I've learned that there's some kind of unwritten rule about writers reviewing other writers. People say you shouldn't review them more or less because it's common courtesy and they're your peers. Then they'll throw out a cliche saying, "Reviews aren't for writers. They're for readers," which seems to contradict not reviewing others. Some people have also said that they do review other writers, but won't leave anything less than a 3 star. It's all very weird, and I don't really understand it.
Personally, I see nothing wrong with reviewing other writers. In fact, I do so all the time and you can read my reviews at Goodreadsor listen to the wacky reviews on my podcast. I read, finish, and review all of what I read. I'm surprised more writers don't read. They wanted to become a writer because of reading. Now, just because I have no problem doing reviews, I don't cross post them on Amazon or Barnes and Noble.
One of the reasons I'm able to review other writers is that I'm not friends with any of them. I'm neither Internet friends nor real life friends with them. I have met a couple of them in real life, eaten with them, even had a drink with them, but I wouldn't consider them friends. That's probably for the best as my friends would say I'm really hard on them and I'm a pain in the ass. They don't understand that I'm way harder on myself, but that's beside the point. The point is I'm not friends with these other writers so I don't feel bad leaving a one or two star review. Not that I'm vindictive, jealous, or petty and purposefully leave low scores. I would also have no problem being friends with them.
I think I leave good reviews. What I mean by that is they're fair and balanced unlike FOX News. It doesn't mean that they're necessarily positive. Because of the way I am, I tend to see both sides of things. Even when I read a bad book, at the very least, I'll have thought the idea will have grabbed me enough to pick it up or I enjoyed the previous book. In no way, will I slam the author or be upset that it should have been something else unless I felt the book mislead me.
Since I don't have a popular blog; a million Facebook fans, Goodreads friends, or Twitter follower, my meager words get lost in the shuffle. The authors might not even know I've left them a bad review. If I ever do get popular, my bad reviews might come back to bite me.
Just like my previous post about being an "unknown" author, no one will care that you've written a review, much less a bad one. Even if only one or two people read your review, I believe you should write one how you would want one written about you. No, that doesn't mean give it a favorable review if you don't want to. It just means be professional.
Here are my guidelines:
1. I never attack the author. I don't know them nor do I see what they have to do with their fiction work. I also can't assume what they were trying to do with their book. The only thing I can judge is the work itself. It's a book review, not an author review.
2. I point out both the good AND bad in books. Even if I love a book, I can find bad stuff in it. Like I said before, even in a bad book, I'll find something good about it. There's no such thing as a perfect book and if I love a book, it'll have some flaws.
3. I don't spoil. It really bugs me that no one can talk about things these days without spoiling them. Whether you love or hate a book, there's no reason to spoil it for anyone else.
While these are how I view and do things, I would love to know how other people write reviews especially book bloggers. I would think there's a huge difference between reviewing a book you thought sounded interesting or a friend recommended as opposed to reviewing a book because you run a site. It can't be too different, can it?
I would also like to know why other writers have no problem reviewing and critizing the more successful authors in a harsher tone, but if it's other indie authors; writers in their genre; their friends on forums, Twitter, or in real life, they wouldn't do anything like that.
Marc Johnson