So as I'm reading more, I figured I should post reviews of each book at the front of the site.
The problem is, it would be very easy to be critical of most of the books in some way or other.
If I wanted to be a critic, that would be fine.
But if I do become a published writer one day, negative reviews may read at best as uninformed, and at worse as bitter and seeking to actively put other writers down.
That's not going to look good, and could alienate potential readers.
So I seem to be in a bit of a quandry - review everything and take what comes; post only positive reviews; or completely self-censor and post no reviews.
Bit of a quandry, but I figure I'm moving between 2 and 3. I guess I need to accept not to love my own voice too much.
This is tough question to answer. The simple answer is that if you are really serious about being a reviewer or a critic (and if you are not then my advice is not to do it because you're not being honest enough) then worrying over whether it might back-fire on a future career as a published writer is not a valid reason to stop reviewing, as Ian says above. Most authors will respect your opinion as long as it is relevant and constructive...
(... Though there will always be writers who won't of course; I have one friend published by one of the Big 6 who is also an Amazon Vine Voice who is having terrible trouble over a review of a fellow writer. This has turned into a flame war causing the said book to be closed down for future reviews, not to mention nasty reviews of her own books suddenly appearing - and it wasn't a particularly critical review, the author has unfortunately a low tolerance to criticism!).
Ultimately any criticism stings, but if there are valid reasons behind it, then the author can learn from them. Personally, I've had a few and thankfully most were constructive and I was grateful for them in the long-term.
~
If you're still not sure whether you should review ask yourself this: why would I review a book for the purposes of putting it on-line?
If your answer is something on the lines of "because it will be fun," or because you're on a crusade to stop what in your opinion is the flood of "sh*t" literature, then stop right now. As someone who was a reviewer for a music paper, you learn very quickly that putting too much ego into this will back-fire on you. The race to the bottom in trying to be witty and entertaining, or evangelical above all else might be fine for the first few reviews, but very soon you'll sound like an ill-tempered dog yapping, and will do your reputation no good in publishing circles.
Relevancy is important; people reading your reviews might not be as well read so saying a book has been done to death, for example, will be meaningless unless you provide better examples. Criticism should always be backed up by examples and explanations why you believe it to be poor. Just saying that something is badly written is again meaningless and gets you no respect from the writer.
If you are being paid to do it, then it's a job, but be in no doubt that you can fall into the same trap as above. Critics are not artists - they serve as a function to reliably inform, something too many critics forget and their egos become bigger than the books or writers they review.
~
If your reasons for reviewing books are entirely honest, constructive and relevant then I would go for it, review away. Well written reviews may actually
improve your chances of publication if they are well informed and professional enough...
...Alternatively you could always review what the hell you like and how you like on Amazon under an avatar, but they'll find you out eventually; my previous editor in chief was outed recently by the Telegraph as having reviewed books by his own authors on Amazon. So if the papers can out a major editor of a Big Six publisher, it won't be difficult to do the same with a debut writer.
(And as a writer friend once said to me about Amazon "Andy Bell of Erasure used to perform live with one star embroidered over his kn*b; that doesn't mean he was giving it a review ..."
)