namedujour
New Member
Before the Internet, we were all more or less dependent upon professional literary critics, best seller lists, and word-of-mouth to determine whether or not a book was worth reading. You may not agree with a critic, but he or she had "qualifications" of some sort.
Now everyone with a keyboard has an opinion, and can make or break the sales figures of a book on Amazon.
While I agree that everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, if you describe a yellow house as "purple", of what real use is your observation, except to others who are equally colorblind?
I've seen people trash books like "To Kill a Mockingbird" and "A Tree Grows in Brooklyn." Obviously, most people know these reviews were posted by not-very-insightful reviewers because the books have really stood the test of time. Those reviews are easy to ignore.
More often, you see very good, less well-known books get hit with poor reviews - and how are you to know that the reviewer simply didn't "get" the book, or just didn't care for the story or the style? The same with reviews that are gushing, five-star recommendations for trash.
So I wonder this:
1) To what degree to you believe and depend upon reader reviews?
2) Do you make a conscious effort to keep your reviews objective? Or do you just write what you think?
3) Do you ever question your understanding of a book, if you totally disagree with what everyone else says about it?
I have a very hard time posting bad Amazon reviews. For one thing, I know the author is going to read it, and that I'm directly insulting someone. For instance, Anne Rice - even Anne Rice - was personally wounded, and very upset by a string of bad reader reviews for one of her books. She was hurt to the extent that she posted a very long open letter to all of her anti-fans on Amazon (I got a copy of it from my agent.) Anne was spitting mad - and very feisty! The hurt in that letter was palpable through her anger. She even posted her email address and home address, challenging unhappy readers to contact her. Her posting was quickly removed, but it made the point that even an icon is a person with feelings.
So I usually don't post a review at all, if I hate a book. I'm probably also kinder than I should be with books I only SORT of like. You only know I'm speaking my mind if the review is very detailed.
I also try to separate my expectations from what the book actually offers. If an author tries something new, I don't give the book a one-star review because she "betrayed her fans."
What are everyone else's rules for "believing" reader reviews, and posting your own?
Now everyone with a keyboard has an opinion, and can make or break the sales figures of a book on Amazon.
While I agree that everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, if you describe a yellow house as "purple", of what real use is your observation, except to others who are equally colorblind?
I've seen people trash books like "To Kill a Mockingbird" and "A Tree Grows in Brooklyn." Obviously, most people know these reviews were posted by not-very-insightful reviewers because the books have really stood the test of time. Those reviews are easy to ignore.
More often, you see very good, less well-known books get hit with poor reviews - and how are you to know that the reviewer simply didn't "get" the book, or just didn't care for the story or the style? The same with reviews that are gushing, five-star recommendations for trash.
So I wonder this:
1) To what degree to you believe and depend upon reader reviews?
2) Do you make a conscious effort to keep your reviews objective? Or do you just write what you think?
3) Do you ever question your understanding of a book, if you totally disagree with what everyone else says about it?
I have a very hard time posting bad Amazon reviews. For one thing, I know the author is going to read it, and that I'm directly insulting someone. For instance, Anne Rice - even Anne Rice - was personally wounded, and very upset by a string of bad reader reviews for one of her books. She was hurt to the extent that she posted a very long open letter to all of her anti-fans on Amazon (I got a copy of it from my agent.) Anne was spitting mad - and very feisty! The hurt in that letter was palpable through her anger. She even posted her email address and home address, challenging unhappy readers to contact her. Her posting was quickly removed, but it made the point that even an icon is a person with feelings.
So I usually don't post a review at all, if I hate a book. I'm probably also kinder than I should be with books I only SORT of like. You only know I'm speaking my mind if the review is very detailed.
I also try to separate my expectations from what the book actually offers. If an author tries something new, I don't give the book a one-star review because she "betrayed her fans."
What are everyone else's rules for "believing" reader reviews, and posting your own?