Goodreads Authors/Readers discussion
III. Goodreads Readers
>
Do you review books 1-star books?
I do review books I couldn't finish. I can't give them my full review treatment, but I try to explain why I couldn't get through the book. If a book is bad, I generally don't finish it, so there we go.
Can one give a book 0 stars? I've never seen that :)
I don't do it a lot, and if it's a review of something I haven't made a good faith effort to read in its entirety I usually don't rate it, but negative reviews are necessary sometimes.
I have no qualms either giving 1-star reviews. Several reasons:1) If an author can't stomach "negative" reviews, s/he has no place being an author. Deal with it, or pick another job. I'm not here to cater to unfulfilled desires of being admired.
2) If a book is so bad I can't finish it, then potential readers deserve to know (and be spared the pain). There's no point in sharing reviews if they all end up being the same old cookie-cutter "Best book evah!!1!"
3) I post a lot of reviews for books I get through NetGalley and Edelweiss. Refusing to review the "bad" ones would undermine my credibility as a reviewer.
I prefer to expend the energy on books I loved, so I rarely read books I'm not going to be able to give a laudatory rating, but every now and then one just irritates me so much, either by incompetence, pretentiousness or (like a book of short stories I'm reading), the asshattery of the author, or any combination thereof, that I do give it the review it inspires in me.
I rarely find a book I think bad enough to be one star, but yes I have a few times and reviewed or rated as such.
A literary review is basically a critical examination of a book one has read.Like any artist, an author should never be satisfied with the status quo; determined to continuously improve upon their technical writing and story-telling skills.
Three, four and five-star ratings and reviews, praising one's work, are flattering and ego-boosting. However, the occasional one or two-star rating, accompanied by a sincere critique, detailing specific areas that resulted in the reader's negative opinion, will incite the author to continuously learn and improve.
Linda wrote: Just no rating at all. Yes, you can write a review without giving the book any stars at all.I've done it."
Linda, is giving it no stars the same as simply not rating it? I know some people review a book but don't rate it (they don't believe in the star system). I wasn't sure if this ends up appearing the same way or not.
D.C. wrote: "I don't do it a lot, and if it's a review of something I haven't made a good faith effort to read in its entirety I usually don't rate it, but negative reviews are necessary sometimes."I can appreciate that. If you didn't try very hard to give a book a chance and end up not finishing it, that's one thing. It's the "I gave it a good chance but it was just terrible writing" that I wish people would say something about.
Yzabel wrote: "I'm not here to cater to unfulfilled desires of being admired."Nice. ;-)
For me it depends on why I feel the book is awful. If it looks promising, but was published prematurely, especially if it is a solicited review. I will contact the author privately, and tell them my concerns so they can fix the problems with an offer to revisit their book again. I think this is more constructive. And yes, retaliatory negative reviews do concern me (it concerns most of us, whether we admit it publicly or not.) Occasionally, when I come across a book whose content is lacking: The author obviously put no effort into the writing. The plot is weak, borrowed (stolen), the characters undeveloped... Those are the kinds of books I will give negative reviews and ratings for the world to see.
Linda wrote: "...Reviews are not for authors. Critiques are, but reviews are not. If an author absolutely must read her reviews, she is strongly -- and not just by me and Goodreads -- advised not to say a word to anyone. And never, ever, ever argue with a reviewer. NEVER...."I agree. To me, the whole point of writing a review is to let other readers know what you thought of a book--not to invite the author to a writing class.
V.K. wrote: "Linda wrote: "...Reviews are not for authors. Critiques are, but reviews are not. If an author absolutely must read her reviews, she is strongly -- and not just by me and Goodreads -- advised not t..."I agree and disagree. Before I started writing, I reviewed simply as a consumer because that's what I was. And I had no qualms about leaving negative reviews which is as it should be.
But once you become an author, I believe that a certain amount of professional courtesy is called for because our reviews can be seen as an endorsement. We are professional writers. I would never, never give a false review. But I do exercise discretion regarding my public comments.
Candace wrote: "V.K. wrote: "Linda wrote: "...Reviews are not for authors. Critiques are, but reviews are not. If an author absolutely must read her reviews, she is strongly -- and not just by me and Goodreads -- ..."I exercise courtesy by not attacking the person, only the work. And explaining. Don't troll, don't flame...but make clear the issues you had. Readers appreciate this, and you maintain your public image as a discerning non-troll.
Candace wrote: "Before I started writing ..."I can see your point. You share sympathies now. :-)
However, don't you think it would end up worse for an author if someone picked up their book expecting one thing and ended up giving it a scathing review when they found out it "needed work" after no one wanted honestly review the book's faults?
Linda wrote: "Many of the writers whose works I give negative reviews to are not, imho, due any professional courtesy."True, there are circumstances where I too will leave negative feedback. If the content isn't there, lazy writing, undeveloped plots or characters, obvious cloning... Those are the sorts of things I will publicly pan. Things like typos, issues a good editor would catch (because many can't afford to pay an editor, especially new indie authors.) That's where I feel professional courtesy is helpful to both the reader and the writer, because it improves the product.
Jason wrote: "I exercise courtesy by not attacking the person, only the work. And explaining. Don't troll, don't flame...but make clear the issues you had. Readers appreciate this, and you maintain your public image as a discerning non-troll. ..."Well spoken. This is the approach I like to take. And I always try to point out both the good and the bad in my reviews. I'm trying to help some other reader make a choice that suits them.
V.K. wrote: "And I always try to point out both the good and the bad in my reviews."QFT. I do this for both positive and critical reviews. The only time I have difficulty is for DNF reviews - I probably didn't read anything that grabbed me, so I can't say anything nice :(
"The author didn't drool on his/her keyboard as he/she typed this...I think?"
But I still post them because some readers may be turned off by the exact same things I am, and not spend time/money on the book that they could better enjoy elsewhere. It also does the AUTHOR a service, because reviews by people who thought the book was something it wasn't can add up and be rather scathing.
V.K. wrote: "Candace wrote: "Before I started writing ..."I can see your point. You share sympathies now. :-)
However, don't you think it would end up worse for an author if someone picked up their book exp..."
When I discovered my book wasn't as ready as it should've been (and there's still a few typo's I'm hunting for...) I unpublished it for a week and spent a week fixing it. (Now my problem is not knowing which revision is being reviewed) The point is, I did fix it.
I truly believe that regular readers should give reviews as they see fit, but professional writers are not seen as regular readers, and as such, our opinions carry more influence. So I try to be judicious with my public commentary... Privately, for the benefit of the author and the reader, I'll savage their work.
I review every book I read, whether I enjoyed it or not, and whether I finished it or not. I always focus on the book and content, not the author. I think reviews are for other readers, and should be honest.
i usually don't review one star books unless I feel the reason why I disliked it so much is important to address, or because I committed to review it.
I review books I love, and those I hate...those with immaculate editing, and those without any at all. As far as I'm concerned, if an author wanted a polite, private evaluation, they would have sought beta readers rather than customers.
I do. The rating system is 1-5, not 2-5 (more 3-5, if some where happy) and I think dropping the lowest tier invalidates the rating system as a whole. I don't give many 1 stars, however. As the lowest rating, 500 pages of the word 'fart' half of them misspelled, with no punctuation would still qualify for it. In other-words just pushing publish means a book deserves at least a star. And honestly, most books are at least better than that and get a second star from me. I also wont shy away from listing ALL my complaints in a review. (But I'll do the same for the things I love about a 5 star book, too. It's not one-sided.)
But if a book is horribly edited, full of inexcusable plot holes, or just plain horrible in some other fashion I will give it what I think it deserves and if that's 1 star, that's what I give it. I honestly don't think anyone is benefitted by doing otherwise, not even the author.
Edit, re: DNF books. It depending on why I didn't finish a book. If I couldn't finish if because of grammar, etc I'll star it and explain it's a DNF and why. But if I just didn't like the story, or whatever, I'll note why I didn't finish it but not rate it. But I VERY rarely don't finish a book.
Additional thoughts (and I know this is getting long): While I understand Candace's point about professional courtesy, I also think most readers when reading reviews aren't paying attention to that. They aren't out checking the profile of every reviewer. Yes, some might notice sometime but the vast majority are just reading down the review queue. And it always strikes me as somewhat dishonest to maintain honesty in your reviews by simply not posting reviews for the negatives. That's still skewing the system. Plus, if I'm being totally honest, if I check a profile and see nothing but good reviews I'm automatically suspicious...especially if that reviewer is an author. I'm not having a go or anything, just disagreeing (my opinion). Unless you're Anne Rice or someone who can reasonably be expected to have hugely undue influence, which lets be honest most of us aren't, I see professional courtesy as being willing to honestly review all things.
And re: 0 star ratings. Yes, you can write a review without a star but GR doesn't average a 0 into the average rating of the book it just doesn't count as a rating at all. So if you're trying to highlight a book as bad, a 1 star is more effective.
Yes! Thank you for being a sane voice in the wilderness! If I bought a book or made the decision solely based on my own whim, I will DNF a book. I will rate it low. I want others to know!! Here it is, in plain English. I READ REVIEWS. So I don't end up reading books that suuuuck.However, if the book was given me free to review and I didn't even get past page one or two, my policy is to not review it at all. After all, I solicited it. But if my dumb butt pushes through to the end, my bad, you're getting a 2.5 rounded to a 3.0. I have published a Spotlight post where I showcase the books that weren't for me but may be for someone else. (And I find, often with my Indie reads, that my opinion differs greatly from the past reviewers, so reviews turn out unhelpful.)
But I agree. The special snowflake syndrome spreads over to reviewers too. They don't want to hurt someone's fragile ego or risk retaliation in this social climate where one click can run you into the ground.
Really, there is no SET reason for some normal human being not to rate a book however the heck they want. Period, no questions asked. Heck, they don't even have to explain their rating or review. Even if we may wish to heck that they would.
Reviews are like opinions; anyone can write a review and anyone can give their opinion. But words are powerful things. Although I don't put a lot of stock in reviews when deciding whether or not to purchase a book, a lot of people do. Knowing that, I can not and will not ever write a negative review for a book. Period. One man's garbage is another man's gold.
I have never rated a book 1 star. There are a couple of books I could have rated as 1 star, but those are books I did not finish and I just don't feel that it's worth it to spend any more time on a book that was not even worth finishing. I just like to move on.Also, I've found that 1 star reviews are rarely helpful with fictional works (non-fiction is another matter). They almost always demonstrate that the reviewer lacked the disposition or willingness to embrace the story that was being told. In short, it wasn't "their" kind of book. So the review comes across as less about the book and more about the reviewer. In general, not helpful. Very few books, however poorly written, do not have at least some merit to them.
The exceptions would be the rare cases where a review can point out that the book either was poorly edited, or that the content was vulgar and offensive. This is helpful. But most 1 star reviews don't give very good reasons for rating a book that low.
I guess what has always confused me about the 'won't give one star ratings' argument (and I acknowledge it as valid, in that 'reviewers can do as they please' sense) is why a one star is considered something worthy of special attention and treatment. We work on a 5 point scale. 1,2,3,4,5-each consisting of 1/5 of the whole. Which should make a 1 star just as valid as any of the others.Treating a bad book, or even just one a reader dislikes, which I consider a valid review point (as Patricia said, one person's trash is another's treasure and I use reviews to decide which it will be for me and more reviews on both sides of the argument help me) as a two star just to avoid the dreaded 1 star feels arbitrary and a distortion of the generally agreed upon scale.
Sadie wrote: "And it always strikes me as somewhat dishonest to maintain honesty in your reviews by simply not posting reviews for the negatives. That's still skewing the system...."Yes--this! ^^
I don't think people realize they're skewing the system when they refuse to give "bad" reviews. It simply makes it more difficult for others to find the books that they'd enjoy most.
Patricia wrote: "...One man's garbage is another man's gold."I heartily agree with this. But isn't this one of the big reasons we review books? You might hate a book that I'd love. But if you review that book and explain why you rated it poorly, I'd be able to make my own decision about it. If you DON'T rate it, the only reviews will be "gold" ones and that isn't helpful to the folks who will think it's "garbage."
D.J. wrote: "...The exceptions would be the rare cases where a review can point out that the book either was poorly edited, or that the content was vulgar and offensive. This is helpful. But most 1 star reviews don't give very good reasons for rating a book that low. "There are a lot more of these kinds of books out there than you'd think.
When I originally posted the question, I wasn't thinking only 1-star reviews in particular. Some people refuse to give a book anything less than 3 stars or else don't review it.
I have no qualms giving a book a 1 star review. Mainly because it makes my 5 stars worthless in my eyes when it looks like I think everything picked up is great. I routinely ignore the reviews and recs of my book buddies that 4 and 5 star everything. You seem way too easy to please, and your reviews have no value to me.
D.J. wrote: "...They almost always demonstrate that the reviewer lacked the disposition or willingness to embrace the story that was being told. In short, it wasn't "their" kind of book. So the review comes across as less about the book and more about the reviewer. ..."I strongly disagree. Its not the reader's job to embrace every story. It's up to the writer to provide a story readers can enjoy. If the writer fails then the reader has every right to give a 1* review. Your reasoning is flawed - reviews are subjective and if done honestly - they are an accurate opinion. Period.
Sometimes it IS a matter of not being a good story for that particular reader.Sometimes it is a writer issue.
Every review is an individual entity, unless, of course, it's one of those stupid revenge/rivalry/gangbang situations.
I just gave a 1* review for a book that although it was chock-fulla-swearing, I was, actually enjoying the story.I got as far as the 7th chapter and decided not to continue reading. The author, in my opinion is talented, but apparently didn't read their own book, otherwise the "problem" would easily have been corrected.
Melissa wrote: "Yes! Thank you for being a sane voice in the wilderness! If I bought a book or made the decision solely based on my own whim, I will DNF a book. I will rate it low. I want others to know!! Here it ..."I guess I have to amend my position slightly, I was speaking of solicited reviews from my fellow authors. It was not too long ago I ended up giving a two star review on Amazon for a book I purchased as a consumer.
Turhan wrote: "I just gave a 1* review for a book that although it was chock-fulla-swearing, I was, actually enjoying the story.I got as far as the 7th chapter and decided not to continue reading. The author, i..."
Was the one star a stylistic choice(too much swearing?) or was it due to technical problems? And was there a content disclaimer warning you about the profanity so you could make an informed choice? I put one in the description because I know not everyone wants to see that sort of stuff.
If your rating was for content (profane lit is just not your cup of tea,) and you ignored the warning, is that fair? On the other hand if there was no warning, shame on the author.
Candace wrote: "Turhan wrote: "I just gave a 1* review for a book that although it was chock-fulla-swearing, I was, actually enjoying the story.I got as far as the 7th chapter and decided not to continue reading..."
Actually I originally read the sample on Amazon Books "Look Inside" feature so I was fully aware of all the profanity, it didn't bother me in the least, and it still doesn't.
The author has a great cadence and voice to his story and I was having fun reading it despite 3/4 typos that also didn't squelch the rhythm either, that was up until chapter 7. The first few paragraphs (say 3/4) open up the chapter, then the next several pages are really very good too, but then what happened next is what bothered me and made me feel like I'm too busy to try and figure this stuff out. The 'several' pages I mentioned above are all repeated again within the chapter.
So I tried to figure out if I had read everything or if I missed something, or if I was mistaken about having read everything twice, then I started thinking if this happens a couple of more times in different chapters throughout the book, I just didn't want to be bogged down trying to figure out if I'm reading something I read previously.
I gave up and awarded a 1* review because it seems to me that the author was way to careless to allow this to happen, I'd rather read something that didn't have me second guessing myself.
Turhan wrote: "Candace wrote: "Turhan wrote: "I just gave a 1* review for a book that although it was chock-fulla-swearing, I was, actually enjoying the story.I got as far as the 7th chapter and decided not to ..."
When I see errors that egregious it makes me wonder if the author accidentally uploaded the wrong file. Not good, but we're all human.
I have no qualms about slinging 1 star reviews. I give a reason why and it's usually technical (grammar, spelling, mary sue/gary stu syndrome, etc). I know not all ebooks format well (I even had some big 5 ebooks that were horrifically formatted), so I don't count for that. Have I gotten into arguments with authors over that, yes unfortunately. I review every book I read (if I remember) for the most part and for those I can't remember, until I read it again, I just rate then review later.
Candace wrote: "Turhan wrote: "Candace wrote: "Turhan wrote: "I just gave a 1* review for a book that although it was chock-fulla-swearing, I was, actually enjoying the story.I got as far as the 7th chapter and ..."
Yup, I thought the same thing, I just didn't want to take the risk that there were more of the same. In fact if the author ever uploaded a revised file, possibly after seeing my review, I'd be happy to pull my review and read the book again.
Christine wrote: "Your reasoning is flawed - reviews are subjective ..."My reasoning is flawed because reviews are subjective? That's exactly what I meant by stating that "the review comes across as less about the book and more about the reviewer". I just don't value subjectivism in reviews as much as you do.
D.J. wrote: "...I really don't appreciate your tone Christine. It's fine to disagree, but please try to be more constructive in the way you present your comments." Your lack of appreciation of my comments is probably because I disagree with your conclusion that 1* reviews are not useful unless they cover your very specific criteria as stated in your post (below).
I still disagree but I can reword my comment if that will help. A review reflects the opinion of the reviewer. That opinion is subjective and the reviewer's reasons and rating do not have to meet anyone's criteria or approval.
Your post #33: "...The exceptions would be the rare cases where a review can point out that the book either was poorly edited, or that the content was vulgar and offensive. This is helpful. But most 1 star reviews don't give very good reasons for rating a book that low."
Your edited comment #48 states "...I just don't value subjective reviews as much as you do..."
If you don't value subjective reviews - what do you value, biased or dishonest reviews. I have difficulty with authors who feel they can outline what a review has to be in order to be of any use. Reviews are written for other readers, NOT authors.
Reviews are the honest opinion of the reader and the books are rated and reviewed for the benefit of other readers - NOT authors. If authors want constructive criticism - hire an editor.
(For Linda - guess we were writing away at the same time - thanks for the boost)
I'm really struggling with this now. I committed to reviewing a book, and I thought it was horrible. Problem is, the author is a 17 year old. Her story showed some promise, nothing revolutionary, very banal voice, etc... But I don't want to crush her. With some technique and firm editing, it could be an okay read. With the right education, she could become a successful writer. She certainly has something I didn't at her age, the knowledge that she wants to write and the guts to put her work out there. I don't want to take that away from her with a crappy 1 star review. On the other hand most of her reviews have bee 4 and 5 stars. So maybe I'm crazy, but if plot, tension, POV, and originality matter I am on the money.
So do I give her 3 stars with the editing needed, which has been done and might fall on deaf ears? Or the 4/5 star, "great job young lady" which will compel her to keep writing works that will never be published. Or the 1/2 stars which her work deserves, and might compel her to learn a bit more before attaching her name to something unworthy of her talents?
I think I answered my own question.
Melissa wrote: "Or the 1/2 stars which her work deserves, and might compel her to learn a bit more before attaching her name to something unworthy of her talents?I think I answered my own question. "
Yep, you did.
You won't "crush" her if you approach it with polite honesty and let her know that while it's far from perfect now, she has what it takes to become successful later. But at 17, she definitely has room for improvement and maturing (everyone has!). I think lavishing her with undeserved praise would only contribute to make her one of those fragile-ego authors who won't be able to stomach criticism, and will throw a tantrum every time something doesn't go their way. Which will happen if she decides to try the road of traditional publishing. (You said she "put her work out there", so can I assume she's self-published?)
D.J. wrote: "I have never rated a book 1 star. There are a couple of books I could have rated as 1 star, but those are books I did not finish and I just don't feel that it's worth it to spend any more time on a..."Hello D.J. :)
When I award a 1* review as I did with my very last review, a couple of days ago. I commended the author for the 'good' within their story/book but because of what I consider to be a rather large error, I couldn't finish the book and clearly stated the reason for it. I'm assuming from your comment that this would be 'fair' by your standards?
I understand from your comment that you think, generally speaking, that most 1* reviews show a bias by the reviewer, e.g. there's too much vulgarity or violence in the book and it wasn't their cup-of-tea. So for that reason, you don't value their particular review.
I would think that even with such a review you could still glean or garner a little useful information from it because after all the reviewer is still letting it be known that there is some violence or vulgarity in the book, that at least would be helpful to potential readers of the author's book, no?
Melissa wrote: "I'm really struggling with this now. I committed to reviewing a book, and I thought it was horrible. Problem is, the author is a 17 year old. Her story showed some promise, nothing revolutionary, v..."I think Yzabel has it right. A 17 yr old should NEVER think she's got writing a novel figured out. And if she does, she needs to be treated like any author. Plus, as many others pointed out, reviews are for other readers, not for the author. I would do as you suggested and give it the lower star review but explain that she has talent and, with practice and work, will become a great writer.
(I speak from experience here--I was once a 15-yr-old writer, and, though I didn't try to publish--just showed it to others--I got the feedback that my work was really good FOR MY AGE, and that I should keep working at it. That didn't crush me; it encouraged me.)
Linda wrote: "Same here, except that I did send my million-miles-away-from-being-ready manuscript out to publishers. They all rejected it. ;-)Hm. Did this contribute to your unusually resilient skin? ;-)
Rejections and sharp cricitism won't stop a serious writer. They might, however, stop a talentless hack who shouldn't be publishing anyway. ;-)"
There's truth to that. However, I wouldn't go so far as to say that rejection wouldn't stop every serious writer or that everyone it does stop is a talentless hack. Tact certainly has its place in criticism. It wouldn't benefit society if we gave every young writer the impression that s/he is worthless. Rather better might be the truth including that point in the "write" direction that s/he has to cultivate his/her talent.
V.K. wrote: "Linda wrote: "Same here, except that I did send my million-miles-away-from-being-ready manuscript out to publishers. They all rejected it. ;-)Hm. Did this contribute to your unusually resilient s..."
Just have to say as a writer, I agree with V.K. if a person actually finished and published a book, even an e-book, they have achieved greatness already. To the person receiving one star, they should never give up on their dreams but may have a lot of cultivating to do. I find every book I write, (I have three unpublished) is just back story for the next. We all have a passion to write, therefore, a one star won't stop a passionate writer, though it does hurt. Don't give a one star rating for vulgarity or because you don't like their genre or writing style. one persons poison could be another's tea.
An example is an extremely long novel I wrote, which has great characters and too many little rabbit trails. I wouldn't recommend it to most people, but inside it are many great ideas, tied together in a really long tale. if you finished it, you might get the epic picture I had in my mind, but on the other hands, you might gouge your eyes out. I still love the story and the passion and the characters, but it was an exercise in creativity for me. I would accept a one star rating for that book and want to know who you were so I could congratulate you for reading it. That 17 year old may well be a best seller some day, and thank you to the one star reviewer for finishing the review.
Hope this helped.Chris Bieniek
Melissa wrote: "I'm really struggling with this now. I committed to reviewing a book, and I thought it was horrible. Problem is, the author is a 17 year old. Her story showed some promise, nothing revolutionary, v..."Give her 2 stars, commend her for completing what only 2% of people actually accomplish (writing and finishing a book) Give her just one piece of helpful advice and move on. What do you think?
Personally, I wish readers would just go ahead and review books they didn’t like. We authors are like celebrities (granted, not usually as “pretty” or famous!): when we put our work out there, we’d better expect people to critique our hairstyles—I mean, writing styles, our opening lines, whether or not our characters are freakishly annoying. If we are lame writers, then it’s not fair to other readers to let us pretend we aren’t just so a reader doesn’t hurt our feelings.
If you can’t finish a book because it’s so bad—all grammar rules are ignored, misspellings on every page, immature writing--I want to know! I don’t want to pick that book up and have to find that out for myself the hard way. That’s what I read reviews for—to let me know that sort of thing.
Everyone has a different idea of what a good book is. If you think a book is terrible, I want to know why. Otherwise, all I’ll see are the glowing reviews of “I loved this!” and I’ll end up wasting my time on a book that I never should’ve picked up. I like to read the good AND bad reviews to give me a better picture of whether or not I'll find a particular book enjoyable.
Does this make sense to anyone? Do you review books you think are awful? Why do you or don’t you?