When did we stop writing negative reviews?
I am not talking about degrading a writer, but being critical of their work. Again, not to the point of bashing and putting someone down. But reviewing someone’s work with truthfulness whether that be good or bad.
For the second time in what feels as many weeks, a writer has said they will not review a book they do not like. They will only review a book they have enjoyed.
That feels like a half effort. The books you do not like deserve reviews as well. I understand it can be a tough world with retaliation as an issue – that’s what pen names are for – but writers deserve your honesty. Readers deserve your honestly.
If I am looking for a book to read, I scan the reviews. I skip over the over-the-top glowing reviews and horrible ones with nothing to offer. I look for reviews that have a good balance of what worked and what didn’t. Sometimes you’re going to find reviews that have nothing bad to say because that’s genuinely what the person felt about a book. However, you know the difference if you read reviews long enough.
As a writer, I want people to be honest. My writing is not going to please everyone. There will be people who don’t like the way I say things, and that’s perfectly fine. But if there are glaring problems in a book, shouldn’t you tell the author about it?
In a post by Debbie Young on ALLi, she discusses online reviews and talks to a self-published author who has done research on them. Young starts her post with this:
Like any indie author, a great review makes my day and a duff one deflates me in a flash. Knowing how good a review can make me feel, I try to post reviews, on Amazon UK at least, of every book I read. A natural optimist, I concentrate on a book’s good points and no more than hint at the bad. If the flaws in a book outweigh the fabulous, I don’t review it.
I don’t just review books to be kind to authors: I do it because examining other authors’ work will ultimately make me a better writer. Perversely, the sockpuppet scandal made me all the more determined to have my say.
So I ask this: If you are examining another author’s work and you want the reading world to get past the sockpuppet scandal, shouldn’t you review the bad with the good? One, you have admittedly examined someone’s work, so you should have an opinion on that. Two, wasn’t the sockpuppet scandal about dedicated good reviews, even for books people didn’t read? Seems counterproductive then to only leave reviews for books you liked.
There are interesting aspects to Young’s post, especially about the Amazon reviewer subculture – and for that reason, you should go read it.
Some writers will appreciate candid feedback. I believe it’s an important part of becoming a better writer.
One of the first lessons I learned as a writer was to take your ego out of the equation. I am sure ego is big part of why we write, but once your work gets into the hands of an editor, it’s time to take the ego out and start working with a fresh set of eyes. The same can be said – in some instances – for reviews.
Take the good and bad reviews. Go through them and study the ones you think are helpful. It’s important to hear it all and not just the good reviews because others are afraid to write something negative.
If you are looking at reviews to critique your writing and you are self-published, you are in deep trouble. You should find some decent critique partners and beta readers instead so your product is tested BEFORE it hits the market. After that, take or leave the reviews according to the thickness of your skin.
If you are really paranoid about the quality of your writing, find yourself a good professional editor, writing teacher, or book doctor and pay them to take your writing apart.
I certainly feel for the struggle self-pubs are going through to find reviewers. All my books have been published by established and well-respected small publishers, and I’ve had a devil of a time over the years finding reviewers from established sites to review my works. By the time the reviewers finish the big names and major publishers they rarely have the time or inclination to review little ol’ me. Plus, some reviewers are so obsessed with one type of novel, they only want that kind of novel to review. Erotica, for example, about wiped out the reviews of others who wrote romance.
As to bad reviews, a reviewer usually knows her comfort zone, and many would rather pass on a book that she has nothing good to say about.
I write short reviews that I share with a number of reading lists I belong to, and I tend to be a hard one to please since I’m a trained literary analyst , a writing teacher, and a pro writer, but, even then, I only take books and book problems apart on my writing blog where I never mention the author or the book. I am cold-blooded but not cruel.
I think “bad reviews” can be important and very telling. For example, if a reviewer complains about a slow and boring pace, that can tell me the book isn’t an action thriller. What some readers hate others like. I do not action thrillers so maybe the 1 star slow and boring review is a clue for me to check out the book more closely.
Likewise I could pan a book as “quick and superficial as a Hollywood Summer Movie” which could be a key to other reader who like that kind of stuff.
I’ll review books I didn’t like, with a caveat. I won’t review a book I didn’t finish. If I didn’t care enough about the book to finish it, I’m not likely to care enough to take the extra time to review it.
I just glanced over my Amazon book reviews. I’ve never given anything 1 star, but I do have enough 2 and 3 stars to probably not look like a sock puppet. 🙂 And I give specific reasons why I give the stars I assign.
One nice thing about writing bad reviews is that you can be funny. Some of the most hilarious writing I have ever read is in negative reviews. More seriously, though, the review doesn’t have to take the form of a personal attack on the book or the author: it’s more productive to take the approach: “I didn’t like this book because I’m me and here’s why.”
All reviews should say enough about the reviewer to let the reader decide if he or she is likely to share their tastes. Writing bad reviews gives you a way to reveal more of yourself and who you are.
There’s no real need for negative reviews, IMHO. But critical discussion can be extremely interesting, though not entirely appropriate for all kinds of books.
There is a good thing in Australia that recently started giving space for long form in-depth criticism: http://sydneyreviewofbooks.com
So it hasn’t disappeared, but it takes quite an experienced level of reviewer to write this way.
I post about mystery novels at my blog and will review almost everything I read there even the books I don’t like. Key is not to bash the author and to state what worked and didn’t work while reading. Articulate, thoughtful, honest reviews are the best. For authors reviewing other authors is another thing altogether. I know people who are aspiring writers who gave up reviewing. The publishing world is very tiny I suppose and retaliation is real for them. Must also state that I don’t think reviews are supposed to be helpful to writers (nothing to stop them if they do find them helpful). Reviews are written for other readers.
I think the whole approach to book reviews is screwed up. How many stars a book has is absolutely no indication of whether I will like that book or not, and yet authors care so much about it and readers seem to let it have a big impact on their choices. I have read a lot of books that were just meh that manage to get high star ratings and I have read books that I loved that get meh ratings. Often, the best books (and the worst as well) get polarizing reviews – people either loved it or hated it averaging out to middle of the road 2 1/2-3 stars). A 5-star vacuum cleaner tells me that the people who have that vacuum cleaner think that it cleans effectively and is reliable and easy to use. A book is not a vacuum cleaner.
In the end, I don’t care whether a specific reader likes the book or hates the book, or whether the collective of readers on the whole like or hate the book. What does some stranger’s tastes mean to me? Book reviews shouldn’t fall into the category of good review or bad review. They should just talk about the book in a way that might tell me whether I want to read that book – regardless of whether I share the reviewer’s tastes or not.
Tell me about the characters: are they well developed, interesting (and in what way), three-dimensional characters? Are they likable or do you love to hate them? Are they memorable or forgettable? Or do they just facilitate the plot and can be replaced by anybody.
Tell me a little about the story and the pacing: Is it thought provoking (and in what way) or is it on the edge of your seat turn-paging? Is it plausible or does it ask for suspension of disbelief?
Are there themes that are explored or is it the plot/action that matters most?
Tell me about the writer’s talents and use of language and whether the use of language is consistent with the tone and setting and characters in the story. Did they do their homework – do their facts check out? Do they use correct grammar and spelling unless incorrect use is specifically called for?
Are there other works that this work reminds you of? Not really looking for the blockbuster comparisons here (comparing a work of fantasy to being a second Harry Potter is more likely to make me think the review is a shill, but comparing one work to another with explanations on how they are similar and different is another story – and may lead me to find other works to read as well).
The point is, if you tell me about the book, I can use my tastes to judge whether that book review is “good” or “bad” and I might interpret the review very differently from the next person. Telling me that you liked it, hated it, got bored with it, etc doesn’t tell me anything, so why even add that to the review? Is the review primarily about you or the book? If you feel you must (ie, your personal opinion is what is important about the review) – then do it at the end, after I have already made my own opinion from your other impressions. Or at the very least, back up your opinions with examples.
I think I would review some books if I could just write about the book without having to impose a star rating to it. There is always some judgment in a review about the things that work and don’t work, but if the focus is on the details, the final judgment can be left in the hands of the people reading the review. After all, if I were to write a review of a book, it wouldn’t be to convince everyone in the reading public to read or not read a book, but instead would be to talk about where I feel the strengths and weaknesses are so that other people can make an educated choice about whether they will like the book.
It is sad that reviews have been reduced to being either a sales pitch for a book or an attack on an author or a work. If reviews actually focused on the components of the book itself, it would be really hard to “fake” a review.
I think my headline said what I fully meant. I just want to get back t honest reviews and not worry about if it’s good or bad. So what you liked or didn’t like. I agree with Vonda … getting away from starred reviews would be nice.
When I write reviews, I do write honest ones. My last few for Teleread have included candid, but reasoned comments about what worked for me and what didn’t. But those are for books which were mostly pretty decent and perhaps had a few little small issues. I used to review ‘bad’ books as a means of warning away other customers to not waste their money on it, but then I realized that a) almost every book has a sample now so people can pre-screen books that way and b) that life is too short to waste my time reading bad books. If a book is truly terrible, I don’t finish it. So that does skew my reviews a little toward being more ‘positive’ than they used to be.