Reviewers: what is YOUR approach to reviewing books?

[Nerds_feather]

In light of recent events/discussions, I've become more interested in comparing review methods. I've posted my own approach on the blog I run (really "our" approach since there are 8 of us who write reviews), but I'm interested primarily in how other people approach the book reviews they write, so I'll wait for a few replies before adding my two cents!

Note: I do not think there is a single right answer--how could there be? The reviewers I like to read encompass a broad range of approaches and styles, after all, so I expect and am excited to read about all of your different takes on reviewing!

What is your reviewing philosophy? Are there things you always try to do or avoid? How do you feel about overly negative reviews and/or reviews that seem to gloss over problems in order to be supportive? What is the role of the reviewer and who is his/her primarily audience? What else would you like to add to this discussion?

 

[J-Sun]

I'm not a reviewer but I do write reviews for my own pile o' pages which I mostly cross-post here (and all of us are reviewers in that we do that in many of our regular posts here). I also mostly review short fiction (magazines, collections, anthologies) but only the occasional novel other than posts here.

Assuming any of that counts, I take the "financial adviser" approach. I read like a reader rather than an academic and try to (a) describe the contents such that you get an idea of what you'll be reading regardless of what I think, and (b) discuss my reaction, making my biases clear so that, whether you share them or not, you'll hopefully get a sense of whether you'd like it if you take my reaction into account.

(One thing I do notice is that other reviewers seem to do a lot more synopsis than I do and many do a lot less of anything else. I don't think I should try to retell the story like a Reader's Digest Condensed version. The story tells itself. I'm just trying to give you the bare outline or its main type or whatever. And it takes more than synopsis because that doesn't tell you whether the thing is done well or not or is enjoyable or not.)

As far as the overly negative or positive review, I try to be as honest as I can up to the point of being downright mean or overly fannish. If I love or hate a thing I'll say so but I try to keep it in moderation. I know I've done negative reviews that, if I were the writer, I'd be really unhappy about, but I would hope the writer would see that I wasn't just trashing them or doing it for any reason other than my genuine reaction.

Related to that, the one thing I try to avoid is to show off my own cleverness (assuming I have any) and make the review about me. In initial drafts I have sometimes had the words take on a life of their own and written some "good" things in terms of abstract writing but at the expense of basically making fun of a story I didn't like. I edit all that stuff out (I hope) even if it makes my review a little duller and less "interesting" because it's a cheap and mean interest. Almost every story has something good and bad in it and I try to illustrate instances of both - nitpick a great story and highlight a virtue in a bad story.

I don't know what else to add right now, really. I do also allow that, if an editor or writer read my reviews, the editor might view it as a letter to him and the writer might see how a reader might like them to do certain things differently or get a sense of what they were doing well but, as I say, it's primarily for the readers and whether they should spend their money or not.

Well, one thing to add: that critics and reviewers are different - a review will have a critical component and a critique will have aspects of a review and both would probably ideally contribute to an "improvement" of the things under discussion but they take very different approaches, have different emphases, etc.

 

[Lilmizflashythang]

I have a simple policy. Respect is shown to the author, politeness is key. I don't spoil the story for anyone. There is always a favorite scene shown, something for the reader to seek while reading as well as giving me something good to see in each novel that I read. If I am unable to find anything of the sort, I don't review.

 

[tinkerdan]

I don't much care for the grading system so if there are five stars and if I do a review, it's going to be a 4 or a 5. I either liked it or liked it a lot.

I have never read anything that I thought was perfect. But many things I like a lot despite the parts I found deficient. So in a way I disrespect the grading system. I usually give a description or example of what I like and then also highlight some of the negative. It's usually more than a paragraph and includes enough that the author can see that I have read the piece. That doesn't mean that the author won't complain. I've done a 4 and said my piece and had the author object.

I obviously do not do a 'literary review'.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

My main philosophy is that if I don't like it I am not going to review it. If other people want to do the heavy-lifting and write the kind of reviews I am too lazy to write, then more power to them. But for me, I want to do a thoughtful review, and go back and look at parts of the book that I liked or didn't like, and that's a bit of work when I like the book, but sheer drudgery if I don't. Not to mention the drudgery of reading the book all the way through to the end if I didn't like it. If I dislike a book there is a good chance I won't finish it, and as a reader I have little use for reviews that say "I couldn't get past the first two chapters," because they don't tell me anything about whether I would like the book or not. So between the review that is too much work and the review that is too little, I am not going to write reviews about books unless I liked them quite a bit.

Mind you, if I were to allow myself to be sarcastic and snarky, I could have a lot of fun writing reviews about books I particularly dislike, but I don't want to be the kind of person who does that. Sometimes I am tempted, but I fight it off.

When I do write a review, I want to tell enough about the book so that readers can decide for themselves if it is the kind of thing that would interest them, but not give away too much. It can be hard to find the right balance, and maybe I don't always succeed.

I don't care much for the five star rating system, because I almost always want to do a 1/2 more or less, and it frustrates me that I can't. I think a ten star system would give a more accurate idea of how a reviewer feels about any given book, and I could be happy with that, but almost all sites use five stars these days. I suppose it's because they think it's better to have a uniform rating system, but since readers and reviewers can be capricious about how they use the stars, that's not a very good argument. I've seen reviews that were very, very favorable that were only given 3 stars, and reviewers pick apart a book they gave 4 or 5. (And also, on Amazon, 1 star reviews because the book took too long to get there or some such, because the reader didn't understand the difference between feedback on the service and reviewing the book itself.).

 

[J-Sun]

If I am unable to find anything of the sort, I don't review.

if I do a review, it's going to be a 4 or a 5. I either liked it or liked it a lot.

My main philosophy is that if I don't like it I am not going to review it.

Wow. Some consensus there. But in reviewing groups of short fiction, there's not really an option. And, for me, regarding novels, if 99 people read it, dislike it, and say nothing, and one person reads it and likes it, it looks like universal acclaim and may influence the buying public to buy it if they come across the one review. But that is the predominant practice for reviews, it seems.

I don't care much for the five star rating system, because I almost always want to do a 1/2 more or less, and it frustrates me that I can't.

I use a completely goofy system that was supposed to have higher ratings than it does but it never got there. If I could not finish a piece, it's a 0. If I wouldn't have published it, it's a 1; if it's acceptable filler, it's a 2; if it's really good, it's a 3 and I use half-points to modify those basic impressions. And a 4 is still a theoretical possibility. So it's an 8 point system. (Everything can be translated from numbers to letters to stars to whatever. The fineness of the scale is the only difference. If you look at the top and bottom as outliers, a five star system only gives you three points of gradation where I need at least my six.) I understand people not using them at all but I like to provide an "executive summary" where I have to come right out and specify what I thought and people can quickly and easily see it.

I've seen reviews that were very, very favorable that were only given 3 stars, and reviewers pick apart a book they gave 4 or 5. (And also, on Amazon, 1 star reviews because the book took too long to get there or some such, because the reader didn't understand the difference between feedback on the service and reviewing the book itself.).

And then there's that. I've seen that too and it mystifies me. "This sucked, 4 stars." "Really good, 2 stars."

And I don't understand why Amazon and places like that don't have an accessible "review bin" section. I don't care how badly the on-topic review is written, it should be left alone but those totally off-topic wrong seller/shipping (vs. product) reviews should be removed (but left accessible so it looks above-board and honest about why they were removed). It's ridiculous.

 

[Bick]

... if 99 people read it, dislike it, and say nothing, and one person reads it and likes it, it looks like universal acclaim and may influence the buying public to buy it if they come across the one review. But that is the predominant practice for reviews, it seems.

Yes I find this reality to be slightly unfortunate. I completely understand why readers might not want to spend any time reviewing a book they didn't enjoy, and also why they might not want to bag the author, but I for one would find it useful if negative reviews (even one liners) were put up more. Fortunately, I've started to see a few more negative comments recently here which is helpful. I've learnt for instance, that whereas some readers love Leviathan Wakes, others think its complete rubbish. Very useful!

In reviewing, I'm a complete amateur. I don't like to give too much plot away, but I do like to try and convey both the tone and the writing quality. These are as important to me in determining whether I rate a book as its plotting (probably more so in truth). I also try to place the book in context with other works by the same or different authors, both in terms of type of book and quality.

I don't do stars or scores really, as much because I don't trust that my system would be consistent over time, as any other reason. I quite like star/score systems personally, just think I'd be a crap scorer. Your scoring makes sense to me J-Sun, though it took me a while to work out high it went. I thought it only went up to 3.0 for a while, and then I saw a 3.5 which required a mental readjustment! I then wondered if a 5.0 might be feasible, though only perhaps hypothetically.

 

[Lilmizflashythang]

It's very possible to write a negative review without bagging the author. I've done it. Like I said, there has to be a favorite scene, even if I don't like the book. Something that I can remember with a smile. Oddly enough, after giving one negative review, the author offered me the sequel.

 

[Mangara]

1) Give as little away of the story as possible. I've read reviews before finishing a book that have destroyed my interest by revealing too much.

2) Try to be balanced. Even if the book was bad I try my best to pick out a good point.

3) Write what I feel, and write in 1st person.

 

[Randy M.]

I will occasionally write a negative review, but the book/story has to really irk the bejesus out of me not just bore me. Even so I run hot and cold on whether posting a bad review is a good idea.

The cons: Writing a bad review on-line is too easy. As J-Sun pointed out, it sometimes begs you to be clever and I'm all too capable of being taken in with my own cleverness. This is Internet quicksand because you can dash something off, think you've made your points, be very sure of your message and its forcefulness, hit send and realize you're an idiot. Or not, until someone else points it out. The instantaneous nature of tweets, blogs, emails, etc. make them tricky for thoughtful communication. Writing over time, away from where you plan on posting/sending the review, your better judgement has a chance to set in.

For instance, on another forum, I'm posting reviews/comments/suggestions for viewing/reading during October. One book I read this year I was disappointed in. Didn't hate it, though, so I wrote up a review trying to stress its better aspects. Eventually I ditched the review. I'd rather not offer something than suggest something that I ultimately felt was bland and unsatisfying.

The pros: If you're reviewing regularly, the occasional bad review offers a fuller view of what you like and dislike, giving your readers a better gauge on whether or not your taste matches theirs. For instance, I found if the late Roger Ebert said he liked a movie, I usually liked it, too. If he didn't, I often didn't either but there were more instances of disagreement. I find I have a similar reaction to S. T. Joshi. It often comes down to which aspects the reviewer keys on and knowing that makes it easier for me to weed through their reviews in future.


Randy M.

 

[Nerds_feather]

Thanks to everyone for your responses--it's really interesting for me to see the range of approaches on display! Okay, now I feel comfortable sharing my own perspective, really the "institutional approach" at my blog, which now has 10 writers.

To respond to a couple comments made by people above:

Negative reviews

We do include them and believe they are helpful, for the reasons J-Sun outlined: I've always seen my job as a reviewer to provide an honest and trustworthy opinion, and this includes being harsh and critical. I think it's important for readers who are looking for recommendations to not just see the positive opinions. That said, I try to shy away from gratuitously negative or personalized commentary. It's fun to be snarky sometimes, and I do it, but only when I feel that it reflects my honest opinion." I strive to never make it about the author, but rather just about the text, while I also usually find something that isn't terrible, just like I usually find something that doesn't quite work.

Scoring

We have a 10 point scoring system, because like others I feel that 5 stars is too limiting. Sometimes even 10 points seems too limiting, but I do like having a score because it allows you to easily compare books across reviews. That's just personal choice.

 

[Vince W]

I think negative reviews are more important than positive ones. Positive reviews are easy to write, but a constructive negative review requires some real thought in order to give the readers some insight into why the book is not up to required standards without coming off as a whinging pratt.

 

[tinkerdan]

I often read the negative reviews first and that way I can't say I wasn't warned. I have only once agreed with the negative reviews after reading the novel and even then I think that most negative reviews do not give a concise enough review to be helpful. I prefer a review that is several paragraphs long. What they like, a description to set what they felt the mood was of the novel and what they thought could be improved.

 

[psikeyhackr]

I mostly prefer to read books with ideas that relate to the real world and I will think about long after I finish the book.

http://www.hardsf.org/HSFRRite.htm

The idea of that story is who owns knowledge and the right of some people to withhold knowledge from others.

That is something I find strange about so many reviews of SF. SF is called the literature of ideas but so many reviews say nothing about any idea in the reviewed story. Is the problem today that so much SF hardly has any ideas? Sure the story should be entertaining. But I want more than that for the time to read a book.

psik

 

[Bick]

I think the notion of negative and positive reviews may be a bit of a simplification over what is often needed. When I bemoan the lack of criticality, this applies not only to the lack of the "it's rubbish, don't bother" type reviews, but also to a lack of criticism in otherwise overall positive reviews. There's nothing wrong with saying that a particular book is great, but that is has certain aspects that let it down. The downsides to a book should, in my view, be highlighted, and should not just accentuate the positive.

 

[Vladd67]

I have rarely written reviews, I have always meant to have written more but just never got around to it. When I have they have been simple ones like this
http://www.bookclubforum.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/7311-ruled-britannia-harry-turtledove/

 

[psikeyhackr]

Positive and negative reviews must reflect the value system of the reviewer. If the reviewer does not explain his/her value system then what does theat mean?

psik

 

[tinkerdan]

I agree with this to a certain extent::

Positive and negative reviews must reflect the value system of the reviewer. If the reviewer does not explain his/her value system then what does theat mean?

psik

That is I detest those reviews that say simply::
I loved this book
I hated this book
And include nothing else. If you loved the book you must have some reason and that should be made known and if you had problems with parts then those should be made known. In fact a person could include those and leave of the I loved this book part because that only tells us a little while the rest shows us more.

I think it's only just that the reader do more show and less tell.

 

[psikeyhackr]

That is I detest those reviews that say simply::
I loved this book
I hated this book

I must concede that analysing my reaction to a book is sometimes an effort. I have rarely had cases where I have looked forward to an author releasing a book. For most authors I really liked I usually had a backlog because they started writing before I discovered science fiction. I was looking forward to the release of Bujold's Cryoburn but was somewhat disappointed when I read it. Captain Vorpatril's Alliance was much better, but then I had to ask myself why. I think Diplomatic Immunity is better than Cryoburn also.

CVA is a comedy with a different central character so comparison is not quite fair. But Cryoburn never seems to rise to the level of tension in Diplomatic Immunity. Cryoburn is the most pertinent story though. Ultimately it asks what does a society decide to do with technology on a large scale and what are the social consequences. Does it create out of control economic inertia that is ultimately harmful. What has happened to the US with the automobile and suburbs. We have huge amounts of housing that is virtually unlivable without cars. We let it get out of control.

Whose responsibility is it to try to prevent these things?

psik

 

[Lilmizflashythang]

Well, I think I can explain my position better on negative reviews by showing an example of one of mine. Here is a book that I didn't much care for. It shows how I see that a negative review should work.

Yes, why a reviewer hates or enjoys a book should be included. But as I said, if I can't find anything good in a book, then I can't review it. I don't want to dwell on the negative.