World, Writing, Wealth discussion
All Things Writing & Publishing
>
Why reviewing?
message 1:
by
Nik
(new)
Jul 13, 2017 02:58PM
I mean, you paid your 2-3 dollars, bought a book/item, read it/enjoyed it, why do you need to waste your precious time to write about your impressions? What's the motivation behind it?
reply
|
flag
Me personally: Memory aid - so I can remember what I liked/disliked about a book, if I might want to read more of a series, or check out more by an author. - To clarify my own thoughts on the first item. Explaining in a review what I liked is a great way to figure out what that actually is.
- Service to other consumers (paying back the service other reviews provide to me).
Other reasons I've heard (you may or may not remember, I've actually published research on this topic!)
- Social capital (people don't say this directly, but some reveiwers certainly do write for the followers and likes they get from it) Social capital makes us (humans) feel good even though we don't like to admit it. We're still social animals.
- Money
- Free books
The first reason is far and away the most common: The majority of reviewers write reviews for themselves first, anyone else a distant second.
I tend to review when a book impacts me either very positively or very negatively, or when I'm reading a book that will form part of my Australian Women Writers Challenge. I do try and balance my biases by reviewing intentionally, intermittently, because I know that reviews can be very important to authors, and because I'm automatically suspicious of books with very few reviews, and often those books don't deserve my suspicion.
I do a lot of reviewing and have even climbed up into the top 10,000 reviewers on Amazon.com! Yippee! Fame and fortune will soon be mine :) And I'm top 200 on Amazon.com.au--when does the Lear jet show up to whisk me away to my new life?!? So as you can see, I do a LOT of reviewing.As for benefits--I have not, in fact, received much fame and fortune from it. But it is a good tool for networking with authors, publishers, and bloggers. Because of my aforementioned health problems I haven't been able to, and probably won't be able to for a while, attend readings, cons, or conferences in person, so reviewing and blogging is sort of a substitute.
The other, unexpected, benefit is that I think it has really helped my own writing. Not only is it helpful to look at what other people have done and write about it in a way that other people can understand, but the discipline and practice has made me an even faster writer. When I sat down to write my academic book this summer, I figured it would be really difficult. And academic writing is never easy, it's true. But if I thought of it as just a really, really long book review, then all of a sudden I was able to churn out hundreds or thousands of words a day, which is absolutely crazy for academic writing. So thanks, book reviewing, you gave that to me and made me practice my writing even when I didn't feel like or didn't have any other kind of writing to do.
I don't often write reviews of three star books; but the fives and fours get good reviews and and the ones and twos get the reviews they deserve.
Most of my reviews are for products other than books. I write them to let other customers know what I would want to know about the product that isn't listed in the description.
I write a review only when an author has sent me a request. I really don't see the point of of all otherwise. People buy what they want to buy. Why should other people's impressions influence their decisions?
Mehreen wrote: "I write a review only when an author has sent me a request. I really don't see the point of of all otherwise. People buy what they want to buy. Why should other people's impressions influence their..."I read reviews if I am unsure about whether or not to read a book. Lots of times the synopsis on the book is misleading. The reviews reveal a lot deal-breakers that don't appear in the synopsis and save me from picking up a book that will just make me roll my eyes and put it down forever, unfinished.
The blurb is there, written by the author, to persuade the reader to buy. The review, if well done, tells the reader what the book is really, and the two are not the same thing, frequently.Also, the fact of the matter is, an author needs some reviews to be taken seriously. If you want reviews of your books to help your own sales of them, I think you should do the decent thing and provide reviews for others when you read them.
Ian wrote: "The blurb is there, written by the author, to persuade the reader to buy. The review, if well done, tells the reader what the book is really, and the two are not the same thing, frequently.Also, ..."
Exactly! One of the stories I've read in the last couple of years that demonstrated this unfortunately well, was a Man Booker Prize winner. If anyone's interested, you can read it here: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
From the blurb, I couldn't wait to read this. I read it, and partly because my expectations generated by the blurb weren't met, struggled with it. Even though I read the whole thing hoping things might change.
Reviews are just an individual's opinion of a book. If I like a book, it wouldn't be for all the awards or the reviews that a book may have received. However, I do believe while good reviews help, bad ones don't. Therefore, I don't see the point of writing a bad review, no matter how honest it maybe.
Mehreen wrote: "Reviews are just an individual's opinion of a book. If I like a book, it wouldn't be for all the awards or the reviews that a book may have received. However, I do believe while good reviews help, ..."I'm interested to hear why you think poor reviews don't help, Mehreen - are you talking about for authors, or for other readers?
I love sharing great reviews in order to champion a book or author that excites me. It's similar to social media in the way that everyone boasts their interests and hobbies; what they've done, where they've been and who with. However, I'm one of those people that finds it extremely difficult to write bad reviews. I'd rather not write one at all, especially if it was down to personal opinion rather than a problem with the actual content. I think most people make their own minds up about products regardless of reviews, but that's no excuse for slating something for the hell of it. At least make sure that any criticisms are constructive ones.
Rae wrote: "I love sharing great reviews in order to champion a book or author that excites me. It's similar to social media in the way that everyone boasts their interests and hobbies; what they've done, wher..."Very good! Me Too!
Bad reviews certainly help other readers. In two ways:A bad review warns other consumers off if the work is poorly written, badly edited, full of plot holes or anything else that might give a reader pause in spending their money.
Yet, the right kind of bad review can sell a book. The Martian, for instance, has plenty of reviews saying it's too full of maths and science, which made hard sci-fi fans want to gobble it up. It was exactly one of those reviews that got me reading Kim Stanley Robinson who is now one of my all time favourite authors. Personally, I dislike surprise love triangles being sprung on me, and I detest cliffhangers i wasn't expecting either, either would make me low rate a book - I have friends who love these things, and you'd have to chain them down to stop them from reading a book that had both.
It's easy as an author to get set in the "must help all other authors" mindset, but the author isn't who reviews are for. Book reviews on sites like Amazon are product reviews, for other consumers. Any great literary criticism you get out of them is a bonus. "The formatting is ridiculous and almost unreadable and 40% of the 'book' is sales pitch for a bunch of other books" is entirely valid, and entirely helpful.
Another point is to note different reviewers have different scale systems. I did give a low rating for one book that was a "sales pitch for a bunch of other books", and my only 1 star review was for a book that had been assembled/edited by "cut and paste" techniques, but the cuts were mid-sentence and it was essentially unreadable. However, my opinion is that some things I don't like should be mentioned, but not necessarily rated. Cliffhangers are like that. I really dislike them, but since some do not, I feel it is simply my duty to point out they are there and let the potential purchaser decide.As for "The Martian", I don't recall much in the way of maths, and a certain amount of the science was just plain wrong or silly. Wrong - the storm - the winds might reach high speeds but the pressure is so low if would feel like a gentle summer breeze. As for making water, that route was just plain stupid. If he had to burn something, why not just burn the hydrazine? Trying to make hydrogen like that is just plain silly. Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars series is more interesting - it is an accurate representation of what people thought about Mars in the 1980s, but we now know a good bit of that is wrong or wouldn't work for various reasons. I tried to get the background more correct in my Red Gold, and so far not much has been found that is wrong, but it is more recent, so I suppose we have to give it time. If Krazykiwi is right, I need someone to give it a review saying there is too much science in it. Any volunteers??
If I thought a book was plagiarised, then would warn the author, not bother to write a review. However, if I didn't like it, then I would would tell the author in the form of feedback but, no, I shall not write a review. Readers may not see it from my perspective, so the issue of "warning" them doesn't arise. Every person has her own angle.
If a book is poorly written to the point of being unreadable, then I can understand why a reader would want to warn other consumers. It's like being served crap food in a restaurant or receiving a product that isn't up to scratch. Reporting the issue is one thing, but hurling vile abuse (which does happen) is unnecessary. People seem to enjoy having a good old rant when they're hiding behind the safety of a computer screen ...I definitely agree that some bad reviews can actually be great promotion. If a book is slated for being too gruesome then I'm definitely buying it!
Sometimes bad reviews are written because the reviewer is not knowledgeable enough about the book they are reviewing.
Do you think reviewers, like authors, especially those writing elaborate ones, want audience/readers, garner 'likes', etc and maybe just as any person making something public?
Nik wrote: "Do you think reviewers, like authors, especially those writing elaborate ones, want audience/readers, garner 'likes', etc and maybe just as any person making something public?"Reviewers do yes, I believe to make something public. Authors write for various reasons, not only for "making something public."
Heck yes, as someone who writes in-depth reviews, I treat it as another genre I work in and I'm doing it (in part) in order to gain readers and get likes and move up the charts.
Nik wrote: "Do you think reviewers, like authors, especially those writing elaborate ones, want audience/readers, garner 'likes', etc and maybe just as any person making something public?"I think there's a proportion of reviewers who do, but there are many well meaning reviewers who honestly review for other readers.
In one of the other Goodreads Groups I'm in, I've found a couple of reviewers who, if they review something positively, I'm almost certain to like. Consequently I follow their reviews.
Mehreen wrote: "Sometimes bad reviews are written because the reviewer is not knowledgeable enough about the book they are reviewing."And sometimes bad reviews are written because the author is not knowledgeable enough about the book they wrote.
You take a very one sided "The author is always 100% perfect" perspective, Mehreen. Not every book is great literature, or an accurate portrayal of a non-fiction topic. Some books actually are rubbish.
Krazykiwi wrote: "Mehreen wrote: "Sometimes bad reviews are written because the reviewer is not knowledgeable enough about the book they are reviewing."And sometimes bad reviews are written because the author is n..."
Everything is subjective at the end of the day. A book can never be good or bad just because the reviewer says it. Just as not all books are good literature, neither are all reviewers qualified judges.
Bad reviews, especially well thought-out and educated ones are a USEFUL TOOL IN DEVELOPING YOUR WRITING. For example, my reviews on books have some actual practical knowledge about books/literature behind the words I write. I hold a few degrees, including among them a BA in English Lit and a BEd in high school literacy, and I feel that a review that *actually, intelligently, states particular WRITING PROBLEMS out* would be amazingly beneficial to authors. They are to me, at least. And mine are in person and verbal- much more harsh! I, myself, am a teacher as well as a writer and avid reader. I love teaching, writing and reading in equal measure and am constantly doing one of the three. I actually *appreciate* a well-written bad review.
However, ignorant reviews written by people who obviously gave the work in question about twenty minutes of their time-well, that is a whole other type of 'review', isn't it? --Jen from Quebec :0)
There are many differing opinions here and it is hard to see a consensus of a. the purpose of a review and, b. the quality of a review. (a) should be easy to understand; for a reader a review is a useful guide for knowing more about the book before buying it. For the author, a review is an essential tool as a means of selling a book.There is the very useful app. on Kindle and Amazon to delve into a book and read a chapter or so before buying. That at least gives an idea of whether it has a communion of language that is understandable and not disruptive and might even translate an author's style for future reference. It also exposes the quality of the presentation. But neither that nor the blurb can truly explain how good or bad is the characterisation, storyline and structure. A review can do this.
If a review is intelligent and not egocentric or manipulative it is of great service to any author wishing to become a better writer and I was of the opinion (now changed) that it is a duty for authors to help fellow writers by reviewing their work. Those writers who dismiss 'bad' reviews as 'subjective' deserve to remain bad writers.
The musical Les Miserable received very poor reviews when it opened at the Palace Theatre in London and critics panned it. But, as someone here has hinted at; any publicity is good publicity. People came to see for themselves and in no time it had transferred to the West End and is still running. (but I still fail to see much value in it).
But writing is not like music or fine art. There is an accepted standard of communication in writing that is immutable and not subjective. A good reviewer will know this.
Jennifer Lynn wrote: "Bad reviews, especially well thought-out and educated ones are a USEFUL TOOL IN DEVELOPING YOUR WRITING. For example, my reviews on books have some actual practical knowledge about books/literature..."Yes. And yes.
I write reviews because authors have provided me with a free book. Legally, I could read the free book and not write a review, but that is unlikely to garnish me more books in the future. Being disabled with bilateral neuropathy, reading is what I do with most of my time. Writing is much more difficult as words go from my brain through my fingers and not through my vocal cords. It's a reflection of the generation from which I come and using typewriters, word processors, and computers for 35 years. (Paper in pencil through high school graduation.) I dislike writing reviews because there is no structure to it in Amazon or Goodreads. If there was a list of factors to check off that would increase/decrease ratings that everyone used, that would be a more even gauge for measuring the quality of a book. The current method - my 3 star is your 5 star. I definitely don't look for comments or likes on my reviews.
I wrote a review a while back for a trilogy and today I saw that someone commented a couple of months ago that since I had written so positively about it, why did I give it only 3 stars. From my POV, 3 stars is a good, solid book with a plot and characters I enjoyed. Not every book is a top 100 in science fiction. Note that The Puppet Masters is at only 3.66 on the Goodreads list. For me a 5-star science fiction novel has to have that something special - a combination of plot, ideas, characters, and world building with exceptional language use (wordsmithing) and that is not an every day occurrence. If it were, it would then be average. I reserve 5 for exceptional.
If the goal is to help an author, then I doubt reviews really do so. I think the beta readers can provide the real feedback and assistance to authors in helping to define problems with plots, characters, ideas, and structure of the novel.
Lizzie wrote: "I write reviews because authors have provided me with a free book. Legally, I could read the free book and not write a review, but that is unlikely to garnish me more books in the future. Being dis..."
I agree with the structure bit, Lizzie. Elsewhere in these posts I did try to suggest a definition of the star-rating system so we all could use it as a template. Rating everything by stars seems now meaningless as your three star might be my two or five star. That makes an explanation of one's review even more important. If anyone is interested here is a link to reviewing from Canada;;http;//guides,library,queensu.ca/bookreviews/writing
Let's just hope it never goes to thumbs up or thumbs down :D.
Marie wrote: "Let's just hope it never goes to thumbs up or thumbs down :D."I hope n9t. Netflux doing that has annoyed me. At least include a neutral.
haha, Marie that's how most "bad reviews" are written. No explanation given why it may be a "thumbs down". Enough to say that the book is horrible or the writer is terrible. No reason given.
Interestingly, the inquirer's response to my explanation was that he agreed with me and hiis approach is the same.
P.K. wrote: "I agree with the structure bit, Lizzie. Elsewhere in these posts I did try to suggest a definition of the star-rating system so we all could use it as a template. Rating everything by stars seems n..."Books for entertainment, fiction, are difficult to evaluate. As you stated, your 5 star may be my 3 star or someone's 1 star. In Amazon it is difficult to adjust for that in evaluating a possible book purchase. In Goodreads i can compare books and have a better idea of whether another reviewers tastes amd star numbers are similar to mine.
P.K. wrote: "I agree with the structure bit, Lizzie. Elsewhere in these posts I did try to suggest a definition of the star-rating system so we all could use it as a template. Rating everything by stars seems n..."No need to reinvent the wheel, why not just use the template already provided by GR? 1* = didn't like it, 2* = it was ok, 3* = liked it, 4* = really liked it, 5* = it was amazing. It's on every single book page after all. (FWIW, this scale is downshifted by one vs Amazon, and that's by design, it provides granularity for the positive reviews, and skews all ratings towards positive. If only authors would accept 3* "liked it" as a positive review. Which it is.
And there's absolutely no reason you have to use the same scale if you rate a book here vs Amazon, which again has a template, but one that differs from here.
This idea that keeps popping up that reviews are for author feedback though is just so strange. If the book's already published, it's far far too late for feedback on it. Maybe it'll help you with future books, but that one's done.
This idea that keeps popping up that reviews are for author feedback though is just so strange. If the book's already published, it's far far too late for feedback on it. Maybe it'll help you with future books, but that one's done. I know of quite a few self published authors who do substantial rewrites and then republish, or reissue books.
Having said that, if authors choose to read reviews, and then change the way they write subsequent stories as a result, then said review has had an impact on the author, in at least one way - whether that's good or bad will depend on what the changes are and whether they contribute to the author's ongoing writing in a positive or negative fashion.
Possibly the simplest positive thing I could imagine is for an author to review their spelling/grammar/proofreading etc if those things were pointed out in a review.
I depended on reader feedback to help me decide how many books to write for my series.
This is probably rather controversial but I prefer not to read reviews for books so that I can read them with a "clean" slate as it were. However, if I've struggled with a book that really isn't working for me, I then read reviews and often discover similar reactions from other readers.On the flip side, I used to read reviews but then became disappointed when books that were raved about didn't match my expectations! Now, if the subject is of interest from the synopsis and I'm drawn to the writer's style on the first page, I'll buy it.
I definitely write reviews for books with huge editing errors (these should have been corrected before publication in my view) as well as those that to me were outstandingly good.
On the other hand, I do read reviews for products (vacuum cleaners, laptops etc) before buying them!
Leonie wrote: "I know of quite a few self published authors who do substantial rewrites and then republish, or reissue books. ..."
So, the first people who bought the book, pre rewrite, were paying to be the authors guinea pigs? I think that's a rubbish business approach, personally. That kind of feedback should be sought out before a book is published, people should not pay you for the privilege of being your developmental or copy editor. Beta readers and critique groups and the editors you are paying should be doing this, not paying customers.
Or are they supposed to re-read a substantially rewritten book to see if they like it better. To begin with, a lot of people don't re-read anything, but I don't believe most people would want to re-read a book they didn't like and reviewed poorly, in order to see if it got better, and I'm not sure the people who did like it will want to re-read it in case they don't like the changes.
The kind of feedback Marie mentions, seeing how well a series is doing and if there's demand for more is an entirely different thing.
I know this is an author-centric group and this opinion won't be popular, but putting a book out too early before it's ready, and then rewriting and republishing it based on reviews, is a flat out rip-off of your early supporters.
wrt receiving and using feedback from book reviews, it's more-or-less a free market and with self-publishing, even more so. to some degree, the slush piles and would-be vanity press books have moved into the self-published domain. i see that as making the market more accessible to writers and ideas and books that readers might not have seen before. with that opening up of the market, basic quality becomes more of an issue; however, the price points are much more flexible with ebooks and those as such provide one market-driven quality sorting guideline (barring collusion practices like Apple and the Big 5). (also, there's more than just quality that drives business and consumer purchases; price comes to mind as one other component.)in the end, the market will more-or-less decide.
I agree that an author should get the work to be in the best form possible before publishing, and I think leave it at that. One simple truth is you cannot please everyone, however I do think that the star rating you give should accept that it has genuine marketing effects. To say "your five star rating is my three star rating" is not helpful to anyone; it hurts the author's sale chances, and it discourages the reader because who the hell knows you are doing that? At least say so in your text. I also noted a comment by a professional reviewer in our local paper - he once said the real skill for a reviewer is to properly rate something he did NOT like, i.e. the skill is to put aside your own personal view and concentrate on things like plot development, presentation, writing skill, characterization, and again, particularly in terms of something like writing style, accept that any good writer has their voice. So the question is, does the writer have a clear voice, or are they just putting words together? What the reviewer has to do is to outline what the author is trying to do, and whether they succeed.As an example I totally dislike Finnegan's Wake, but I know it has acceptance by some for the novel use of words. In a case like that, where I know the book is not for me, I simply refuse to write a review because I accept I cannot write an assessment for someone who might like it.
Ian wrote: "to say "your five star rating is my three star rating" is not helpful to anyone; it hurts the author's sale chances..."But it is reality since reviews are being written by readers and not by professionals. A criteria of liked it, its ok, loved it makes that star quality differential even more likely.
Krazykiwi wrote: "Leonie wrote: "I know of quite a few self published authors who do substantial rewrites and then republish, or reissue books. ..."
So, the first people who bought the book, pre rewrite, were payi..."
I agree with you here, Krazykiwi. I don't think this is a good plan at all - it's either good enough to publish or it isn't. Clearly the odd typo is completely different to re-writing a book and then republishing. But it is a thing with some self published authors - not a good thing, but definitely a thing.
Even with authors published by the huge publishers, you can see author development in subsequent works. (Or at least with some authors.)
Early works should be 'what they are.' Not constantly re-written.
As far as stars go, I try and use the guides here on Goodreads and Amazon to determine what I 'award.' Generally because 4 and 5 star reviews mean 'I really liked it' and 'it was amazing,' I only award them to books I'll re-read.
Krazykiwi wrote: "P.K. wrote: "I agree with the structure bit, Lizzie. Elsewhere in these posts I did try to suggest a definition of the star-rating system so we all could use it as a template. Rating everything by ..."
The star guidelines are representative of the reader's overall, subjective reaction to a book. A proper review is quite different. It is an individual assessment of the book based upon accepted literary and publishing standards. It is not for an individual author's benefit but for the benefit of all those who read and write for publication. It does not change an author's product retrospectively either, especially those many author's who press the Publish button long before the book was ready or even presentable. But it could, should, benefit an author to get a perspective on their writing ability. Without such reviews the 'slush-pile' of POD publishing will just get bigger and more irrelevant and could be equated to having a diving contest without a judge.BTW, Richard Cockerell did reinvent the wheel.
I only write reviews about books that I loved or hated. The rest I rate so I get better tailored recommendations from wherever.
Indie authors might want to change some things down the road like book cover or interior when they have an improvement to make, and that's okay imo. Readers as guinea pigs makes it sound worse than it is. Evolving product is used all the time in business and entertainment. Products are released "new and improved", movies are re-released with more editing and extra content, songs are remixed, food recipes are changed, new editions of books are released. Any of these regular occurrences could be based on customer feedback, updates, or the creator changing their mind on how they want to produce it. As long as the seller delivered the product they promised in the first place (in our case, a story), there is no ripping-off going on. When a book is really selling, it will be disliked and 1-starred no matter how much attention it received pre-publish. The way I see it, betas and critique groups are not likely the intended audience, so their feedback will vary from actual customer feedback. It seems common sense to me that authors would want to know if their own readers are happy.
I read customer reviews on my own books because I want to know whether readers are enjoying the stories. There are only so many gauges an author can use to answer this question. As far as I know, these gauges include only reviews, sales, and fan mail :D.
