that she couldn’t review a novel that I am also reviewing. Her reason? She couldn’t finish it because it wasn’t very good. This is the same novel I am about to feature as being by one of the best writers out there in the CBA right now. The author has received numerous awards within the CBA and among general market critics. So is this book not good enough to finish or a masterpiece of prose and characterization?
On the other hand, I received a Spec-Fic novel a year or so ago that almost every reviewer I read thought was a great read. I couldn’t even finish the thing. So am I mentally deficient and unable to see the splendor of this work
My hunch is that Nicolle is pretty much on target. Much of it really does have to do with the target audience. I see this a lot with YA right now. YA is hot but in my opinion much of it is, well, juvenile. But I guess it often is meant to be. That doesn’t make it bad fiction just not my kind of fiction.
So my bottom line is this – if you don’t see one of the hot titles in suspense, mystery, or Sci-fi reviewed at Unveiled it’s probably because I just could not recommend it.
Thanks for an insider’s perspective, Tim. I like that you describe your site as “a recommendation site not a 1-5 star site.” I believe this could apply to many review sites. The question I have though is this: “What kind of reviews are we getting if they are primarily recommendations?” I used to disregard any film review Larry King made. Why? Because they were pretty much puff pieces. “A sure-fire hit! A must-see! A white-knuckle thrill ride!” Yawn. Likewise, without more critical bite, aren’t you in danger of teetering toward irrelevance?
I think I’ll answer your subjective / objective comments separately, Tim, since they’ve come up elsewhere and overshadow these discussions. Thanks!
Lots of thoughts through my head, but I’ll try to limit it and keep it short.
I’ve done a few reviews, though I don’t have a ton of time for them. But where I end up on the “do I give this book a bad review” is whether or not I picked the book or the author/publisher sent me the book requesting a review. My feeling is similar to some, if I read a book that I don’t like, I’m more than likely to not finish it, or if I do, I don’t feel any requirement to then write a review of it because I picked the book myself. I’m not reviewing books as a someone who primarily does reviews. So most of my reviews have been four starts. And no matter the star rating, I’ll mention anything I saw in the book that is a negative. In part because I feel as a reviewer, I’m trying to help a reader decide whether it is a book they would like to read or not. To do that, they need to know what I liked about it and why, and what I felt were its shortcomings.
To date, I’ve only written one bad review out of my handful of reviews I’ve done, and it is in part because the author sent it to me. Though I know I’m not obligated to write a bad review, I feel if the author sends it to me, then they should know they could potentially get a negative review. So I guess I don’t feel comfortable blindsiding an author when they don’t know I’m reading their book by giving them a negative review, but if they intentionally send it to me to review, then all bets are off.
In a blog post I did, I touched on this topic though it was more about how an author should deal with negative reviews. But in it, I mention that I prefer reviews that honestly mention the shortcomings they see in my book, because those reviews are more likely to be given greater weight by a reader than a review that only gushes about the story. It shows the reviewer as being more objective and giving the reader the real skinny on the quality and who will like the book, and who won’t.
And I too have run into the “not my type of story,” but have had to look at it from who are the types of readers who would enjoy this type of story’s pov. So my own personal first impression wasn’t all that positive, but I gave it four stars because it was written well and those who like that type of story would enjoy it. Not easy to do, by any means. But part of the review process to separate out my own personal bias as much as possible and judge the work based on its own merits.
I understand the comments of those who say they don’t have time to review bad books and simply do not review books they wouldn’t recommend.
The problem with that is how is a potential reader, who is scouring the net, supposed to know whether you didn’t review the book because it was bad or simply because the book never even hit your radar? There’s so much room for interpretation the distinction isn’t helpful.
But I also understand the huge amount of pressure, that transmits itself even across cyberspace, that “it’s a small community and your career is toast if you say something negative.” (again, talking good bad reviews.)
Because of it, book reviews simply aren’t reliable.
I agree with you, Brenda. I prefer that the reviewer let me, as a reader, make my decision about a book based on the information I cull. This is what I seek out reviews for. Just because a reviewer gives a book a bad review does not mean I WON’T read it. And just because a reviewer gives a book a good review does not mean I WILL read it. I would much rather feel I am getting an honest take on a book, than being either hammered by or shielded from what a reviewer really thinks.
I’ve got no problem with Bad Reviews so long as they’re honest with themselves. Too often, I’ve got to read between the lines to determine if the criticism is justified.
Recently, I’ve given a couple self-pubbed books poor reviews not because I didn’t like the plot/subject, but because they lacked some basic communication skills. I did not post those reviews on Amazon however.
So is the divide between “good reviews” and “bad reviews” simply a matter of “taste”? Some of it is, absolutely. “However, someone who can’t tell the difference between Granny Apton’s novel and ‘The Great Gatsby’ is either dense or biased.” At some point, taste must yield to objectivity. You might like Justin Bieber, but if you think he’s the “greatest singer of all time” you’re either (a) delusional or (b) a teenage girl.
When it comes to reviewers, I make two assumptions: (1) They bring their “tastes” with them, and (2) They don’t allow their “tastes” to keep from from clear thinking. Those who argue that reviewing is subjective fall back on #1. In this post, however, I am appealing to (and assuming) #2. Perhaps my assumption is wrong, but it is this: A good reviewer distinguishes between her tastes and the actual story.
I met with my writers group this last weekend. I love this group! We all write different genres (Urban fantasy, YA, epic fantasy, and horror). One of us is published in the ABA, another in the CBA. One has been the senior editor of a professional magazine, another has edited a popular YA book and runs an editing service. Though we each read different genres and have different tastes, we all pretty much agree about craft. And we are brutally honest. For instance, we were discussing a multi-published author with a major house (this is what writers discuss in private) and all reached the same conclusion: Great story concepts, poorly written. Though our “tastes” differ, the funny thing is, we generally agree about strong v. weak writing. Point is: Reviewers cannot fall so far back on the “taste” argument that they abandon objectivity. If we are prepared to say that “taste” is the only thing that defines a good story, then we might as well trash all our books on craft, writing seminars, art appreciation classes, editing services, film studies, etc. I, for one, am not ready to do that. Which is why I tend to see the argument for “taste” as a bit of a smokescreen.
I did a poor review on Tracie Bateman’s book “Tandem.” I began with praise because her writing is very pursuasive and strong. She’s a good writer. However, I am not into vampire books. Had I known it was a Christian vampire book I would never have agreed to review it. I pointed out why I didn’t like it, then went on to the craft of the writing. The book was structured in a way that was confusing. James Patterson had two different viewpoints first and I think third, but the different chapters separated it and it didn’t disrupt the flow. However, Tracie included the different viewpoints in the same chapter separated only by extra space and marks. It disrupted the flow and distracted from the story until in exasperation I slammed it shut and refused to finish it. I stopped at page 48. It was that bad.
This is why taste shouldn’t apply to a book review. I discarded my taste of not liking vampire books and read the book on its own merit until the organization of the book exasperated me. When I read the other reviews after posting my review on it, I found I wasn’t the only one. Many people picked it up thinking it would be a good book not realizing it was a vampire book.
I think brutally honest is good, but we do need to say it with care if they have talent and it’s the book, not the writer, who is at fault. That’s why I begin a bad review with positive reinforcement.
I’m beginning my first critique group (two of them) and am looking forward to some “brutally honest” feedback myself. My skin is thick enough. :o)
Well now I’m inspired to take a look at “Tandem” to see if the style appeals to me or not. See, bad reviews are good!
LOL. Good! Now maybe Mike can write a blog about switching from first to third in the same book. Patterson and Bateman does it. Yet, I have read it’s frowned upon? Or maybe it’s just frowned on for first time writers and not New York Times Best Sellers?
Wow, good for you for having the courage to say this. I’ve noticed it myself, particularly in the Christian circles where we are afraid to be “mean”. Which is sad really, my Christian faith should give me a thicker skin, not a thinner one. I do have a pretty thick skin when it comes to my writing, I am happy to be told it is “junk”. Well, not happy, but I will listen, feel sad for a bit, and then consider whether I think the reviewer is right or just doesn’t understand my style.
Back to the “bad good” reviews, I notice this in the Christian spec arena, since it’s a new relatively small pool of writers there is a lot of praising but not a lot of constructive criticism. We all want the genre to take off, so we don’t want to “talk down” any of the works that do come out…but perhaps honesty is what the genre needs to truly grow.
Here is the brutal truth that none of us as reviewers want to admit. Readers could really care less about the technical reasons we like or dislike a book. Most wouldn’t know a POV if it bit them in the nose. If a reader actually reads a review they want to know a little of what the book is about and whether I think it is worth reading. Been told that time and again.
I understand the value of brutal honesty among peers of a profession. But you won’t find many doctors detailing the reasons they refer you to one specialist as opposed to another. In private, they admit to each other the guy is a quack and not to be trusted with one’s pet. In public, their review of that specialist is usually to ignore him and recommend someone they trust.
I would probably review bad and good books if I were doing so for a literary magazine or a paid publication. In fact, I have just been offered a monthly paid review slot in a magazine and you will see a bit of different approach from me in that forum.
Mike, some of us recommend books instead of reviewing them. I’ve begun to limit the books I read for recommendation. Of those I read, if I like it, I offer a blurb on Novel Reviews. I think a lot of writer/reviewers do the same.
We have a couple of non-writer reviewers on Novel Reviews, but the nature of our site is to recommend books. I’ve seen some honest negative comments, but they were sandwiched between the praise.
As a reader, I’ll periodically read reviews on Amazon, but generally avoid reviews that have 4 or 5 stars. The reason, of course, is that they’re too glowing. Typically, it’s in the 1, 2, or 3 star reviews that people are willing to be completely forthright and write reviews with substance.
That said, I too have a “recommendation” blog where I’ll only highlight books that stand out from the rest. I first published the “reviews” in our church newsletter for the purpose of showing Christians that there is quality Christian fiction, and that there is a diverse selection. My intent is not to critique the book but to highlight it and introduce new readers to Christian fiction.
Here’s a compilation of 2 & 3 star reviews of The Rivers Run Dry by Sibella Giroello: boring, slow, the main character’s father is a Christians (true but also dead from book one), okay for teenagers but not adults, too preachy, too flowery, and did I mention boring.
There isn’t one substantive point in any of those reviews but rather subjective or ill-informed remarks. Four of the 2 star reviews mistakenly label it as the first in the series. One speaks of the MC’s father being one of the only Christians in the novel when he has been dead for a while. Not one of them takes any time exploring the characterizations of the MC. Instead, the explore why they did not like it. Too often, reviews are more about the reviewer than the story.
Finances are tight. Consequently, my book fetish has to find other outlets, but occasionally I do have the funds for that special Barnes and Noble shopping spree where my husband and I have a budget and periodically blow it because the books steal our hearts. If I buy online, I look at cover, back flap, and then if I am still undecided, the book reviews. That’s for fiction.
For non-fiction because I know how liberals distort history and being formerly a mormon now saved I am leery of book until I have checked out the author to see where they stand, what they believe, etc, because that DOES influence a book, then I see the cover and back flap. Finally, I read the reviews looking for anything out of sorts so my time isn’t wasted nor my money.
I don’t think reviews are meant to tell a reader what they should think about a book, but to let them know if it’s worth their investment of time and money. Some reviews would be suspect–I agree–but I think most people try their best to be fair and impartial.
“Here is the brutal truth that none of us as reviewers want to admit. Readers could really care less about the technical reasons we like or dislike a book. Most wouldn’t know a POV if it bit them in the nose. If a reader actually reads a review they want to know a little of what the book is about and whether I think it is worth reading. Been told that time and again.”
Gotta go with Tim on this one. The most difficult people to please are writers and editors. “The average reader” won’t even notice how a book is written.
Not sure I understand. So is this an argument to NOT be critical in our reviews, or to NOT give a book negative reviews? No doubt some people will see the next teen slasher flick no matter how bad my review is. So does this mean I shouldn’t pan it? Yes, many readers do not worry over reviews. But some do, and I think those are the people we should be aiming at.
On the contrary, Mike. What I’m saying is “the average reader” could care less if there is “head hopping”, the overuse of cliches, too many adverbs or dialogue tags besides “said”, etc.
Tim made a good point about just giving a recommendation or a formal review. Most of us don’t give formal reviews. We give opinions and recommendations. So it’s the individual’s decision how and what they choose to do. Review a book with a standard analysis or offer an opinion of how the book affected us as a reader and/or a writer.
I don’t advocate NOT giving an honest review or an honest opinion. I think, as you mentioned with “The Notebook”, it’s important to include we’re not the target audience for the film or the book mentioned. That often determines just how critical we might be of either. What you saw as a “sappy ending” probably didn’t affect most people who loved the movie that way.
Nicole: On the contrary, Mike. What I’m saying is “the average reader” could care less if there is “head hopping”, the overuse of cliches, too many adverbs or dialogue tags besides “said”, etc.
Mike: I got that the first time. Let me rephrase my response: Just because “the average reader” doesn’t care about the technical elements of story does not mean the reviewer shouldn’t.
Not trying to be contentious here but only sharing a decision I made. Mike, you can pan any book you feel the need to and that is your prerogative. On this forum, you choose to take a critic’s stance toward many things and I appreciate that.
I am not a book critic on my site but rather an evangelist for an alternative kind of reading many of my visitors still aren’t aware exists to the extent it does.
This is precisely why I don’t review books, at least not very often. I’m the type of person who can be extremely critical because that’s the way my brain works. I can’t help it. And I wish other people could be a little more critical in their thinking as well. So I guess I’m following my hated Disney mantra, “If you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all.”
But I also realize that most people don’t view the world in the critical manner that I do, so I often pull back a little for my sake and everybody else’s. Your book was actually the first one I’ve reviewed for Amazon. I chose to give it five stars, not because it’s a perfect book, or because you can’t improve as an author, but because it has all the elements I enjoy in a book. So why not boost its rating?
I’ve met a lot of authors while blogging and I’ve read many of their debut novels, many of which I refuse to review because I feel like I’ve got thumbscrews on my fingers, ready to crush my publishing dreams if I say something unkind. What’s an aspiring author to do?
I have two confessions. One is that I rave so much about Jonathan Rogers that I worry that I’m going to turn people off to him. I decided, though, that most people weren’t reading my blog posts and my comments on everyone else’s blogs, so even though I feel like I’m raving about him once a week and people are going to get sick of it, probably a lot of people only seeing a few raving comment from me about him.
But why did it worry me in the first place? Because he’s a great writer and I want to promote him, but–second confession—I know that when I go to blogs where books are being recommended and not reviewed, I skip the recommendations. When I go to Amazon, I read all the one-star and two-star reviews and if the reviewers sound like idiots I hurry up and buy the book. But if they are making sense, then I read the five-star reviews and if there is a whole lot of gushing going on, I won’t buy the book.
I don’t just rave about books on my blog. I do point out weaknesses, as much as I hate to do it. I do it because it feels too dishonest to not do it.
One thing I learned early on in writing reviews, is that the reader was interested in what I, as a reader, got out of a book. Not just did I like it, but what is it about the book that effected me, either good or bad. That goes beyond writing skill, or plot. There have been poorly written books that become bestsellers, but neither do I think that means writing skills and plot/character development don’t matter.
True, for many readers, the technical aspects of that are invisible. But, a well written story they will sense more than analytically think about. “Oh, I like how he switched points of view there, cool!” Not likely to be a thought on the reader’s mind, even if they get a sense of “cool” in reading, they may not know why. They just know they liked it.
It’s sort of like this. Mike, you’ll appreciate this, former pastor to current pastor. When I preached, I could have used all my nice theological jargon. I could have slapped an explanation of the superlapsarian decree on them. I could regularly tell them not only what the Greek meant, but make sure they can pronounce it. But in the end, they don’t generally want to know all the “backstory” for the sermon, or in this case, why a particular book is well written or not, but simply the bottom line: is it well written or not?
So generally in my reviews, I’ll mention whether the writing style got in the way of my enjoyment in reading it or not. Or make a comment whether the plot was simple, or complex, whether it was easy to follow the action/story, or difficult, if it resulted in some reaction from me, positive or negative, what that was, etc. IOW, what they are concerned about, “Will I like this story?”
Of course, I can’t answer that for them. I can only answer it for myself, and without getting technical, why I believe that to be the case. To me it’s not about only doing positive reviews or not, but answering the questions the reader will have about whether they would like to read this book or not. I think you can touch on the technical reasons why without getting too deep into it. Writers and editors care more about those types of things than many readers do. But for me it’s not about ignoring bad writing habits, but about writing in a way that will answer the reader’s questions rather than showing off my knowledge of fiction writing. Much in the same way that as a pastor I wouldn’t give a Greek lesson from the pulpit. They want to know how the verse/topic being referenced effects them. What it is telling them as individuals. Target audience has to play a role. If you’re writing reviews for writers, then the more technical aspects might play into it, just as a peer review among theologians is going to use all the “big and fancy” words.
I do have one question. Why are people afraid that giving a negative review could end their publishing careers? While I suppose possible, I find that a stretch to think it is very likely to do that.
“I do have one question. Why are people afraid that giving a negative review could end their publishing careers? While I suppose possible, I find that a stretch to think it is very likely to do that.”
Because it’s a sentiment that’s been expressed on agent and author blogs time and again. It comes down to professional courtesy. If a writer isn’t willing to give it, they get “doesn’t play well with others” on their report cards.
I’ve had to decide who I’m speaking to when I review. If I am speaking the author, I can skip the review and send my critique privately. And I have done that, actually. I wrote to one author and told him I didn’t like his book and I asked if he wanted me to post my review or send it to him privately. He opted for the private critique.
But when I post a review I’m trying to tell readers whether I think the book is worth spending several hours on or not. I don’t think it’s OK to encourage people to spend time and money on what I consider to be bad books.
I could then, just go with recommending books I like. And I have done that more and more as I’ve gone on. Often, if I don’t like a book, I don’t finish it and I don’t review it. But when I feel an obligation to review a book I will hit the weak spots as well as the strong.
One thing I hate about the “I don’t talk about books I didn’t like” rule is that people may come to my site and think since I’m not talking about their books that means I didn’t like them. That’s might not be the case at all. I bought two books from local authors months ago and I’ve not read them and I wonder if they think I didn’t review them because I didn’t like them. Not at all. I just haven’t had time to read them. There are so many books I haven’t read.
I assume you meant if a writer is willing to give it, that is, a negative review, then they get a “doesn’t play well” on their report card.
Two thoughts. One, I don’t think it would necessarily be that way if the reviewer writes it in a respectful manner. If you’re being harsh about it, or it is full of subjective stuff with no examples, etc., like Mike said, just saying you don’t like it without saying why, it would be perceived by most readers as honest and that is a quality most people appreciate. Sure, that one writer may not like it since he/she has a vested interest in their book selling well and they might see it as a possible reason people will opt not to buy the book. But short of a personal attack on the author, I still don’t see where agents and others would see that as a “doesn’t play well.”
Two, while in some ways the community is “small,” that is a relative thing. My bet is there are plenty of editors at publishing companies who don’t have the time to follow every flame war on the net, and even if they did, may not recognize your name among the thousands they look at every year to think, “Hey, this is that guy who trashed our author’s book. Mwhahahahah! Reject!”
I’m not saying it couldn’t happen, but it simply isn’t likely. They see too many names and too many books. If anything, if they remember the name it means the author is well known enough to be noticed and remembered by an editor or agent, and that likely means he/she has a big platform, and that’s a positive.
Sure, there may be people out there keeping score. But the busy folks don’t have time for that. I can see such maybe hurting the author with one or two particular people…but creating a blacklist among agents and editors to kill a career? I seriously doubt it.
Mike, it’s considered bad form to call out book bloggers. I’m surprised you linked to the specific review. The community of bloggers that review Christian fiction is a small, close knit group. Probably as smaller than the community of writers, editors and publishers of Christian fiction. If we thought our book reviews would become fodder at our favorite authors’ blogs we probably wouldn’t review the books in the first place.
There was a huge incident in general market fiction where an author slammed two bloggers and the whole fiasco blew up on twitter. You can read about it here: http://bookblogs.ning.com/forum/topics/author-having-a-meltdown-over
The reason I linked to the Amazon review was because I was not disparaging the reviewer. Which is why I think you may be over-dramatizing your concerns. I was not “call[ing] out book bloggers.” I did not intend this review (or reviewer!) to “become fodder” for my rant. After all, I received a four star review from them! In fact, I allowed my readers to follow the link and read the whole review for themselves, so they could read the entire review and make up their own mind.
As I said in my post, “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.” I fully expect to receive bad reviews. It’s inevitable. However, I also really want to grow as a writer. This was only my first novel, so I know I have things to work on. Had this author suggested what some of those things are, I would have been appreciative. That was my gripe — not that they didn’t like the book, but that it provided no clarity to me or the potential reader, what the weaknesses of The Resurrection are in the reviewer’s opinion.
This post has more to do with book reviewers being more objective, rather than writing puff pieces. It really has nothing to do with me getting a bad review. Reviewers can grow in their reviewing as much as writers can grow in their writing. That’s what this post is about.
Thanks for your comments, and I appreciate your desire to promote good Christian fiction.
I’m sorry but that author said this:
“Please bear in mind that writers work very hard at their craft and the last thing they need is a smartass who makes subjective comments because they don’t know how to do anything else.”
Which is a pretty arrogant thing for a writer to say to reviewers and I doubt if anyone wants to review her books, now.
That’s quite a bit different from what Mike said here. Mike didn’t say anything that will make book bloggers not want to review him. He wasn’t disrespectful at all.
The only place I think Mike erred is in saying, “But please don’t tell me I need to improve without telling me what to improve. ” It’s understandable that he would react this way. But the reviewer is not speaking to him so she doesn’t owe Mike any help in learning where he needs to improve, and it is the reviewer’s right to tell the readers that the book needs improvement without specifying where the book falls short.
However, if I was checking books out and read that review, I wouldn’t give it much weight (unless I knew the reviewer and could interpret the code), because the reviewer gave us no way of knowing if the things that needed improvement were things that would bug us or not. If the reviewer said, “there’s lots of unmotivated action” I would leave the book alone because I hate it when characters act for the convenience of the author instead of being motivated by the story events. But if the reviewer said, “the author used dialogue tags that included ly-adverbs,” I would buy the book because those don’t bother me.
In the end I think it’s fair me to review author’s books and I think it’s fair for author’s to review my reviews. If you call me a smartass and say I don’t know nuthin’ then I won’t review you anymore. If you ask me to clarify a point, I’ll be happy to do so.
I think we all need to quit being so easily offended.
I think Mike erred in pointing out the *specific* review he had a problem with instead of keeping his comments general. He could have made all the same points without singling out the blogger.
I wouldn’t want to review a book if I thought the author would publically review my review in return. That’s not why I review books. I do it to share my love of Christian fiction. It’s not business on the reviewer’s end. It’s a hobby and a love of fiction that drives it.
The author you spoke about seems to have gotten her book published from a publisher that I can’t find out much about. Went to the publisher’s website and it has no information on it. It’s suspect. It sounds like a self-published book company and yet it doesn’t have prices or anything. The website of the publisher appears to have an incomplete website compared to most traditional or self-published companies.
Actually, if you follow agent blogs then you would have read the agent who spoke (and I can’t remember which one because I follow a lot of blogs) about being careful about book reviews. The agent as I recall didn’t say you couldn’t give a negative book review, but said to use discernment about it.
Yes, we are a flea among many fleas on the dog, but the writing world IS very small and authors talk to one another, agents talk to one another, etc. I think an objective review would never get a “bad report card.” I think a badly written review might and one that serves no other purpose but to slam it.
OK well that’s your deal, then. I can live with that.
I think you might not get your wish, though. Because any time we publish our stuff, whether we are being paid or not, we are inviting people to interact with our thoughts. If we don’t want people to interact, then we shouldn’t put our thoughts out there.
So Mike publishes a book. He’s going to get negative reviews whether he likes them or not.
Then another writer publishes a review. He’s going to have people liking or disliking his reviews whether he likes it or not. (do you ever read some of the arguments that go on in the Amazon reviews posts?)
Then Mike publish a statement on his blog about the review.
And now he has you come in and publish your review of his review of the negative review of his book.
And then you have me come in and publish my review of your review of Mike’s review of the original review of his book.
🙂 LOL
Hey we do a poem about this along the lines of “this is the house that Jack built.”
This is the review of Mike’s book.
This is the review of the review of Mike’s book.
This is the review of the review of the review of Mike’s book.
God Bless You, No Named Person. Go in peace and my ardent wish for you is that no author will ever review your reviews.
I have strong opinions, and I also write. I hope to one day have my fiction published–I’ve had non-fiction published so I have no illusions about the process. I don’t expect to be the Next Big Thing. I’m just really enjoying the book I’m writing and hope that it can be enjoyed by others too.
But since coming out as a writer I’ve found that strong opinions about books are roundly discouraged. I worked for a spell in one of the marketing departments of a well-known CBA publishing house. The general feeling is that books are so hard to sell that negative reviews should never be written. I’ve been told by the EIC of the local alt-weekly that negative book reviews result in them receivng no more review copies from the publishing houses, and that’s a standard view across the board.
But I’m also a reader. Nothing gripes me more than reading an endless parade of four-and five-star reviews on a book only to have it be drackle. So I’ve developed my own private system.
1. If I know the author personally I don’t review the book either way; negative or not. I’ve hurt more than one author acquaintance by being honest. (Sorry, Jen Weiner.)
2. If I review at Amazon I will only post those that I truly like or have constructive criticism about. There are a lot of things I don’t finish and those don’t get reviewed if I just stopped reading because it wasn’t my thing. (That’s why there are seldom reviews from me about CBA fiction.) But I will review a book I abandon if the reason for abandonment is something the author might find helpful (ie. your dialogue is too expository and wooden.)
3. I review ALL books I read on Goodreads. That’s more of a Hardcore Reader site, and the reviews tend to be more honestly analytical.
But here’s the biggy:
4. I now no longer buy a book unless I can read at least three negative reviews about it that highlight why that reader didn’t like the book. I know the book business is tough. But I spent a lot of money on The Lonely Polygamist because everyone said it was the funniest book of the year. I don’t think that word means what they think it means. I also blew a chunk of change on The Dome because everyone said it was “as good as the Stand.” It wasn’t. So I’ve learned.