The Extra Cool Group! (of people Michael is experimenting on) discussion
Pertaining to the project
>
Reviews: What do you review? Every book you read? Just some?
date
newest »
newest »
"ho-hum" is slang for "mediocre" or "boring".
Thanks, Brainycat! I meant to respond earlier, but work interrupted.
Yeah, that happens even to the best of us.
Nancy wrote: "Thanks, Brainycat! I meant to respond earlier, but work interrupted."Heh when i thought i was starting to get slang like that :)
You learn new things everyday is not only a clichè.
Kathryn wrote: "I want to write reviews for every book I read but I tend to get behind, especially if I feel a book needs to sit for a bit before reviewing..."I sometimes need to let a book marinate awhile before reviewing, especially if it was really good and moved me a lot. But, then when I get to doing the review, I often forget details I need. Sometimes I need to re-read it for content instead of just pleasure. But then there is the too may books... problem. [sigh]
I have to jot down notes, fold over page corners in the book I'm reading, so I don't forget to include things in my review...
That makes it sound like homework :P
haha, no...or if it is, it's homework I enjoy ;-)
I've started reviewing everything I read now, and only so I can crystallize what I think of a book for myself. It's actually quite therapeutic in a way.
I can't review every book I read. Don't have the time, unfortunately. But if I rate a book now, I review it. No more slapping a number up there without some feedback.
I've been reviewing every book I've read since I joined in January 2008. I review books I like and books I don't like. If I definitively decide not to finish a book, I put it on an exclusive shelf for unfinished books and write a little review stating why I didn't finish. Reader reviews really help me when deciding if I want to read a book, especially if they're neutral or negative. Those reviews are actually more informative than the gushing "This was the best book EVAH!!!!!" reviews. I try to write the kind of reviews I would find useful if I were trying to decide on a book.
Sandi wrote: "I've been reviewing every book I've read since I joined in January 2008."*Awe* Such discipline!
I haven't gone back and reviewed books from the past, but I'm trying to review every new book I read (or re-read). I do find myself beginning to write my review in my head as I'm still reading the book. I also tend to make notes, or pre-write parts of reviews, just in case I forget something later. I'm a horribly slow reader sometimes and it might take me a month or two to get through a book, depending on how busy or hectic life is at that moment. If I found a particular passage interesting a month ago, I probably won't remember the point I wanted to bring up later when I actually write a review.
I review each book I read, but I seldom finish books I don't like and almost never review the ones I abandon. That's why my average review rating is as high as it is, somewhere between four and five stars. A writer has to really piss me off to get a bad review, because I always wonder whether they're really that bad or it's just me that finds them (or at least that book) disgusting.
James wrote: "A writer has to really piss me off to get a bad review, because I always wonder whether they're really that bad or it's just me that finds them (or at least that book) disgusting. "I never mind writing reviews of crap books, but I don't list or review books of authors I 'look after' on the island. I have had two GR authors that I knew through various groups ask me to review their books 'honestly' but both complained bitterly when I did so and one asked Amazon to delete my review (which it duly did). The complaints I got were of the nature that they were trying to sell their/their husband's books and as self-published authors they needed all the help they could get. They should both have been more specific and honest and said, "please can you write a puff piece and give it 5-stars as a favour, you needn't bother reading it".
". . . two GR authors that I knew through various groups ask me to review their books 'honestly' but both complained bitterly when I did so . . ."I've had this problem, too. One guy, who seemed perfectly nice, sent me a copy of his book, asking me to review it honestly. I warned him that in college, most people didn't appreciate my critiques, which tended to start with the first sentence.
I got the book and gave it a try, but quickly realized that an attempt to correct and critique the book on my part would have proven longer than the book, itself. Caught between honesty and decorum, I felt too awkward to say anything. Since then, I've done my best to defer such requests.
As for my reviewing habits, I try to add every book I remember having read and I review what I can. I don't reread books, so if I want to review something I haven't read in a while, I refresh myself with critical essays.
I'd like to write more reviews, but I end up scrapping a lot of what I start, either because I'm failing to get my point across or because I discover I simply don't have anything original to say. I'm also familiar with the period of rumination others have mentioned here, though sometimes things come more easily.
If I'm asked to review a book here on GR, I'll always do it honestly. BUT, if I don't feel I can give the author a good review, I email it to them & don't make anything public - not even reading the book. It's tough making it as an author & I don't think they need negative publicity unless they're real jerks. At least a dozen books I read this year fell into that hole. Some were good, but just not ready for prime time.
Jim wrote: "BUT, if I don't feel I can give the author a good review, I email it to them & don't make anything public - not even reading the book. It's tough making it as an author & I don't think they need negative publicity unless they're real jerks"Anyone who objects to an honest review they've requested is a real jerk.
I'm not sure that I would agree that negative publicity for a book is necessarily a bad thing. On this (or perhaps another thread in the group, I forget now) an author had requested a reviewer, whom he had asked to review his book, remove her review. The resultant argy-bargy went on for three pages and I bet I wasn't the only one who checked out the GR's page of the book - a book and author I would never otherwise have heard of. I think no publicity at all is far worse than negative. No publicity smacks of no interest or no readers or no interest.
The only times authors have asked me to write a review was a few years ago when I was a pretty active contributor on a liberal political blog called Bring It On! - I reviewed a couple of books there; the books were both very good (Young J. Edgar: Hoover, the Red Scare, and the Assault on Civil Liberties by Kenneth D. Ackerman and The Strange Death of Liberal America by Ralph Brauer) , and the authors were happy with my reviews. I don't know what would have happened if I'd panned them, but like others, if I thought they'd written a lousy book I'd have said so and specified why I didn't like it.
I've reviewed every book I've read since 2007. I find it helps me remember what I've read. If a book I read earlier comes up in discussion here, I sometimes review it if I have strong feelings about it.
Petra X wrote: "Anyone who objects to an honest review they've requested is a real jerk..."I disagree when it is an author's first book. Yes, any publicity is generally better than obscurity & I'll make it public if they want me to, but I won't slam them in public on their first one. Books are their art & new beginnings are fragile things.
On subsequent books, I agree with you. Just not on the first one.
I find that very difficult to get my head around. Made-up dialogue. Real book.
"Could you please review my first book?"
"I don't really like reviewing books of people I know because, nothing personal, if I am not thrilled with a book, I won't write that I am."
"Oh, I know that, I've checked out the stuff you've written. Review it for me, please?"
"Sure now?"
"Yeah, write what you really feel about the book."
"Ok."
The book was not good. I wrote a negative but not brutal review. I tried to play up the few good points it had. In retrospect, I suppose that could have been read as damning with faint praise though.
"Sorry you didn't like my book. I was really upset with that review?"
"You asked me for an honest review and said to write what I really thought of the book."
"I didn't mean you should write all that negative stuff. I thought you'd like the book."
"Sorry about that, I tried to put it positively."
"How am I ever going to interest anyone in the book with that review up? I'd be really really grateful if you would just amend it a bit, give it, say four stars, and just take out the negative bits."
"Well I can't do that, it wouldn't be honest."
"Ummm, look I'm sorry, it was my fault, I shouldn't have asked you in the first place, but I'm going to have to ask you to delete it. I hope you understand."
That isn't a jerk?
First, second, last. If you ask for an honest review from someone who reviews books fairly brutally and you want it deleted, you are a jerk. You want PR then join one of the author groups that are dedicated to reviewing and tagging each other's books "positively".
If they asked for a public review & then blew up when I posted it, yeah, they're a jerk. If they just ask for a review, it doesn't have to be public, at least in my mind. I don't think a newbie asking for a review in anything should be publicly crushed. Maybe it's seeing the kids try stuff that gives me that way of looking at it, I don't know. Maybe I'm just a sweetheart.
;-)
I don't know what a private review is. I've been asked what I thought of a book, my opinion, even in my editing days what the book needed, but I have never, ever been asked to give a private, written review. Therefore, I presumed, perhaps incorrectly, that this was all about written and posted public reviews. Ask for one of those and I give a true one and the author wants it removed, then they are a jerk in my books. If writing that makes me a bitch and I would need to fudge it, smudge it and sprinkle a bit of glitter on to be a sweetheart, well, sorry but I'm always in the camp of honesty. Its not like they didn't know what they were asking for...What has kids got to do it with it? When did the age of the author come up? As it happens with the two authors I am thinking of, one has grown-up kids and the other just had her 50th birthday.
As for your point of not crushing a newbie. Again, I say they knew what they were asking for. Is it any kinder to give someone a glowing review for encouragement's sake when the book is good for NaNoWriMo and nothing more? What will that encourage them in - to lay out $1,500 to self-publish? Best they stick to their day job and do some creative writing classes at night. Best they lay out some money on an editor. Best that if they asked for a review they realised that wasn't the same thing as asking for a compliment.
Petra X wrote: "I don't know what a private review is...."It's just one I'd email directly to the author without listing the book here, giving it a star rating & a public review.
Kids came up because I was thinking of some of the horrible stuff my kids brought to me. I wouldn't want to crush them by saying it looked like crap, especially in front of others. It was the best they could do at the time & they'd poured their heart into it. That doesn't mean I wasn't honest with them about it, it just means that there are ways to be honest without being hurtful.
I'm not familiar with the cases you're talking about, so have no opinion on them at all. I simply said how I gave reviews when asked & why I did it that way. Obviously, you feel differently.
I don't think newbies really do know what they are asking, at least not judging by some of the writing I've seen. I've known some that have paid for editing & still had a horrible document riddled with spelling & punctuation errors not to mention plot holes. They're sure they're ready to present their work of art to the world & it just seems rude to crush them publicly. Counter productive, as well. Some have had great ideas & just needed to polish more.
well, I think a review by definition is public.and I think when a book is published and goes out into the world it should get reviewed (one hopes!).
Most authors have waited a fair amount of time and have expended a certain amount of effort to get a book, especially a first one, published. And I agree that just about any review, even a negative one, generates publicity for the book. In fact, often a very bad review can lead one to wonder if the reviewer does not have an axe to grind and thus encourages readers to check the book out for themselves.
I agree with Petra. If an author asked her to review her book, and made it clear a puff piece wasn't what s/he was asking for, then that author was a jerk for then asking her to delete it.
I am an author, by the way.
I don't think newbies really do know what they are asking, at least not judging by some of the writing I've seen. I've known some that have paid for editing & still had a horrible document riddled with spelling & punctuation errors not to mention plot holes. They're sure they're ready to present their work of art to the world & it just seems rude to crush them publicly. Counter productive, as well. Some have had great ideas & just needed to polish more. Jim: are you talking about manuscripts or books? There's a big difference I think.
There's always be the option of telling the author, "Let me read it and tell you what I think are its strengths and any weaknesses that stand out, and if you want me to at that point, I'll be happy to post a review." It isn't offering to write a puff piece; it's offering to give an assessment possibly including constructive criticism offline, and giving the author the option to ask for a public review after that.I'm also an author, though of fairly specialized nonfiction, and that would be an offer I'd appreciate.
Jessica wrote: "Jim: are you talking about manuscripts or books? There's a big difference I think."I'd think there would be a big difference too, Jessica, but there wasn't as much as there should be. I was referring to published books; one from a vanity press where the author paid for editing & publishing, several were POD, but most were ebooks. All were complete with ISBN, though.
I thought the basic stories were good, but the books were rife with errors that should have been picked up by a decent editor. I'm not the best proof reader & I'm certainly no editor, so if I can spot many obvious mistakes, a book isn't ready to be shown to the public, so I felt the review shouldn't be either.
The upshot of my private reviews have been that two of the authors withdrew their books from sale & rewrote. Most just said, "Thanks!" & ignored me, so far as I know. One told me I was full of shit.
Jim wrote: "I don't think newbies really do know what they are asking, at least not judging by some of the writing I've seen. I've known some that have paid for editing & still had a horrible document riddled with spelling & punctuation errors not to mention plot holes. They're sure they're ready to present their work of art to the world & it just seems rude to crush them publicly. Counter productive, as well. Some have had great ideas & just needed to polish more."This whole discussion started off with James saying, "A writer has to really piss me off to get a bad review...
There was no mention of being a kid, of it being a private review to be mailed, of first time authors. I responded to that comment with my own ideas.
Then this whole thing seems to have its terms changed. A review is now a private appraisal to be mailed, an author is a first-time teenager...
I don't think that an appraisal is a review. And I think writing and publishing a piece of puffery full of compliments is going to do anything except make the reviewer feel good that he's made the kiddy first-time author feel good and, for a very, very short while, made the kiddy feel real good too. The kiddy author who has just spent a lot of money on having his/her book published will shortly find out from others what they really think... If it sells at all.
As far as these kiddy authors, or 'newbies' (is that now all first time authors?) not knowing what they are asking for in a review, well jolly ho, whose fault is that if they don't read reviews on Goodreads or Amazon? With the particular authors I had written about, I made sure that they both had read my reviews, were familiar with my style... But I stand by what I said, ask for a review to be posted in Goodreads or Amazon and send me a book, then request I remove the review because it wasn't the complimentary puff piece required then that author is a jerk. It may not make a me a sweetheart to have written it, but I refuse to be the one classified as a jerk for writing a true review.
To fall back on a cliche, (for the authors) if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
Petra X wrote: "This whole discussion started off with James saying, "A writer has to really piss me off to get a bad review..."I wasn't replying to anyone, just making an observation about how I do some reviews that I've been asked to do. It seems to fit into the topic's main question. I've explained the kid comment & I wasn't trying to change the terms, just mentioning how I've been asked for reviews for some books & how I handled them.
I didn't say these were kiddy authors, I said those I was referring to were new authors, AKA newbies. I never said that meant them all nor have I recommended this method to anyone nor should my comments be taken as a critique of anyone else's methods. I'm interested in how my friends on GR rate books, but I wouldn't dream of telling them how to do it.
IOW, I'm not asking you to change the way you do anything & I specifically said I had no opinion at all about it. I mentioned how I handled a certain situation that has come up a dozen times or so in the past year, so I thought it was relevant to this topic. I was asked to do reviews by some authors & did so, but I decided to do some privately. If you want to call them appraisals rather than reviews, feel free. The terms seem remarkably similar in this context to me.
I have written scathing reviews on occasion. If an author asked me to pull the review, I'm not sure what I'd do. Unless they could really show me where I was being unfair or untrue, I doubt I'd do it. I'd probably think they were an ass for asking, but I'll reserve judgement until or if it comes up.
I try to write a review for every book I read, but sometimes I just don't have anything to say that everyone else on the site hasn't already said so I just rate it any move on. I find this especially try of books I read before I joined the site.
I'll do a star rating on just about everything I read, but I tend to do a written review only if a) there aren't a lot of reviews about the book already and/or if I have something to add that I feel hasn't been covered a zillion times already, or b) I feel like the book went against my expectations in some way and the review acts as sort of a response to that.
Stage 1: What the (expletive) am I supposed to write about a book? And who's gonna give a (expletive) anyway?Stage 2: The first like appears...rising from the primordial soup to register in the rankings.
Stage 3: Attempts at humour and wit meet with encouragement.
Stage 4: One value of having friends is being able to recommend books no-one else has read. (Forgets to review book before recommending.)
Hell, I'm still learning.
It started out as just something fun and random. I reviewed a couple of books here and there, then told some personal stories on some of my favourite old books, but now I write a review of everything I read. It's a compulsion now. And I find myself reading the book with the review in mind. My recent review of Night of the Living Trekkies is a good example of that. I got the idea for the checklist about half way through, and then I started filling the checklist as I read. Terrible.
I know you don't understand me. It's one of the reasons you love me, Sam.
I try to review pretty religiously. I like to keep a record of my feelings and impressions of a book. It's interesting to see how my tastes change when I reread it later and it also helps to remind me of things when I'm having a discussion with someone later about the book. I am rereader, so eventually I will review most of the books I've kept. (which is a lot) I won't review a book that I haven't read recently because these reviews are recordings of my impressions. If it has been awhile my raw responses to events have faded. I usually just have a vague impression of whether I liked it or not. Sometimes it's vivid, but usually not.
I tend to review most of the books I read, even if it's just a one paragraph blurb for something that just didn't connect with me. Generally, the more I enjoyed a book, the more effort I'll put into convincing others to take the plunge.
I review books randomly here but I do keep a spreadsheet of the books I've read (authors, pages, start & finish, genre, year of publication and provenance (library, my bookshelves, etc.)) I pretty solidly crushed the ARC offerings a couple of years ago after I read some smashingly dull/stupid books and realized it was a ploy for free blog advertising. I find the reviews of books that aren't finished almost as helpful as the ones that are completely read. Actually, I'm a sucker for Lit Crit of all kinds.
Brian wrote: "I would like to eventually review every book I've read, but it takes time. I enjoy reviewing books because it forces me to think about what I really got out of the reading experience. It's now gott..."Ditto.
For me my reading style has always been way to fast. I am the 'reader' and the 'bookworm' and all of those labels. However years ago when reading LoTR for the first time with my husband I began to notice a difference in our reading styles. I had read all the 'books' before he had read the first (our book set has LoTR divided into six books). The difference was that he took notice of things. He could name the river that the characters where crossing, where I just had a vague idea that there was a river somewhere.
My goal this year has been to slow down and read. Reviewing the books makes me consider the book, what I got out of it, whether it was well written etc etc.
The Extra Cool Group! (of people Michael is...
Books mentioned in this topic
Night of the Living Trekkies (other topics)Young J. Edgar: Hoover, the Red Scare, and the Assault on Civil Liberties (other topics)
The Strange Death of Liberal America (other topics)
Authors mentioned in this topic
Kenneth D. Ackerman (other topics)Ralph Brauer (other topics)
Ho-hum books ? Does that mean the books you think are specially good ?