Understanding Book Reviews
Understanding Book Reviews
By Author, Paul G Day
We’ve all seen them. Reviews written by readers who clearly either did not comprehend or else are ignorant, as evidenced by the very personal and highly opinionated response to a book. I’ve seen some doozies in my time as an author. But whether because of a lack of understanding, or out of a misplaced sense of self-importance the result is the same, a low rating. Now if you have a hundred ratings, this one rating might not make much of an impact, unless, of course, it is the most recent review. But if you only have five or perhaps ten reviews, a one star rating can and does have an impact. So why do I hate one star reviews? It’s simple. They exist only to give the person writing the review an elevated sense of self-worth, thereby (in their own mind) raising their status.
So what qualifies as a review and why do I despise some reviews?
Well, a book review is only a review when it focuses on the structure, fluency, meaning, themes, plot, writing conventions and narrative devices used by the writer. It is not a book review if it is more about the lack of understanding of the reviewer or even if they like or dislike the genre or if they think there is too much description or not enough etc. It becomes personal when a review starts out with, “I don’t normally read Fantasy (for example), but…” or, “I didn’t read the whole book, but…” or, “I didn’t really see the point…” You get where I’m coming from?
If what a person says in a review is based purely on taste, it is not a review. If what a person says in a review displays a lack of respect for the writer, it is not a review. If what a person writes in their review shows ignorance or a lack of understanding, then it is not a review.
Giving an author one star and then trashing the novel is never helpful (I’ve only ever done this once and only when the author has shown contempt for writing and ripped off work from elsewhere). Such reviews lack integrity and suggest the reader either did not read the whole thing (who would if they hated it so much) or else has completely missed the point. In fact, anything below 3 stars should be taken with a grain of salt and challenged by the author. I have challenged reviewers before. I’ve accepted the review, but have challenged the reviewer on key points to prove whether in fact they have read the book.
Types of reviews
Angry Review: The reader is just plain nasty and has nothing good or worthwhile to say. They just rail and hate and beat their chest, but have not really bothered to actually analyze the book or comment on why they hate it so much, other than to say “It sucks!”
Short review: Short reviews betray a laziness on the part of the author, unless they have nothing but praise and have nothing really negative to say about the work. “I really don’t like reading fantasy fiction, so I gave this one star” is not only unhelpful and unnecessary, but is actually offensive and shows zero respect for the hard work of the writer.
Ignorant review: Reviews given where the reader has completely missed the meaning and therefore does not understand the genre, concepts, themes or style and yet is still happy to give a low rating, only serves to show their own ignorance. If you ever receive such a review, challenge the reader to prove their case or get them to retract the review (they can request Amazon remove their own review). Don’t just accept it unless it is accurate, factual and not personal.
Personal review: Reviews which make lots of personal statements such as, “I like”, or “I don’t like these sorts of books” are very personal and not really all that helpful. My advice to people reading outside of their genre is, if you don’t like reading fantasy fiction, don’t read them and certainly don’t review them.
Opinionative review: Reviews which are highly subjective and not based at all on the core content of the book, but which go to great lengths to explain personal perspectives or opinions on the subject matter, whilst straying from the content of the book itself are opinionative and can be very difficult to take by an author.
Critical review: The critical review looks at all the above listed aspects of the book and attempts to pull it all together and comment on not only whether it all works seamlessly, but how much it does so. These can be very rewarding to read, but again, I see no point giving a one star review. If a critic hated the book so much, they would normally not even bother finishing it, let alone write about it, unless it is a particularly bad book, written by an established author who the critic believes could have and should have written a much better book. But leveling one star reviews at young, new or indie authors is not only unhelpful, but very unfair.
Analytical review: These are the sort of detailed deconstructions that all but guarantee the reviewer not only understands the genre, but the complexities of context, narrative voice, perspective, writing conventions etc. and is able to express in lengthy discourse exactly what is right or wrong and why. These types of reviews are mainly written by experts who specialize in analyzing fiction. You will rarely, if ever, see one of these afforded to an indie author, unless by chance the reviewer stumbles across one. Here again, they will only be written for books which stand out for all the right or all the wrong reasons and only established authors will ever have one written. If you get an analytical review of this caliber, then you should be honored, even if the rating itself (note: most reviews of this type avoid giving star ratings) is average. It means you have arrived.
Revenge review: A review written by a person with an axe to grind because they themselves have been given a poor review and they just want to make someone pay. Statements like, “I guess if it’s good enough to criticize my book, then I am entitled to level the same criticism…”
I hope the reader finds this article helpful. Remember, try to stay focused on positive reviews. Negative ones are, thankfully for most writers, rare.
By Author, Paul G Day
We’ve all seen them. Reviews written by readers who clearly either did not comprehend or else are ignorant, as evidenced by the very personal and highly opinionated response to a book. I’ve seen some doozies in my time as an author. But whether because of a lack of understanding, or out of a misplaced sense of self-importance the result is the same, a low rating. Now if you have a hundred ratings, this one rating might not make much of an impact, unless, of course, it is the most recent review. But if you only have five or perhaps ten reviews, a one star rating can and does have an impact. So why do I hate one star reviews? It’s simple. They exist only to give the person writing the review an elevated sense of self-worth, thereby (in their own mind) raising their status.
So what qualifies as a review and why do I despise some reviews?
Well, a book review is only a review when it focuses on the structure, fluency, meaning, themes, plot, writing conventions and narrative devices used by the writer. It is not a book review if it is more about the lack of understanding of the reviewer or even if they like or dislike the genre or if they think there is too much description or not enough etc. It becomes personal when a review starts out with, “I don’t normally read Fantasy (for example), but…” or, “I didn’t read the whole book, but…” or, “I didn’t really see the point…” You get where I’m coming from?
If what a person says in a review is based purely on taste, it is not a review. If what a person says in a review displays a lack of respect for the writer, it is not a review. If what a person writes in their review shows ignorance or a lack of understanding, then it is not a review.
Giving an author one star and then trashing the novel is never helpful (I’ve only ever done this once and only when the author has shown contempt for writing and ripped off work from elsewhere). Such reviews lack integrity and suggest the reader either did not read the whole thing (who would if they hated it so much) or else has completely missed the point. In fact, anything below 3 stars should be taken with a grain of salt and challenged by the author. I have challenged reviewers before. I’ve accepted the review, but have challenged the reviewer on key points to prove whether in fact they have read the book.
Types of reviews
Angry Review: The reader is just plain nasty and has nothing good or worthwhile to say. They just rail and hate and beat their chest, but have not really bothered to actually analyze the book or comment on why they hate it so much, other than to say “It sucks!”
Short review: Short reviews betray a laziness on the part of the author, unless they have nothing but praise and have nothing really negative to say about the work. “I really don’t like reading fantasy fiction, so I gave this one star” is not only unhelpful and unnecessary, but is actually offensive and shows zero respect for the hard work of the writer.
Ignorant review: Reviews given where the reader has completely missed the meaning and therefore does not understand the genre, concepts, themes or style and yet is still happy to give a low rating, only serves to show their own ignorance. If you ever receive such a review, challenge the reader to prove their case or get them to retract the review (they can request Amazon remove their own review). Don’t just accept it unless it is accurate, factual and not personal.
Personal review: Reviews which make lots of personal statements such as, “I like”, or “I don’t like these sorts of books” are very personal and not really all that helpful. My advice to people reading outside of their genre is, if you don’t like reading fantasy fiction, don’t read them and certainly don’t review them.
Opinionative review: Reviews which are highly subjective and not based at all on the core content of the book, but which go to great lengths to explain personal perspectives or opinions on the subject matter, whilst straying from the content of the book itself are opinionative and can be very difficult to take by an author.
Critical review: The critical review looks at all the above listed aspects of the book and attempts to pull it all together and comment on not only whether it all works seamlessly, but how much it does so. These can be very rewarding to read, but again, I see no point giving a one star review. If a critic hated the book so much, they would normally not even bother finishing it, let alone write about it, unless it is a particularly bad book, written by an established author who the critic believes could have and should have written a much better book. But leveling one star reviews at young, new or indie authors is not only unhelpful, but very unfair.
Analytical review: These are the sort of detailed deconstructions that all but guarantee the reviewer not only understands the genre, but the complexities of context, narrative voice, perspective, writing conventions etc. and is able to express in lengthy discourse exactly what is right or wrong and why. These types of reviews are mainly written by experts who specialize in analyzing fiction. You will rarely, if ever, see one of these afforded to an indie author, unless by chance the reviewer stumbles across one. Here again, they will only be written for books which stand out for all the right or all the wrong reasons and only established authors will ever have one written. If you get an analytical review of this caliber, then you should be honored, even if the rating itself (note: most reviews of this type avoid giving star ratings) is average. It means you have arrived.
Revenge review: A review written by a person with an axe to grind because they themselves have been given a poor review and they just want to make someone pay. Statements like, “I guess if it’s good enough to criticize my book, then I am entitled to level the same criticism…”
I hope the reader finds this article helpful. Remember, try to stay focused on positive reviews. Negative ones are, thankfully for most writers, rare.
No comments have been added yet.
