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.