Reviews - Are they worth reading any more?

[Michelle]

Not long ago, if a book caught my eye, I'd take a look at the reviews on amazon, and sometimes elsewhere.. but I'm beginning to wonder if it's actually worth doing so any more.

 

I blogged about reviewing a little while ago, and I've continued to think about various things...

 

~ I read an article once that criticised the amazon top reviewers.. they said that some reviewed an impossible amount of books, and their reviews were always positive, and therefore not reliable.

 

~ I read some comments from an author who also reviews.. and she says she will only give that review if she likes the book.

 

~ I've seen some very positive reviews on amazon.. and then realised that the reviewer is someone they know. For example, I recognise some author names from a particular writers forum, and they often give reviews and comments for each other's books. Now, I'm not saying that they're just helping each other, I'm sure most are genuine, but it does make me wonder.

 

~ I have to admit that writing reviews of a random book from my bookshelf is easier than when I know the author, they have personally sent me their book, or even if a publisher has sent it.

 

So.. how do you all feel about reviews? I'd really like to get various people involved in this..

 

~ Writers, do you tend to send review books to people whom you expect to be positive.. such as those you already know? Or, do you send to a wide range of people, and accept that some may be negative? If you get a negative review from someone, would you send them a copy of your next book?

 

~ Review writers, do you only write about the books you like, or do you review all? If you dislike a book, is that the focus of your review, or do you try to balance it, and look for the positives as well? Do you feel any differently if the book has come from the author/publisher, or do you honestly treat all the same?

 

~ Readers, do you trust reviews? Is there anywhere in particular that you go for your reviews, somewhere you trust more than others?

[Nici]

Rightly or wrongly I only write reviews for books that I enjoy. I suppose it is because I enjoyed the book I want to tell everyone else about it whereas if I didn't enjoy the book I just want to get onto the next one or i don't finish it at all.

 

I do read other peoples reviews however I don't always pay attention to them!

[Icecream]

I have not been very good at writing reviews, and have been looking into new ways of doing them, different things to put in. I generally look at what the book is telling me about it, i.e, culture-wise, character-wise, setting-wise, time-wise etc, and go from there, regardless of whether I liked or disliked it. I am probably more likely to review a book I like for the same reason as Nici. I want to tell people what I liked about it, or what the book said to me. It is possible to write a review about a book you dislike, from the same angle a good review comes about one you do like.

 

As a reader, I have trusted Amazon, but this is not the first time I have heard bad things about reviews on there. Other than that, I get most of my information here, though there may be a few places I go to read one-off reviews.

[Kell]

I very recently had to write a negative review for a book I had been sent from a publisher. I felt bad about doing it, but the book was terible - it had some excellent ideas behind it, but it was nicredibly fragmented and garbled in presentation, so that a lot of the message got lost. I was forced to say as much in the review I sent in.

 

I was very fortunate in that the response I got was very mature and basically said that the points I had made seemed valid and would be taken on board and thanking me for my time, which was gratifying really.

 

It's difficult to write a negative review, but I think that they are every bit as important as positive ones - when they are constructive. Just stating "this is utter rubish" without backing up with valid reasons why that is your opinion doesn't constitute a proper review and does nobody any good.

 

I do find reviews useful, but I also think that many people are reluctant to give a negative review on public sites (although when talking about books to friends, people are more likely to say, "Steer clear of that one - it's nonesense!") as they feel bad about it.

 

When checking out a book that I am thinking of buying, I do check out the reviews as well, but mostly to see if the reviewers seem to like the same kinds of things I do - if our tastes seem similar and the review is positive, I can feel a little "safer" in thinking I might enjoy the book in question. Same goes for the negative ones.

 

That said, I try not to be put off by negative reviews if it's something that screams out that I should probably be interested in it (for example, if it's by an author I already know I like - although even then I can sometimes be a little disappointed - nothing's foolproof!). I'm more likely to be swayed by the reviews of people I know have similar tastes to me.

[Echo]

I review pretty much everything I read. But I also seem to enjoy almost everything I read, so most of my reviews are positive. I've been reading so long, that I no longer bother finishing books I'm not enjoying. I try to make an effort, especially if it's a book sent from a publisher, but if I'm having troubles with it, I'll give it up and read something else. But I don't think that it makes my reviews less reliable!

 

Also, from seeing the comments from people on the blog, and on many people's reviews blogs, there are still a ton of people who appreciate our reviews. I always check the reviews on Amazon before I order anything. Let's keep reviewing! It's definitely worth it!

[Icecream]

If you get a book from a publisher, then surely it is in their best interests that they know exactly what people think of it? That is why they send out early reading copies isn't it?

[Michelle]

I've been reading so long, that I no longer bother finishing books I'm not enjoying. I try to make an effort, especially if it's a book sent from a publisher, but if I'm having troubles with it, I'll give it up and read something else.

 

If you were unable to finish a book that came from a publisher, would you write a review explaining why, write to the publisher to explain why, or just leave it? And would you feel guilty in any way that a book had been sent to you, and you hadn't finished it?

 

(This question isn't just for Echo, but anyone else who has found themselves in this situation.)

[Kell]

The example I gave in my earlier post was a book I just couldn't finish - although I tried to read it three times in case it was just my mood at the time (turns out the book just wasn't for me at all!).

[Echo]

Oh, yes, I do feel guilty!! I mean, they took the time and expense to send out the book, so I feel obligated to finish it.

 

I will definitely write a review, and send along a note to the publisher. I'm sorry for not having done it already!

[Echo]

Good point. What if you do know the author? But shouldn't an author realize that bad reviews are part of being a published author? I don't think that a constructive, respectful, and critical review is an insult to a writer.

 

And prospero - you should definitely feel free to be honest on your own blog! It's your space...write what you want! Be as critical as you want!

[madcow]

I had to review the penguin classic read I was given and I was honest with my review and they did publish it on their website, even though it was short and not complimentary. I prefer to take on board the reviews from this forum rather than say amazon and so far I've not been disappointed. Before joining here I just went on the blurb on the back of a book I rarely paid any attention to review.

[Guest ii]

I'd be really stuck though if a friend said, "What do you think of this?" and it was rubbish. I honestly don't know what I'd do. I can happily rip into the books of people I don't know personally (surprise; no, I'm not drinking buddies with Dan Brown:lol:) but if we were friends? I'd probably shrink back from saying anything too awful. Maybe just say, "This wasn't for me," or pick on things I liked. "I liked it when A, B and C happened but didn't understand why X, Y and Z did. Or blah blah blah wasn't realistic."

 

Well, if the person knows you, and your reviews, maybe being short will give away the fact that you didn't like the text, without you having to be all mean and making them cry like you do Dan Brown.

 

Call me a snob but don't we all have a filtering system for when we're building up our social circle? Mine is: is this person literate? Do they like BeneFit makeup? Would they be willing to surrender all bodily rights to Joaquin Phoenix in a b!tchfight?

 

Dahlin', you're a snob. Not as bad as me, but you're a snob. Now, let's see... Yup. In three languages. No, can't say I do, but I've never tried, I think. Sure, he's all yours, too skinny to my likening, I like them like my coffee: big and strong. (and dark and rich. Gosh, these things are endless!)

[Guest ii]

Yay! My starting week has now officially been saved!

 

As for reviews, I read them, critique them, judge them and, in most cases, ignore them. I do trust Elle, though. It's just because I've gotten to know their style. Just like I now that the movie critic at the local newspaper positively hates every single movie the Finnish TV has ever shown and never gives full 5 stars to anything. If I trusted him blindly there would never be anything worthwhile on TV.

 

Joking aside, I guess it comes down to finding the critic you agree with, whose opinion you trust and can use as a credible measurement stick.

[Kylie]

~ Review writers, do you only write about the books you like, or do you review all? If you dislike a book, is that the focus of your review, or do you try to balance it, and look for the positives as well? Do you feel any differently if the book has come from the author/publisher, or do you honestly treat all the same?

 

~ Readers, do you trust reviews? Is there anywhere in particular that you go for your reviews, somewhere you trust more than others?

 

Depending on the book, sometimes I'm not really interested in reading reviews, but if it's a book I'm not certain about, I will read reviews from a variety of different sources (Amazon, LibraryThing, GoodReads, and BCF of course!) to get a better idea of what people did/didn't like about it.

 

When writing reviews myself, I always try to mention both good and bad (if any) aspects to give other readers a better overall picture of the book.

 

I do find reviews useful, but I also think that many people are reluctant to give a negative review on public sites

 

I find that people are all too willing to give negative reviews on the internet. It's one of the great (or bad?) things about it being anonymous. I've read some very harsh reviews.

 

If you were unable to finish a book that came from a publisher, would you write a review explaining why, write to the publisher to explain why, or just leave it? And would you feel guilty in any way that a book had been sent to you, and you hadn't finished it?

 

I would definitely tell the publisher why I had trouble finishing it. This is, after all, the reason why they send the books out - to receive feedback. If they only ever received positive feedback and no constructive criticism, then they would get the wrong idea of what the buying/reading public actually likes, and chances are they'll keep publishing more substandard books and then wonder why they aren't successes.

 

I do sometimes read amazon reviews myself - in fact, it's my habit there to check the one-star reviews first. Why? Because I want to know what the worst thing you could possibly say about this book is. After that, it's always an improvement!

 

That's what I always do! I would rather read about the problems that people had with the book. Sometimes they're problems I decide I can live with, and other times I might be put off the book because the problems described sound like they would frustrate me no end if I decided to read the book. That said, I think that ultimately the best judge of a book is yourself, and you shouldn't really let other people's reviews sway you either way. 'One man's trash is another man's treasure.'

[Freewheeling Andy]

It goes back to the self publishing thing, to a degree. With a lot of reviews there's no editorial control.

 

If I'm browsing Amazon, I can be pretty sure that people won't comment on books unless they love them or hate them, and you're not really getting a representative feedback.

 

If I'm reading reviews on BCF, though, over time I get a feel for who enjoys the kind of books I enjoy, and then I know that I can find their reviews more reliable - still unreliable, of course, otherwise I should enjoy reading all the ian McEwan garbage.

 

Plucking a review out of mid-internet is generally not going to enlighten me much, but if I've fuond a source that I trust, then I can stick with it.

 

It's one of the key problems of the democratisation of media that, for example when reporting news or politics on their blogs, hundreds of people are going to produce reams of pointless guff, but every now and again someone is going to be utterly fantastic. In the end, though, until you find them, you still read traditional news media because it's (comparatively reliable).

 

The same, really, is true of self-published books; and the same, really, of reviews.

 

There is, of course, the other element - a "proper" review doesn't just give you a brief precis of a book and a number out of 10. That's really just a scorecard. Admittedly, it's also often a lot more useful than a "proper" review. But real reviews, which give the review-author's own opinions around the subject matter of the book, and give proper insight into the content, are very often worth reading if the subject matter of the book is of interest - even if you're never going to read the book.

[Michelle]

If I'm browsing Amazon, I can be pretty sure that people won't comment on books unless they love them or hate them, and you're not really getting a representative feedback.

 

Not always true Andy - I now review every book I read, whether I like it or not, and those reviews go onto amazon. I agree with you that it's true in most cases though, but not always.

 

There is, of course, the other element - a "proper" review doesn't just give you a brief precis of a book and a number out of 10. That's really just a scorecard. Admittedly, it's also often a lot more useful than a "proper" review. But real reviews, which give the review-author's own opinions around the subject matter of the book, and give proper insight into the content, are very often worth reading if the subject matter of the book is of interest - even if you're never going to read the book.

 

That's a whole different discussion, I think.. I really was focusing on the brief reader-review type, not the more in depth 'critiques'. However, I do agree that a synopsis and a score aren't helpful. My reviews are short, but I do try to give my opinion of the book.

[~Andrea~]

I am wary of amazon reviews but I do use them a lot. I have more confidence when a book has a large number of reviews with a good spread of dates (I.e. not just a load when the book actually came out which are more likely to be author friends etc) which I suppose means I have more confidence in reviews for less new books.

[Philip Stein]

I do sometimes read amazon reviews myself - in fact, it's my habit there to check the one-star reviews first. Why? Because I want to know what the worst thing you could possibly say about this book is. After that, it's always an improvement!

 

Haha, I do that too! Often the negative comments tell you more about the book than the positive ones do.

 

I think also the problem with Amazon is that people have gravitated into thinking that anything less than five stars is a damning indictment of the book. It's not so much, as Andy and Michelle have discussed, that people don't write reviews unless they love or hate it, it's that the very act of giving it a score seems to bring people to want to give it either five stars (if they liked it at all) or one star (if they didn't) - the latter always, of course, supplemented by the comment "I only gave it one star because I can't give it no stars!" or the even better "there was one amusing scene (hence the one star)" which misses the point quite brilliantly.

 

On public forums like this one I think it's different. I've noticed on here in particular a sensitivity and defensiveness about books people like. If someone else criticises a book robustly, then others can take it personally and consider it a personal attack. I think this tends to stifle healthy debate.

[Guest ii]

On public forums like this one I think it's different. I've noticed on here in particular a sensitivity and defensiveness about books people like. If someone else criticises a book robustly, then others can take it personally and consider it a personal attack. I think this tends to stifle healthy debate.

 

Oooh, can I buy you a drink for saying that?! It summarized perfectly what I was thinking. I cannot understand how come people get the critique towards a book and a personal insult all mixed up and tangled together? Then again, I couldn't trust their reviews, 'cause there's no way of knowing if the review is good only because they like the author or their friend liked the book, or if it's bad because someone they don't like it likes it. It's very difficult to discuss with people like that.

 

I just resent having to spell out, "This is what I think. It's not a personal attack on people who read this, whom I don't even know."

 

Maybe you should have that in your signature, as a disclaimer.

[Michelle]

Is this a sweeping generalisation of every one on here? Or can I not say that, because I'll be accused of being too sensitive? Personally, I'm kind of tired of the whole issue now.

[Guest ii]

I don't know, I'm talking about writing and reding reviews. As in, in the world in general. There's life outside this forum, too. Given that we're talking of reviewing books, it made sense to use book reviews as the topic. But it also applies to movies, clothing trends, cars and behaviour. Not everything is a hidden evilness and critique towards the forum, you or someone in particular in here.

 

Of course, there is a saying in Finnish about the stick and the dog that barks...

[Michelle]

Actually, no - you're all responding to this comment... (bold is my addition)

I've noticed on here in particular a sensitivity and defensiveness about books people like. If someone else criticises a book robustly, then others can take it personally and consider it a personal attack. I think this tends to stifle healthy debate.

[Guest ii]

Well, I cannot speak for others, but I didn't really pay attention to that part, just what it was saying. I couldn't leave it out of the quote, 'cause it would have resulted with either confusion of grammatically incomprehensible sentence. "I've noticed here" was Philip's personal observation of something, I merely agreed with the occurrence.

[Freewheeling Andy]

Actually, that's generally more true in music, which is much more tribal in the way that people are fans of bands. See something critical of the bland vacuousness that is Coldplay, say, and hordes of their fans will be down on you. Fortunately, being Coldplay fans, their attack will be as vicious as a swarm of narcoleptic sponges.

 

I've actually not noticed a particularly strong defensiveness about books. I tend to find that people are more aware of variation in taste, so you end up with "I can't understand why other people like this drivel" or "unlike everyone else, I loved this book".

 

There is another thing, too, though - which is that the dividing line between "robust" and "offensive" is different to different people. I mean, I though Atonement was insufferable drivel, and I'd call that fair judgement. But others might think that that is just a pointless, substanceless attack.

 

All that said, any worthwhile reviewer must be left to express their views on a book however they feel fit. As soon as a reviewer is shackled by concern about how the review's audience will respond, then the review loses a lot of its value.

[Guest ii]

Actually, that's generally more true in music, which is much more tribal in the way that people are fans of bands. See something critical of the bland vacuousness that is Coldplay, say, and hordes of their fans will be down on you. Fortunately, being Coldplay fans, their attack will be as vicious as a swarm of narcoleptic sponges.

 

Don't say that! There might be someone in here who likes Coldplay! (Yes, michelle, that was a joke, at the forum's current tension's expense. I repeat, a joke!)

 

There is another thing, too, though - which is that the dividing line between "robust" and "offensive" is different to different people. I mean, I though Atonement was insufferable drivel, and I'd call that fair judgement. But others might think that that is just a pointless, substanceless attack.

 

For me the critical point between giving a fair judgement and pointless attack, to use your nice terminology, is the arguments used. If you can argue your case, provide resoning for your opinion (even if it's just to say the long and winding text bored you so much you fell asleep), then it's a fair judgement. If you just slash out, then it's a pointless substanceless attack.

 

For example, back in high school (note: I went to elite school not only socially but more importantly, for this story, academically) we were bored with some classmates and decided to interpret a poem by Emily dickinson as if it was about the World War II. Yes, for fun. We thought that was a good idea. We made a beautiful analysis, wrote it down and one of us turned it in as glass assingment. He got almost full mark for that, equivalent of A-. The teacher's comments? "Solid analysis, beautiful reasoning. Did you take a look at the year written?" *grin* It's all in the arguments you make.