David Guymer's Blog - Posts Tagged "matthew-sylvester"
Ratings from Writers
This month, with a great push from the numberless soldiers of Black Library command, saw the release of Dan Abnett’s I Am Slaughter, the first in a 12 month, 12 book series, The Beast Arises (http://www.blacklibrary.com/the-beast...)
Although only books 1-5 have been officially announced, if you were to pop over to Amazon you’d learn pretty quickly that I’ve written The Beast Arises 6: Echoes of the Long War, and have thus been lucky enough to read books 1-5 quite some time ago. Reading books well ahead of their release is something of a perk of the gig, but not being able to tell anyone about it (except in the most obtuse and annoying of codes) or update my ‘currently reading’ status on Goodreads is a definite downside. As an author, being a functioning social media addict is something of a given.
So, it was with long overdue satisfaction that I finally got to stamp my 5-star seal of approval on the first book and be about my way.
At least until I started to receive a couple of comments on my Facebook profile suggesting that perhaps I should be rating this book, or others like it, at all. Now, there was nothing impolite or inappropriate about these comments, and the guys in question are good fans, and it got me honestly thinking about how I, as a writer, review books.
Here, for instance, is a 4-star review of Guy Haley’s Baneblade left by Gav Thorpe:
“A thoroughly enjoyable read. A great blend of 40k madness with a more traditional sci-fi approach that doesn't feel laboured, in some ways more reminsicent of Rogue Trader days with its bizarre but slightly hard-sci-fi-ish world. The story trots along nicely, the setting is wonderfully evoked and the pay-off whilst not a shocker is nicely done.
One star dropped because there was just a couple of chapters around the midway mark that dragged a bit, particularly with the back story, and the ending was a bit too drawn out for my liking without quite concluding a couple of the sub-plots (felt more like an epilogue than a final chapter). Aside from this, overall really good pacing, cool characterisation and some moments that had me really, really gritting my teeth and hoping things were going to turn out differently...”
Well in favour, then, clearly, but with a few minus points picked out, just the same. It certainly sounds like Gav’s honest opinion.
I’m not in the habit of writing reviews, myself. In fact the first I did was for Blaise Maximillian: Bitter Defeat by Matthew Sylvester. It was self-published and he needed the reviews to boost its profile (bonus plug here).
I’m a geek though, and I like to rate things.
I’ve long had something of an unstated code that if I wasn’t totally taken with a book written by somebody I know, then I just wouldn’t rate it at all. It’s impolite, mainly. You wouldn’t go around giving public two-star ratings on the performance of the people around you. Even if you wanted to. The reviews I do give, however, are always honest. A 5-star is a 5-star. A 4-star is a 4-star. And to be completely honest, I do tend to like more stuff than I dislike.
But I’m still wondering if there’s a way I could or should be doing this better. I still haven’t really adapted to the semi-public status of published author. Should I be rating Black Library works at all? Or at least series like The Beast Arises in which I have a stake? I gave a rating to Gotrek & Felix: the Anthology, for instance, on the basis that there were nine other great stories in it on top of mine – was that wrong?
I don’t know, but I’m hoping for a few comments on what you think is right and what you, as readers, would like to see.
Although only books 1-5 have been officially announced, if you were to pop over to Amazon you’d learn pretty quickly that I’ve written The Beast Arises 6: Echoes of the Long War, and have thus been lucky enough to read books 1-5 quite some time ago. Reading books well ahead of their release is something of a perk of the gig, but not being able to tell anyone about it (except in the most obtuse and annoying of codes) or update my ‘currently reading’ status on Goodreads is a definite downside. As an author, being a functioning social media addict is something of a given.
So, it was with long overdue satisfaction that I finally got to stamp my 5-star seal of approval on the first book and be about my way.
At least until I started to receive a couple of comments on my Facebook profile suggesting that perhaps I should be rating this book, or others like it, at all. Now, there was nothing impolite or inappropriate about these comments, and the guys in question are good fans, and it got me honestly thinking about how I, as a writer, review books.
Here, for instance, is a 4-star review of Guy Haley’s Baneblade left by Gav Thorpe:
“A thoroughly enjoyable read. A great blend of 40k madness with a more traditional sci-fi approach that doesn't feel laboured, in some ways more reminsicent of Rogue Trader days with its bizarre but slightly hard-sci-fi-ish world. The story trots along nicely, the setting is wonderfully evoked and the pay-off whilst not a shocker is nicely done.
One star dropped because there was just a couple of chapters around the midway mark that dragged a bit, particularly with the back story, and the ending was a bit too drawn out for my liking without quite concluding a couple of the sub-plots (felt more like an epilogue than a final chapter). Aside from this, overall really good pacing, cool characterisation and some moments that had me really, really gritting my teeth and hoping things were going to turn out differently...”
Well in favour, then, clearly, but with a few minus points picked out, just the same. It certainly sounds like Gav’s honest opinion.
I’m not in the habit of writing reviews, myself. In fact the first I did was for Blaise Maximillian: Bitter Defeat by Matthew Sylvester. It was self-published and he needed the reviews to boost its profile (bonus plug here).
I’m a geek though, and I like to rate things.
I’ve long had something of an unstated code that if I wasn’t totally taken with a book written by somebody I know, then I just wouldn’t rate it at all. It’s impolite, mainly. You wouldn’t go around giving public two-star ratings on the performance of the people around you. Even if you wanted to. The reviews I do give, however, are always honest. A 5-star is a 5-star. A 4-star is a 4-star. And to be completely honest, I do tend to like more stuff than I dislike.
But I’m still wondering if there’s a way I could or should be doing this better. I still haven’t really adapted to the semi-public status of published author. Should I be rating Black Library works at all? Or at least series like The Beast Arises in which I have a stake? I gave a rating to Gotrek & Felix: the Anthology, for instance, on the basis that there were nine other great stories in it on top of mine – was that wrong?
I don’t know, but I’m hoping for a few comments on what you think is right and what you, as readers, would like to see.
