writing reviews as a writer

[David Doherty-Jebb]

Since deciding to take my writing seriously, with a view to being published in one way or another, I've become uncomfortable writing reviews for books I've read, either negative or positive. I suppose I feel closer to writer's position now and have concluded there are many, many other people out there to do the job.

Am I alone in this, or what do the rest of you think?

 

[Hex]

I know other people disagree with this, but I only review books I can praise. I don't review all the books I like because I don't have time but if I really enjoyed something, I'll write a review for it -- hoping, I suppose, to communicate to the author how much pleasure they gave me and also that in the far off and distant future when I get published, people will do the same for me.

(I also think Reviews is probably for reviews, and this is more a discussiony kind of thread, so I'll move it to General Writing Discussion)

 

[HareBrain]

There was quite a bit of related discussion a month or so ago (I can't remember in which thread), though that was more about the position of published authors (including self-published) reviewing others' books, and whether it was wise. For myself, I think that if I do get published, I won't review any more, but until then I have no qualms about it, and I have reviewed negatively where something (usually from a big-name author) has disappointed me. I think as writers we're possibly better able than some to articulate why something does or doesn't work. Against that, we're often picky to a point that the general reader might not identify with.

 

[MWagner]

It seems to be a common transition. In fact, I tend not to trust published author's reviews anyway - they come across as chummy back-scratching to me.

I do think, however, that genre fiction suffers from a dearth of critical reviews, and it's getting worse. People are becoming less tolerant of criticism altogether, and have come to regard it as personal and mean. With the democratization of commenting about entertainment, and the rise of fandom as identity, fewer commentators are equipped, or even have the inclination, for critical analysis. And I think that's too bad. Criticism helps us understand and it helps us improve. We need more of it, not less.

 

[The Judge]

This is the thread HB was talking about https://www.sffchronicles.com/threads/552294/

I've only done three formal/proper reviews, where I've spent a good deal of time trying to put my thoughts in order, and I would only do that for books which I enjoyed, even if I had slight reservations about some aspects of them. I wouldn't write a review of that kind just to do a hatchet job on a book, no matter how much I might want to. However, on my website I do mini-reviews of everything I read, and if a book doesn't grab me I say that. What I usually do now perhaps more than I would have done 5 years ago is to emphasise it's a matter of taste, in just the same way as I would do when critiquing. But if I think the characters are one-dimensional and the dialogue trite, I can't lie and say everything was brilliant, but I might wrap it up as "not one for me because". (Or I might not...)

 

[MWagner]

I've only done three formal/proper reviews, where I spend a good deal of time trying to put my thoughts in order, and I would only do that for books which I enjoyed, even if I had slight reservations about some aspects of them. I wouldn't write a review of that kind just to do a hatchet job on it, no matter how much I might want to.

Why not?

 

[The Judge]

Because:

(1) a review of that kind takes time, not least because I would read the book twice, the second time making notes -- I've read too many reviews which have got factual matters wrong (wrong names, wrong plot) because the reviewer has merely skim-read and been careless. I'd like to be seen as professional in my reviews, and it's unprofessional to make stupid mistakes. But I'm not going to take that necessary time on a book I've not enjoyed first time round.

(2) I don't believe in hatchet jobs -- again I've seen too many of them, and they often say more about the reviewer than the book itself.

(3) if I think the book is not very good, then I get the whys and wherefores off my chest in my mini-reviews.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I'm in the position where I've had some lovely reviews from writers. It does put me in the position that I feel I'd like to reciprocate because I'm, basically, a nice person. But I don't really do reviews much, and I tend to find helping in other ways eg offering betas and crits to be more where my strengths are and I hope, if I don't review, that won't be taken badly. I also have very, very limited time and, for instance kindle books in particular, limited access to the book*. So it's unlikely I'll get to them all.

*my kindle app is on my ipad which is used for my work, for leisure, for critting, by my kids, and occasionally has to be charged. Time to read on it comes in at about an hour a week.

 

[Brian G Turner]

I like to do reviews simply because I'm very opinionated.

However, when I do make negative comments, I try to make them technical points that don't read as unfair. Even still, I might sometimes come across as having all the social charm of Sheldon Cooper from TV's Big Bang Theory, who of course thinks he's right about everything.

 

[Kerrybuchanan]

*Hovers cursor over like button, then chickens out*

 

[chopper]

I'll happily review what i've read, especially if i've been lucky enough to receive a copy gratis. while Goodreads obviously links what i do to my author account, amazon takes off my surname so i'm a tad more anonymous. like Hex, i'm less likely to review if i haven't particularly enjoyed it.

 

[Warren_Paul]

I think as writers that we are far more critical about books than any readers would be, and that puts us in the position to more likely write a negative review than a positive one. While at the moment I have no issue criticizing somebody else's work, when I become a published author, I'll have to think very carefully about how readers react to my words. Readers, especially young ones, can get quite emotional when their favorite books are criticized and it might well put them off wanting to read any of my own works. Last thing I want to do is give somebody a reason NOT to read my books.

Hence, the chummy marketing focused back-scratching that goes on between published authors. Of course there are cases of actual genuine reviews from published writers that actually liked the book, just you'll be hard pushed to find a negative one from any but the bravest of authors.

 

[MWagner]

I do find it odd that readers are presumed to be uncritical. We've democratized the review of restaurants, of hotels, of music. What's so different about reading? Restauranteurs spend tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to realize their dream. Chefs devote years to training, and toil over hot elements to prepare food under stressful conditions. Servers works their asses off every night to make the meal of patrons a pleasant experience. And yet people won't hesitate to give a ramen noodle house a two star rating.

The genre in question here might be confusing the issue. SFF skews young. And it has fans. Most fiction doesn't. Most people pick up a book on a recommendation, or out of curiosity, read it, feel it was good or bad, cast it aside and move on. At this moment, there are thousands of people reading Gone Girl poolside in Mexico. I doubt more than a fraction of them know who Gillian Flynn is, or care. And I doubt more than a fraction of them would care if someone in the deck chair next them commented that they hated Gone Girl. It's just a book.

Fandom has its merits. The enthusiasm. The shared community. But it has a bad side. The defensiveness. The hostility to those who break rank. The resentment of outsiders and those who don't share their enthusiasm.

Also, and it sounds almost quaint saying this, there was a time when professionals wrote reviews. Paid professionals. In newspapers. And that's how people learned about books. And the reviews were sometimes negative, sometimes positive. Judgements were made. That stance of the critic - an expert with no skin in the game - was once valued. Now, we place no value on it. It smacks of about the very worst thing a person can be in this day; elitist.

 

[Warren_Paul]

I do find it odd that readers are presumed to be uncritical. We've democratized the review of restaurants, of hotels, of music. What's so different about reading?

It's not that readers are any different when it comes to books compared to food or services industries. What I was meaning was that a majority of readers don't actually notice bad writing when they see it -- that's something we learn as writers and it influences our enjoyment of a book. We are looking at the poor structure, the mistakes in the grammar, weak descriptions and dialogue, PoV issues, etc, while they are just enjoying a good story.

Of course I'm just generalizing here, and there are exceptions to every case.

 

[Hex]

I don't think I notice bad writing any more than I used to -- maybe I just have more ways to describe it now, and lots of the things that are supposed to be problems don't worry me -- I don't mind head hopping, for example, and I enjoy a good cliche (especially the damaged romantic hero). I don't mind writing that's a bit pedestrian, as long as the story is entertaining (I've read most of the Dan Browns -- they were great -- and the Vampire Diaries).

Before I did any fiction writing, I noticed bad writing (including poor structure etc), and it put me off the book. I mightn't have been able to relate my dissatisfaction to unsatisfying character arcs or the seven act structure, but actually I still can't.

re not writing bad reviews -- if I just didn't like something (GRRM comes to mind), I might review it (I haven't) because I know lots of people do like him and I'm not doing him any harm. It's just my opinion. If in my opinion someone has published a really poor book, I don't think I'd review. If I wanted to offer constructive criticism, I might email the author directly, not write a scathing review.

Even if I love something, I don't write wholly positive reviews because then it feels as if I haven't been paying attention, and as if I'm just writing it to be positive. I think the positives get lost if they are all that's there, so I always have something negative to say

 

[MWagner]

It's not that readers are any different when it comes to books compared to food or services industries. What I was meaning was that a majority of readers don't actually notice bad writing when they see it -- that's something we learn as writers and it influences our enjoyment of a book. We are looking at the poor structure, the mistakes in the grammar, weak descriptions and dialogue, PoV issues, etc, while they are just enjoying a good story.

True enough. But personally, I was a critical reader before I was a writer. And there are elements to fiction besides poor structure, grammar, etc. that a critical reader can identify and appraise. Plot and story can be weak, lack credibility, rely on coincidence, etc. Most of the hostility to criticism of genre fiction I come across isn't due to an indifference to prose style. The popular sentiment seems to be that any negative appraisal of a book is personal, mean, and rude. I don't think that was the case 20 years ago. Something changed in our relationship to entertainment. Many people have come to regard the cultural artifacts they enjoy as an extension of themselves. I question if this is a healthy development.

 

[Warren_Paul]

lots of the things that are supposed to be problems don't worry me -- I don't mind head hopping, for example, and I enjoy a good cliche (especially the damaged romantic hero). I don't mind writing that's a bit pedestrian, as long as the story is entertaining (I've read most of the Dan Browns -- they were great -- and the Vampire Diaries).

Wish everybody was as easy to please, Hex.

I'd suggest that our knowledge of English and writing skills prior to becoming a writer also had influence on it. I certainly wasn't at the top of my class in English (I actually flunked English in school) and most of my skills were self-taught at a later date.

I've definitely noticed it in myself at least. I look back at some of my favourite books and details like that stand out to me now, things I'd never noticed before becoming a writer. They were always there, I just didn't know at the time that they were bad habits, and only notice them now because I've been told they are bad habits. Things like head hopping, passive writing and such. The problem is, I can't help but critique the writing when I read a novel now, and find it impossible to turn off that writers side of me.

I used to enjoy everything without a single complaint, but I'm not that person anymore. Becoming a writer caused that.

 

[millymollymo]

Reviewing work does help you balance your own, (why did I enjoy it, what was done well, where did it lose me...) but I think some reviewers forget that their negativity can impact sales. Reviews are subjective based on the reader, based on the price they paid, and many other things. An objective review - is still opinionated by previous reads, by the reader's own defined "goals" of what makes a good book.
I have been and sadly still am a critical reader. My creative writing degree has made me a lot less tolerant for errors (though not necessarily allowed my own work to be free of them.) Consider for a moment that the degree was driven by literary bent tutors. Literary bench mark is different to the SFF ones and many things got in the way of what was a good story. Much of the work I have reviewed over the latter part of the degree has, in hindsight, been reviewed unfairly. Which means I now want to re-read the ones I didn't enjoy.
I look forward to being able to pick up a book I've liked the sound of and not be put off by some review I've read somewhere.

 

[Toby Frost]

Fandom has its merits. The enthusiasm. The shared community. But it has a bad side. The defensiveness. The hostility to those who break rank. The resentment of outsiders and those who don't share their enthusiasm.

I think you touch on a good wider point here. The fan mentality isn't wholly positive, much as the internet bangs on about how it is. A greater realisation of this, and that it's not just the occasional bad egg spoiling the fun, would probable help everybody.

I wouldn't bother reviewing a book that I thought was rubbish because, if it's bad enough, I wouldn't get to the end. Some sort of fundamental problem arises and pretty much ruins a book that's bad, and I'll give up. This doesn't happen often, but it does happen. The reviews that I do write are of books that have interested me in one way or another because they deal with some concept in an interesting way, even if they don't do it terribly well. I suppose there's also an element of not pooing where you eat, but I would feel that much more if it was the author's personality I attacked rather than their books. Of course, the two do blur into one another, but there's a difference between "The story is slowed by an unnecessary sex scene" and "The author is a whopping great perv".

 

[MWagner]

I wouldn't bother reviewing a book that I thought was rubbish because, if it's bad enough, I wouldn't get to the end. Some sort of fundamental problem arises and pretty much ruins a book that's bad, and I'll give up.

That happens to me with at least half of the novels I start. Either I trust the author absolutely and can engage with the imaginary world of the novel without irksome distractions, or I don't. The latter is more common. Once the author has betrayed a lack of expertise with how the story is presented, whatever happens in the story doesn't matter to me, because I won't be in a state of mind where I believe it. Trying to engage only with the story is like trying to ignore other senses. I'd frankly like to, but I can't. It's like someone telling me to watch and enjoy a production of Shakespeare while a nearby work crew hammers away with saws and jackhammers. Can't do it.