Joining the Crowd

The romance blogging world's abuzz with talk of e-books. Topics have ranged from requests for more reviews of e-books, discussion about different e-publishers, and other thoughts.

I'm in a unique position. A year ago, I didn't think I'd write fiction except as an occasional pastime. I wrote it once or twice a year, tops. Given that, I reviewed anything and everything that interested me, whether it was in print or an e-book.

Obviously, things have changed. I have a release date for my first e-book: June 9. A second is under contract, and a third is well underway.

I can no longer say I'm only a reader.

For some people, that fact will completely change their opinion of my reviews. I understand that, as I've eyed some author endorsements with skepticism. However, there's usually an obvious difference between a post promoting someone's book and a post recommending it. The former often consists of a blurb about the book along with a review or two, while the latter will offer an explanation about why they enjoyed the book.

That's not the only conflict I'm facing. I've decided not to review books here by my publisher. (I may recommend the ones I like at my author blog, but I'll do that only if I genuinely like the book.)

And what about other e-publishers? Should I stop reviewing their books? Or start reviewing them in a different way? As a reader, I want to review them the same way I review anything else, but I'm not sure if that's wise.

Thoughts? I'd love to hear from readers and writers on this.

About My Reviews

I have been reviewing books for The Romance Reader since 2003 and writing additional reviews on my blog since 2004.

On March 13, 2006, my first book was contracted by Cobblestone Press, and because I am now a soon-to-be-published author as well as a reader, I want to clarify my opinions about reviewing.

I will never praise a book I don't really enjoy. I will never criticize a book for reasons besides not liking the story. I'm proud of my reviews and don't plan to take a different approach when writing them.

The one thing that will change is that I won't review books by other Cobblestone Press authors or publishers here. If I talk about them, I'll do so at my author blog at http://liasebastian.blogspot.com. Even there, though, I won't recommend a book I don't like.

This short explanation of my approach to reviewing should help you know what to expect, but feel free to ask if you have any questions.

Reviewing Revisited

Seems like the topic of reviewing comes up in the online romance world every few months. There's a lively discussion today at Romancing the Blog stemming from Angie's column. It would take too long for me to discuss each point that's been raised so far, but I want to write about a few issues I haven't mentioned here before and respond to a few comments.

Angie wrote:
There are other things that lead to my inability to trust in a review on a site dedicated to that purpose: past and present reviewers who have reported being told not to write a negative review, seeing, as I skim a list of reviews, no rating lower than a three has EVER been given (why bother having the 1 and the 2 available?), reviewers reviewing books of authors they chat with daily and are, if not friends, than friendly with (it's more difficult to say honest, not so lovely things about a book than it is to gush far and wide about it, especially when you "know" the author).

When I first got online and started looking for sites that review romance, All About Romance (AAR) and The Romance Reader (TRR) were two of the first ones I found. Since I learned more about some of the other review sites, I'm glad I applied at TRR. I've never been asked to discuss only positive aspects of a book, and I remember being surprised when I heard that some review sites did. I've written one- and two-heart reviews.

Have I written reviews about books by authors I am friendly with? Yes. If I'm writing a review for The Romance Reader, I write what I think. Period. If I like it, great. If not, I'm still obligated to write a review explaining what works and what doesn't. As difficult as it is to write a negative review--and that's true even if I don't know the author--it would be 10 times as difficult to write a positive review I didn't really believe.

My blog is a slightly different matter. I read between 250 and 350 books a year. I don't have time to review every book I read, and I don't even try. Quite honestly, my blog wouldn't be fun any more if I felt like I had to review everything I read.

Of course, that brings up the issue of what books I choose to review. I pick some to meet TBR challenges, some based on timeliness, and some because I feel strongly about them. Others I review because they are unique or aren't getting a lot of buzz.

Circling back to the issue of reviewing a book by an author I'm friendly with, I'll be honest. There have been a few times I chose not to blog about a book I didn't particularly like. If I were writing a TRR review of the book, I'd set aside everything else and write my honest opinion about the book. But not mentioning a book is as far as I go. I don't gush about something I don't genuinely believe is gush-worthy at TRR or here on my blog.

Stacie wrote:
I review on my blog. I try very hard to be honest. If I had a problem with something, I state it. But I review with the purpose of sharing my thoughts on a book, not stroking the author's ego. I feel the same way about my blog reviews.

I feel the same way. (Note to self: check out Stacie's blog.)

Marianne wrote:
Many of their comments didn't really read like reviews - they didn't explain what was so original or engrossing about the work. If I'd come across those in the normal course of events, they're exactly the sort of reviews I'd discount.

Marianne's opinion is one I share. So many of Amazon's reviews don't offer specific reasons for liking or disliking a book, they just say that they love, love, love or hate, hate, hate a book. When I read Amazon reviews, it's usually because they are the subject of some controversy. I don't use them when selecting books to buy.

Sybil wrote:
Well I guess you could say I am hardhearted but really I don't see liking or not liking a book as a view of the author. I have read books I love by authors I like and books I hated by authors I like. And I have liked books by authors I don't like.

If you know someone well enough to call them a friend, they should be able to value your honesty or call you a bitch and move on because you are friends.

I love this idea, and I've found that the few authors I'm friendly with know they'll get an honest review from me.

MaryJanice Davidson wrote:
As a published author (Undead and Unwed, The Royal Treatment, etc.) I'm sort of amazed that *other* authors even care about Amazon reviews. Doctors can only be reviewed by other physicians, you can't supervise teachers without a graduate degree, you can't get a doctorate without the help of someone else who has one . . . or, more likely, a whole committee . . . the list is endless. But any asshat can post a review on Amazon and trash a book. Or love a book. So who cares? It's never going to be an even playing field. I've gotten gushes and I've gotten the "axe to grind" kind, and I pretty much ignore 'em all and keep my head down and write.

And later:

I'm just saying, if the barely literate (we've all seen those wildly misspelled reviews, right?) don't like your book, who cares? They don't know you. They haven't a clue what your life is like. And you don't have a clue about theirs. Ships passing in the night, and all that. Let them rant. Get your ass back in the chair and do YOUR job . . . write. The rest will work itself out.

I didn't interpret these comments as saying that you have to be a writer to review someone else's writing--although I can see how someone might reach that conclusion. I saw these comments as more about credibility. The sad thing about Amazon is that it really can be "any asshat" who posts a review. It might be the author's mother or brother, the author's worst enemy, a professional reviewer, someone who has never read the author's book, an impartial reader, etc.

I interpreted Davidson's comments as being more about the fact that an Amazon reviewer doesn't have to say anything about who he or she is to post a review rather than that a reviewer also has to be a published author. But maybe that's because I found other parts of the post funny. Plus, take my opinion with a grain of salt, since I've reviewed several of the Undead books.

Wendy wrote:
At this point in my life, I feel like I've been reading long enough to know what I'll probably like. So, I tend to buy based on plot descriptions.

When I do go by reviews, I'm looking for a clear concise analysis of why the book did/didn't work for the reviewer. That's it really. . . .

And to go with the Amazon review thing - don't read 'em, don't pay attention to 'em. So often they're biased - either gushy glowing or axe to grind. It's very hard to find even-handed, unbiased reviews at Amazon IMHO

I don't have much to add here, other than amen.

Megan wrote:
I think MJD is right about ignoring reviews on Amazon, but I don't think other writers would do anything close to an objective job in terms of reviewing their peers. I know when I was writing reviews AND fiction, an author told me I had to make a choice: either I was a reader/reviewer or a writer. If I continued to do both, I would face awkward situations and possibly snubbing, etc. in the authors' community.

I found Megan's comment to be especially timely. I don't know if I want to make a career out of writing fiction, but I'm writing four to six days a week. At what point should I make a choice? If I keep writing at least five days a week and don't pursue publishing? If I start looking for an agent? If I publish an e-book? If I get a contract with a NY publisher? On the one hand, separating my reviews from my fiction is one (admittedly small) reason I chose a pseudonym.

On the other hand, speaking as a reader, I view author recommendations with some skepticism because I always wonder if the authors or friends or have an information agreement about promoting each other. I don't think my opinion is less valid because I'm writing fiction, although one could argue it makes me prejudiced. But what reviewer isn't biased? That's why reviews are opinions. I know there are a few authors reviewing at AAR, although they use a pseudonym and don't review books in their subgenre.

None of this really addresses the "awkward situations and possible snubbing" Megan mentions, though.

Daria wrote:
Why so few bad and average reviews? Easy. If you didn't care that much about the book, why waste your time reviewing it when you could spend those twenty minutes reading a new and more enjoyable one?

There's definitely an element of this. When I have a pile of books I can review for my blog, it's easier to pick up a book I'm enthusiastic about. This is one reason why I particularly enjoy Rosario's blog. I think she does a terrific job of reviewing a variety--the good, bad, and the ugly.

Review Central

Why aren't I blogging? Simple. I'm writing book reviews. I've written two in the last three days and have started a third. I'm not entirely sure my brain is still working. I'm hoping that my eyes won't stay crossed permanently.

I'm typically a slow reviewer, although I read quickly. Usually I write only three reviews a month. This month, I'm probably doing five or six. That's a good thing. I think. Or it will be after I go collapse for a while.

Alyssa

Which Hat Is This?

Maili has started an interesting discussion about accidental cliques in romance blogland. I responded in the comments section, then realized I was going in a different direction, so I decided to bring my ideas here. I started talking about people who hesitate to comment on blogs:

I think this is almost self-perpetuating--people are reluctant to comment because they don't feel like they are part of the group. So the same people keep posting, which makes people reluctant to comment, etc. I'm not saying that people should stop commenting. I just hope that more people will jump into the discussion.

I have a question about something mentioned in the comments that I've noticed before--that many people seem to put reviewers in a different category than readers.

That's where I ended my comments and decided to continue this particular discussion here. I do find it curious that people make a distinction between readers and reviewers. I've seen this distinction made more than once. As someone who is both, I consciously put on a reviewer hat (so to speak) when I'm writing a review. But I always think of myself as a reader first. In fact, I think of my blog as more of a reader's blog than a reviewer's blog. Yes, my blog links to my reviews, and I mention reviewing on occasion. However, I'm a reader first.

What do you think? What makes a reviewer different than a reader?

Alyssa

One Thing about Reviewers

I'm working on a review of The Naked Duke by Sally MacKenzie, and thought people might be curious about what reviewers do when they come across a review of a book they haven't written about yet. I can't speak for all reviewers, of course, but here's what I do.

Occasionally I will read a review, then get the book in a review package. In this case, there's nothing I can do. I don't have a photographic memory, so usually I remember that I've read a review about it, but not much more. After I write my review, I go back and look at the other review to make sure I didn't unconsciously copy anything. So far, my written reviews have been pretty different even when the rating of the book is the same.

If I see a review and know that I am reviewing the same book, as is the case with The Naked Duke, I don't read it until I've finished my review. It just makes things easier. Once I've finished the review, I will read the other one. In this case, I'm not concerned with whether I've unconsciously copied any part of the review--you can't copy it if you haven't read it, after all--but if a reviewer uses an example that I want to use, I might change mine. It depends on whether I can make my point with a different example.

Alyssa

Once Again, the Subject of Reviews

During my weekend blog hopping, I ran across this opinion of reviews and reviewers. I've been thinking about it, and I want to offer another perspective. My response, from a reviewer's point of view:

I don't write books, but I am a writer. In addition to my blog and my reviews, I work full-time as a writer and editor. I've written articles, ads, catalog and brochure text, website copy, and more. I know writing isn't easy. I know how much time it involves and how much energy it requires. I know what it's like to work on deadline, to write when you don't feel like writing, to want to bash your head against a computer monitor. Do I know what it is to write a book? No, but I'm still a writer.

There's something else, however, that makes me even more qualified to be a reviewer: I'm a reader. I've been one for more than 30 years. I've read books that impressed me, books that bored me, books that inspired me, and books that frustrated me.

I'm not saying writers should read reviews of their books--that's an individual choice and I definitely respect a writer's right to do what she wants and what is best for her. But I don't think any well-explained opinion should be automatically dismissed because the person with that opinion hasn't written scores of books. That's the case for 99% of a writer's audience. Does that invalidate their opinions? I hope that any writer would say no. The writer of the blog entry linked above indicates that she does consider reader opinion. That's great. But not every reader will contact an author. For every one who does, I'm guessing there are dozens or hundreds who don't.

Are all reviews worthwhile? No. Anyone who has spent any time at Amazon.com or the like knows that there are plenty of reviews out there like these:

This book sucked. It was the worst thing I've ever read . . . blah blah: 1 star.

This book was really great and the characters were interesting and the plot was different: 2 stars.

Reviews like these aren't well-explained and ultimately aren't instructive either to writers who may want to consider the feedback in future or to readers who want to know why a book is recommended (or not). I want people who read my reviews to know why I liked or didn't like a book. I'm a bit more informal here at my blog, but I still try to offer some explanation for my opinion. And good reviewers take time to write and craft their reviews.

As for whether a review can take money out of a writer's pocket, I'm not dismissing that possibility. But here's the flip side: In the past two years since I started reading online reviews, I have found a huge number of books and writers that I wouldn't have read otherwise. Some of these finds were the result of a stellar review. Others came from less favorable reviews that offered enough explanation for me to try the book. Still others came from books I've been sent to review. I suspect that writers such as Sherrilyn Kenyon, Nora Roberts, MaryJanice Davidson, Suzanne Brockmann, Angela Knight, and Rachel Gibson (I could keep going, but you get the idea)--all authors I discovered by reading or writing reviews--don't care how I found their books. They're just pleased I buy them now. :) In addition, readers who like a book they read will spread the word, even if the book received a negative review.

I don't expect that my opinion about reviewing will change anyone's mind, and that's not my goal. But I've never implied that a writer will burn in hell, even in cases when I really disliked the book. I don't believe this writer will burn, but she won't receive a penny of my money.

Alyssa

Oh No! I'm a Fan!

Sometimes following a message board thread is like watching an accident unfold. You know you shouldn't keep watching and it gets worse as time passes, but you just can't look away.

I've been following the thread I mention in this blog entry, and I've made a shocking discovery. To provide some history: someone in this thread pointed out that a former reviewer posted at an author's message board. Apparently this fact automatically dooms a reviewer's credibility.

Uh oh. Here comes my whispered confession: I am a fan. Oh, the horror!

You might have guessed this already, since I flew to Maryland last year to meet Nora Roberts, and I've mentioned my upcoming trip to Tampa to meet Suzanne Brockmann. According to this poster's logic, this means my reviews are no longer credible.

Last year, when I was preparing for my Maryland trip and (gasp!) posting on Nora Roberts's message board, I considered the potential conflict of interest. What I decided was that I wouldn't ask to review books by Nora Roberts or Suzanne Brockmann. But I won't send a book back if it shows up in my review package. Since I'm not being paid to write reviews, and I'm completely capable of judging a book on its own merits (regardless of author), I think that's sufficient.

And is it just me, or is there something big brother-ish about the fact that someone would remember a reviewer's messages on an author's message board? Especially in this case, when the former reviewer claims to have posted there several months ago.

This topic has apparently hit a nerve, since I can't seem to stop writing about it. Oh well. I'm looking forward to the weekend. I must start packing for my fan trip to Tampa.

Alyssa

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

Reviewing Year in Review

Every year the reviewers at The Romance Reader share their year in review with each other. Here's my year in review:

5 Hearts: 1
4 Hearts: 11
3 Hearts: 6
2 Hearts: 6
1 Heart: 2
Total: 26

Yikes! Am I missing some? I did stop writing reviews for a few months in the spring because of work commitments, and I haven't finished my December reviews, but I thought I'd done more than that. Ah, well, there's always next year. Anyway, here are the specifics:

Top Reads

Charlaine Harris: Dead to the World
The fourth book in her Sookie Stackhouse series. I think Harris just gets better and better.

Erin McCarthy: Smart Mouth
McCarthy has a talent for balancing humor and drama. Not to mention spicy love scenes.

Alison Kent: The Bane Affair
This is Kent's first book in her Smithson Group series. The characters really come to life, complexities and all.

Linda Lael Miller: Don't Look Now
I hadn't read Miller in years, and this book was a great way to revisit her. It's an interesting romantic suspense, the first in a trilogy.

Most Disappointing Read

Nancy Warren: Drive Me Crazy
The book earned a 3, but the characters seemed terribly shallow at first. It took some time before they seemed to be normal human beings.

Worst Read

Sari Robins: One Wicked Night
In one word: frustrating.

I'm still trying to read try my next review book, which is failing the put down-pick up test.

I will provide a complete book-reading year in review in late December or early January.

Alyssa

Agony and Ecstasy

Book reviewing isn't always fun. Yes, I love getting packages of books in the mail, I love discovering great authors I haven't read before, I love reading those rare books that rate 5 out of 5.

Writing reviews for books I don't love is challenging. Today I wrote a review for an author's first book, which ended up being 2 out of 5. I don't enjoy criticizing someone's work, especially that of a first-time author. It isn't fun, but all I can do is what any reviewer can do: offer my opinion and give as much information as I can so that people who read the review can make their own decision. If I'm not as honest as I can be about books that receive a 1 or 2, then that invalidates the power of a book that receives a 4 or 5.

Here's hoping the next one will be one of the latter.

Alyssa