Reviews quandry

Brian G Turner

Fantasist & Futurist
Staff member
Supporter
Joined
Nov 23, 2002
Messages
26,711
Location
UK
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. :)
 
Be honest with your reviews, but try to spin anything you weren't fond of. "If you liked 'Dino Wrestle Melt-down', you'll love this!"
 
So long as it's balanced review, I would have thought it would be okay.

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.
Couldn't the same be said for a negative critique? It's one of the reasons I like this site, Brian - that people are polite and try to help each other out. Admittedly, I don't have much experience with forums, but I was pleasantly surprised at how welcoming this place is. So, again, I say the key is balance: be honest without being cruel; appreciative without glossing over imperfections.

Plus, a reputation of someone who knows what's good in books might help when it comes to submitting to an agent or publisher.
 
I came across the same problem, though these days it takes me forever to finish reading a book. i get around it now by reviewing the non-fiction more than the fiction. that probably isn't so good for this site however. perhaps you should personally review films/TV more than books, to avoid the clash of interests?
 
There are plenty of reviewers who don't want to spend their time reviewing books they don't like or can't recommend. So long as you make it clear that is how you operate, and the reviews are honest and balanced, there shouldn't be a problem if all the reviews you post are essentially positive.
 
I would say you can't be all things to all men. You already are held in high esteem by most here inc alot of published authors.

Reviewing others works at the front end is great but what happens if you have similar flaws in your work or other readers don't like your story. There's a chance people will say "Look at him, he doesn't practice what he preaches."

I read a book from a serial reviewer but hated it (my reasons) I toyed with the idea of making a comment but resisted - you reap what you sow if you know what I mean:)

Is it not the case that good books will always find their own level whether they get good or bad reviews.

Does anybody really get influenced by reviews?

I don't think so.
 
Brian have you seen the Angry Robot Army?

http://army.angryrobotbooks.com/ said:
Do you blog about books and/or genre fiction on a regular basis, either on your own blog or as a contributor to one of the major team blogs?

Do you want to get your hands on Advanced Reading Copies of our books, before they’re released to the general public?
 
Gardner Dozois reviews other magazines and anthologies and notes the quandary and usually opts to say only good stuff about his direct competitors and notes his own stuff "without comment". So that seems reasonable. On the other hand, I think Lois Tilton is still an active short fiction writer and regularly reviews short fiction, some of it quite negatively. It's likely that authors would have more leeway in such conflicts than editors. How you handle the possible personal conflicts would, of course, be a personal issue. But I don't think you'd have much problem being seen as tearing other writers down for your own advantage - it wouldn't really do that. It's not like an editor is going to say, "Stephen King sells millions of books but Brian didn't like his last one, so I won't by from King again." Or that readers of your stuff will not buy what you discuss negatively and automatically put the money saved towards buying your stuff instead. Given that your reviews would be honest expressions of your opinion and couldn't really influence editors or readers in a "buy my stuff and not his" way, I don't see it being a professional issue. Just be honest and measured. Maybe if you really loathe something so much that a review would come off like a hatchet job, you could skip it. But that would likely be the best move anyway as the most effective criticism is silence. Publishers would be happier with a savaged work that has people buy it to witness the trainwreck than they would with one that just disappeared into an ocean of silence.
 
As an aspiring writer I wouldn't waste time my cutting others down. My focus is focussed solely on the best – writing at my best and reading the best. So, if you think a book is bad shrug it off and keep it to yourself. If you like a book, if you're inspired by a book, please tell us about it.

Basically this is your "post only positive reviews" option – although obviously these would only be genuine/honest positive reviews, not telling people a book's good if it isn't!

If you've read Anne Lyle's blog, I think this is basically her approach.

Coragem.
 
As someone who already reviews for SFF Chronicles, among other places - and gives a negative review if the book deserves it - and also writes their own fiction, as far as I'm concerned the only policy is: be honest. Refusing to review books because they're bad is cowardice. For instance, I may get some choice over the books I review for Interzone, but I often end up with ones I don't think are very good - and it would be dishonest of me to give them positive reviews.
 
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 ..." ;) )
 
As a reader, what I look for in a review is a quick way of telling whether or not I want to read the book. Having seen something I like in a review I will then read the first few pages of the book before buying.

So I am looking for
1. Does the book remain at a consistent standard to the beginning in terms of prose, pace, story, world building and character growth
2. A feel for style - as in this is one for people who like lots of in-depth politics (I don't so would not go any further :)), or this is one for people who like a lot of description or action or military new weapons techno-babble. Or this is fast paced, perhaps a fraction short on detail for some people, but overall the world building was consistent.
3. A hint of the story and characters - but not enough to be a spoiler
4. The reviewer's personal take on the book - as in two lines saying "for my taste this was a straightforward story, and the ending was what I expected, but it was a well told story so I enjoyed the journey"
or "I prefer more complex prose, such as xxx, but it was perfectly workmanlike" (which would be for me, as I don't like very complex prose particularly of the more Victorian sort.)
5. Whether or not the reviewer is moved to read the sequel (and why or why not).

I remember Stan Nicholls at a convention talking about his reviews for Time Out. He said that he was sent more books than he could review in his column, so he always picked the ones he liked.

I would also say in general, that if I read a sane, balanced review, which justifies any criticism, I'd be inclined to read that person's own writing.
 
Be honest in an assertive, not agressive way if something dire comes along. We all need fair warning of the bad books. In a nutshell: you can't lose by telling the truth. And if a particular book isn't a black-and-white issue then other reviewers as well as yourself will have varying opinions. Which is good.
 
Further thoughts arising from what has been said on this thread.

I think one thing that is important is the difference between absolutes and opinions/taste.

So the best examples I can think of:

Absolute: -
It wasn't spell checked.
The timeline is out of synch (the classic one of someone sitting down to breakfast and standing up from lunch)

Opinions/taste
Prose style, the characters in it and so on

Grey area between the two because the level can tip over into opinion/taste
Some grammatical errors
Flow of prose


The other thought I had was a blog - I, Brian, you have strong opinions on what constitutes good prose, style, content etc - would a more general blog on writing style. your perception of trends in genre literature be the way to go, rather than book reviews?
 
Book reviews are not book reports. You don't write them by ticking off items on a checklist. And not everything in a book is a matter of taste - and I don't just mean the number of typos. Reviews need to be objective, in as much as they're considered and well-argued, rather than just "I like this book, therefore it is is good". Because some good books have very few fans, and some bad books are very well-liked.
 
rather than just "I like this book, therefore it is is good". .

Like far too many reviews on Amazon. :)

I would also say that no review can be truly objective (in the scientific sense), hence of course the need for explaining ones conclusions.

Regarding popular bad books and unpopular good books - there was discussion elsewhere on SFF regarding storytelling. Part of this may be the storytelling rising above the writing (and vice versa).

I think in reviews that some of the reviewer's taste/preferences and personality should come across in places - again not given as absolutes - otherwise the review could be very dry. In the most basic sense, as a simple example (not applicable to me), saying "this was not entirely to my taste because it was written in the first person, and I prefer third person narrative, but because it was well executed, I think it could be enjoyed by a wide audience"

That is my preferred taste in reviews, which may not be everyone's taste.
 
I think you're over analysing. I'm sure publishing isn't so incestuous that a few less than 100% positive reviews will bar you from ever getting your fiction writing published.

Nothing is perfect, so you're always going to have flaws in both your reviews and your stories. As long as you keep striving to learn the lessons and apply them, you'll be fine
 
Here's another factor I've figured may be applicable - when pitching to agents, if they discover you've been critical of their clients, they may decide against bringing you on board to rock their happy boat. :)
 

Similar threads


Back
Top