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.
date
newest »
newest »
Hell, I wish Dan and I were going out for drinks every Friday night. He could probably afford it
I'm in the same boat with the "like more stuff than I dislike" when it comes to reading.
I never go into a book wanting it to be bad, and if I expect it to be, I'd rather not start it at all. If I see it through, chances are, I actually rather liked it.
And if I really didn't like something, or can't put into words the reasons why it didn't work for me, I'd rather not type out a review (though I made an exception for The Gates of Azyr recently and have a work-in-progress document for the Age of Sigmar main book!), or just put the book away for coming back to when hell freezes over.
On the flipside, there are books I struggle with writing a review despite loving them, because I don't quite trust myself to not overlook the flaws. David Annandale's Gethsemane Hall comes to mind, which I actually received from the man himself (including a fancy signature!). I loved it, but there are flaws to it which I would either blow out of proportion or play down to the point where I'd get uncomfortable.
Guy Haley is another author who I struggle to review. I can gush and ramble about his works to friends and on forums, but that is, to me, far different from writing an actual review, even if the main talking points are fully articulated already and would just need rewriting into a coherent whole. I have yet to dislike anything by the man that I started on, and quite honestly adore his writing skills. I'm just not sure I'd be confident with whatever I'd write as a review.
For me, it really comes down to whether I feel like I'm in a conflict of interest with any given book or author. Whether such a conflict really exists or is just a gut feeling is irrelevant. I'd rather feel a bit guilty for not reviewing a book until at least my enthusiasm has settled than write one in high spirits that, when read later on, feels lackluster or at worst dishonest.
If I was an author (oh if only, but I can't figure out plot ideas at bloody all), I'd certainly avoid ever rating my own books (though I'd still comment on the creative process, which some authors post as reviews on Goodreads, just star-less), and always add a big, bold disclaimer atop reviews for anthologies I'd be featured in.
Really, when it comes down to it, I don't believe that you should recuse yourself from rating or reviewing anthologies featuring your own work. The important part is being upfront about being a featured author, and trying your damndest to keep yourself from factoring your own pride and contribution into the review score.
As for rating and reviewing other books by your publisher.. Why the hell not? Its not like people writing for Tor or Orbit don't do that. The big difference is simply that Black Library has a shared universe (well, three, or two and a half), which means your works will be far closer to those of others than elsewhere.
But that doesn't seem like an issue to me, really. If anything, it should be useful to give an informed and relatively in-depth opinion on the works.
Should readers still take the reviews with a grain of salt due to professional ties with the publisher and your colleagues? Sure. But the important question is, to me, whether you trust yourself to not be too affected by that.
As long as you are talking out of genuine passion for the books, and feel confident in your assessment, then that seems entirely reasonable to me.
Now, if you and the author whose work you're reviewing went out for a drink every friday night and were best buddies, that's where I'd personally recuse myself from writing an actual review, unless I felt a real urge to write it anyway because the thing was the most amazing thing in the galaxy to me.
Bottom line: If you trust yourself to give it a fair shake, go ahead. Just be upfront about it if you feel you are too closely involved.