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