The Review Revue

Whether food, movies, music, books, etc., I'm a natural reviewer. I like the challenge of writing a decent review (notice how I didn't say "good" there?) The language of reviewing comes easily to me.

However, I'm very slow to do book reviews, mostly because I don't read quickly, and never have. The pile of TBR books for me is around 60-strong at this point, and I put the stacks in my sightline, so I can't forget about them.

Obviously, the book review is almost a form of social currency in the indie realm, where people trade reviews (or at least credible skims of works -- sometimes I wonder how people can possibly be reviewing as much as they are if they're truly reading the works in question). All I know is that when I do read to review, I'm all about the deep read, where I take advantage of my tendency not to read quickly and make up for it with a solid analysis of the work in question.

The second demurral I offer on reviewing is that I'm super picky. I am definitely not a "loves everything" type of reviewer. In the rare cases where I do review something someone gives me, I always warn them of that. I might not actually like it. Now, I try not to be an asshole about it -- if I see a writer is credibly trying to do something and it doesn't quite work for me, I try to find the good in it and bookend it (pun intended) with some honest appraisals.

That's part of the problem I see with the Review Revue that goes on -- everybody raves about everyone else, and it's a sea of five stars. The review inflation then cheapens the review process. Honest reviewers can't possibly like everything, nor should they. Reviews are for readers (prospective or otherwise), which is exactly why they're so perilous.

What does it say if/when a junk writer has hundreds of five-star reviews because they've successfully leveraged their friends and allies to boost them up? Does it mean their work has artistic merit, or that they're just good at working their alliances? Ideally, a work finds its audience, and it's better if it's an honest audience, reflecting a spectrum of reviews.

There are few notable (?) writers out there who have been puffed up over the years, only to get sandbagged in the reviews. Some have an instinct to defensiveness around bad reviews, that somehow it's not fair that they're getting slagged.

But I've seen some really well-written and thoughtful low reviews that are clearly done by readers who were taken in by the hype and tinsel, only to be burned, and to offer a scathing counter to the rating inflation with some caustic reviews. It's good to see that, because it offsets some of the puffery we see with boosters masquerading as reviewers.

I almost never look at reviews. I try to just do better work with each book. It's nice to see a great review, and a bad review is always painful to a varying degree (unless simply the work of a troll gnashing their teeth and/or having some kind of animus against the author or the book).

Inasmuch as ratings and reviews turn eyes toward a book, they have some value, which incentivizes ratings-boosting. I've had a few honest three-star reviews from readers who clearly genuinely enjoyed a book of mine, but couldn't quite give it a higher rating. I'm okay with that. It offers a range of perspectives, I suppose.

Speaking only for myself, while I enjoy reviewing things, I'm woefully slow and terribly choosy, so I'm not the sort of reviewer who cranks out reams of reviews. All I can promise if/when I get to reviewing something is it'll be thoughtful and heartfelt, whether good or bad.