Yay, me.
I’ve
worked hard on typing up reviews for everything I read and a few that I can’t
even finish. I put in quotes from the work to support my critique. I think I’ve
learned a lot about writing from doing this and sometimes I can see why a book fails for me. I only read
genres I like. I’m not tossing out one star reviews for things I don’t have a
taste for. That’d be mean.
But
it is a personal thing. I am more
likely to be critical of a book where the character expresses behaviour I don’t
agree with. I saw a title on Bookbub this week where the author had got the
racism right upfront in the book summary. Ewww.
One
time, giving a one star rating and a long review that listed just why it was so
awful attracted the attention of a sock puppet who then argued with me and gave
ALL my works one stars in retaliation. What a dick. [Don’t sock puppet your
readers. Don’t be a dick.]
Goodreads
has a star rating system. According to the site, the stars have the following
values:
- 1 star - I did not like it
- 2 stars - it was OK
- 3 stars - I liked it
- 4 stars - I really liked it
- 5 stars - it was amazing.
There
is one negative star. Four positive to one negative, if you want to look at it
that way. I don’t give everything five stars either; that’d be equally pointless.
My average rating is 3.39. I really hate the idea that you should be nice just because
someone published a book. But what’s making me think about this is recently
I’ve heard the same message from several different sources.
*
Rachel Abbot says never give negative reviews because you always seem to run
into those authors at book conferences, or trade meetings. She was talking to Joanna
Penn in a video interview and she agreed.
*
Dean Wesley Smith argues that every book critic is a failed writer. They turn
their inability to finish and publish successfully into criticising others.
*
Austin Kleon’s rule #8 was: be nice, the world is a small town.
*
There was an article in the Guardian from an anon who had tried to write two
books and had given up. In their letter they badmouthed female British literary
writers. The next week’s opinion piece told them off for it, said the writer community
supports each other, and pointed out two books was nothing. They called the
anon a quitter not a failed author, and suggested they’d need a tougher hide if
they really wanted to succeed. True that.
High
level book reviewers get free advance review copies, publish their reviews on their
own sites and (hopefully) earn some kind of return on their investment. I’d do
it for free books! If I somehow managed to get through my ‘to be read’ pile
first. But being a book reviewer isn’t my
dream. I want to be an author.
So,
maybe the issue is that if I want to be an author I can’t be a book reviewer as
well? It’s like having a foot in both camps. There are a few people I follow on
GR who do this but they’re in the early days of their writing career when the
people listed above are all past that stage.
Plus,
now Amazon owns GR, it is starting to send you a direct email with parts taken
out of the reviews from people you follow for a book you just completed
yourself. First off, I don’t understand this. I’ve finished the book. Why are
you sending me other people’s views on it? I already saw them when I posted the
review. Are we supposed to discuss it amongst ourselves? I don’t know that I want
my reviews sent right to others. Some I even untick the twitter box so it doesn’t
go out publicly.
I
have always said that GR is for readers,
but I also use GR as my ‘books I own’ record system; a failsafe so I don’t duplicate
purchases. I am especially hopeless at updated covers; I see them as a new
book. I can look up GR on my phone at a second hand sale and avoid that. My other
book database is about to go offline and I’m looking for a replacement but not
having a lot of luck so far.
I’d better keep looking.
Links:
Rachel Abbott - how to sell two million books
Dean Wesley Smith - the Essentials workshop week 2
Austin Kleon Steal like an Artist
The Guardian - you're a quitter
No comments:
Post a Comment