Credible Reviews

I've been reading an interesting message board thread about book reviews, reviewers, and credibility. As someone who has been writing book reviews for a year and a half and reading reviews for longer than that, this is what I know about reviews.

They are subjective.

All that any reviewer can do is read the book, decide how much (or little) she likes it, and explain the reasons behind her decision. If she does that, she's done her job. Each reviewer has her own perspective and her own biases. A writer may like a particular author, like Suzanne Brockmann. She might dislike a particular author. She may have political leanings or religious affiliations (or not). She may dislike books that use a certain kind of plot (secret baby, for instance). She may get frustrated by certain types of heroines. Everyone has preferences.

However, "preferences" don't mean that a reviewer isn't credible. Every review reflects the reviewer's perspective. The phrase "objective review" is a contradiction.

Now, the reviewer can help the reader by pointing out a particular perspective. The reviewer of the book under discussion states, "I love her [Suzanne Brockmann]; I think she's the most consistently entertaining romance author around. That's not to say that I think her books are flawless. Hot Target is a good example of a Brockmann book that I loved in spite of its flaws." Right away, anyone reading this review knows that the reviewer likes Brockmann and can take that fact into account when reading the review. But reviewers who read a new-to-her author will still provide a subjective opinion.

There's a similar caveat in my review of Hot Target: "As for the subplot with gay FBI agent Jules Cassidy, I'll admit it pushed me right out of my comfort zone." Phrases like this in a review actually help the reader, because she can say to herself, "I'm perfectly comfortable with a romantic gay subplot, so I might like that part more than the reviewer."

Or, to give another example, a review might say, "I don't usually enjoy the secret baby plot . . ." Once again, this kind of statement allows the reader to decide how much weight to give the review. If she loves secret baby plots, she might disregard the comments; if she hates this plot, she knows she is more likely to agree with the review.

Reviews that seem less credible to me are the ones that provide no reasons for the reviewer's opinion. These reviews may be of the "This book sucks!!!!" variety, but that isn't always the case. A review may seem contradictory, such as one that describes several things the reviewer enjoyed about the book and then give it a 2 or 3 out of 5. Or she might give a book 4 or 5, yet not explain what she likes about it. These reviews are the ones I have problems with.

If a review gives some kind of rating and offers a solid explanation for the opinion, then the reviewer has done well. Simple disagreement with a review doesn't make it less credible.

Alyssa