Do you give honest bad reviews?

I don't review on Amazon. I do on other sites.

I try to be honest, not brutally honest, but politely honest. I treat my reviews like I used to treat my students. (Former science teacher here.)

I learned this way...

I had a mother coming in to see me, a stormtrooper of a mom. Now her daughter wasn't doing homework, was often absent, and had a difficult time understanding even the most basic science concepts. Her mother was a long-time excuse-maker and was 'working her way through the school.' She'd torn apart the English teacher for 'being too young and not knowing a thing about English.' She stomped all over the math teacher for 'teaching things the wrong way.' And even the gentle SS teacher got a tongue-lashing for being 'too liberal.' My turn next...

As soon as the woman sat down I said: 'I just want to say that your daughter is a delight in class. Perfect manners. Always willing to help out another student.' From that point on, the woman was mine. I could do no wrong and the girl started doing her homework, grades improved, etc.

Reviews I approach the same way, be honest but be nice. You can be both. You won't win over everyone, but if you point out a good thing or two: great descriptive voice, dialogue very genuine, etc., then you can proceed to point out the weaknesses in the book. Maybe the writer will still hate you, think you're a jerk and have no idea what constitutes a good, or even readable book, but you'll also give them something to think about. Because if I can find something good about the book - Great cover! Great idea! - then maybe they'll go back and look it over with a more self-critical eye.

I did this once with a (self-published) book which the writer had researched to the umpteenth degree. Her knowledge of a city's past, its leaders, its place in history - spot on. But the writing was poor and the characters sort of wandered through the pages not doing ... very much. I actually got a thanks from that writer and a, 'got a little more work to do before I write another.'

Anyhow, that's my approach. Works. Sometimes.

Yes, to what Jaksen said. A little positive information really helps smooth the way for constructive criticism.

But I'll only go that far when 1) I see moments worth reading, some spark of originality to balance the flaws, and 2) the writer doesn't appear to be batshit crazy. Yes, I do look up authors on social media, before I consider reviewing their work. Starting with their blogs or Amazon/GR/Smashwords page. I've learned to look for unprofessional behavior, long and pointless bios, resistance to criticism, and other hints that tell me I might be opening a cesspool if I review. That may take me as little as thirty seconds online.

I don't enjoy writing negative reviews, because I don't like putting effort into something I didn't like. That said, I think it's absolutely fine for people to write negative reviews if they are moved to do so.

Generally speaking, I only write book reviews for books that I've loved.

shadowwalker said:

I would definitely review a book that was so bad I couldn't finish it. I would say that I couldn't finish it and why. That, to me, would be the most useful review to read. Frankly, writing a review of any sort could be seen as a waste of time, but if you've spent time reading and are the sort to write a review, why shouldn't other readers know if you didn't like a book as much as if you did?

Click to expand...

I rarely write reviews, but I did for this reason. I just couldn't stand the book to the point of not bothering to finish it. If it's that bad, I would like to know so I don't waste my money.

Sometimes, sometimes.

I usually take a look at the other reviews the book has received. If the book has already received several negative reviews then I generally won't add another. There is no point in adding more misery for the author if there is already enough information for readers to know what they are getting.

If I do write a negative review then it is usually a balanced "on the one hand/ on the other hand" review. You might like this if you like A, B and C. That sort of thing.

I will sometimes write a more negative review if I didn't like it and it's a relatively famous book or if it seems to have a host of friends and family five star ratings.

The worst book I ever read was so awful that I didn't need to leave a bad review. One glance at the "look inside" feature ought to be enough to tell anyone what they are getting. Not to mention the spelling and grammar mistakes in the first paragraph of the blurb.

Filigree said:

Yes, to what Jaksen said. A little positive information really helps smooth the way for constructive criticism.

Click to expand...

But we're not talking about constructive criticism. The book is already out there. It's done (well, unless it's one of those authors who thinks they can edit and revise umpteen thousand times after publishing). Reviews are not written to help the author - they're written to help the reader. I'm all for helpful and supportive and constructive while the book is being written - but if it's already out there, I'm assuming the author thought it was good enough.

jaksen said:

Reviews I approach the same way, be honest but be nice. You can be both. You won't win over everyone, but if you point out a good thing or two: great descriptive voice, dialogue very genuine, etc., then you can proceed to point out the weaknesses in the book. Maybe the writer will still hate you, think you're a jerk and have no idea what constitutes a good, or even readable book, but you'll also give them something to think about. Because if I can find something good about the book - Great cover! Great idea! - then maybe they'll go back and look it over with a more self-critical eye.

Click to expand...

What does winning anyone over have to do with it? It isn't a classroom, the book has already been written and published, and if you're trying to win anyone over, your doing no one any favors. Great cover! Great idea! Seriously? Whether reader or the writer, who cares?

Self-published books and writers might be different, I don't know, but as a published mainstream writer, that approach by a reviewer just leaves me cold. It's like having mommy review the book.

My problem with reviews in general is that too many reviewers think reviews matter, that they make a difference. They really don't. A book flops completely, or succeeds wildly, despite reviews. One of the bestselling novels of all time, The Bridges of Madison County, also holds the record for most negative reviews, and fewest good reviews.

Nothing is as pointless as a negative review. Writers don't care, and readers pay no attention to them at all, unless they've already read the book and agree with the reviewer.

Readers pay attention to what other readers say, not to what reviewers say. But at least positive reviews draw just a bit of attention, and can start word of mouth on a good path.

And any writer who pays attention to what reviewers say, good or bad, is simply harming his career. Why only review that matters is the one you get from a fan. Everything else, good review or bad, is just blown smoke, one person's opinion.

There is no such thing as a writer who please everyone. Or anywhere near everyone. So paying attention to what any one person says, good or bad, is nuts.

Jamesaritchie said:

My problem with reviews in general is that too many reviewers think reviews matter, that they make a difference. They really don't. A book flops completely, or succeeds wildly, despite reviews. One of the bestselling novels of all time, The Bridges of Madison County, also holds the record for most negative reviews, and fewest good reviews.

Click to expand...

I think I have figured out why you keep going on rants about how reviews are worthless and nobody pays attention to reviewers. You are talking about professional book reviews.

I think you're still wrong about nobody paying attention to them, but for the most part, we are talking about amateur reviews by readers on places like Amazon and Goodreads.

Nobody reviews a book on Goodreads or their blog because they are trying to impact sales. (Or if they are, they're delusional.) Nor does anyone rational think that everyone is going to agree with them about their opinion of a book.

People read (and write) book reviews because they find them entertaining, because they like talking about books, because they are curious what other people think about a book they read. And maybe occasionally because they want to warn people "Hey, this book really sucks!" (Though much more often it's "Hey, this book is awesome!")

On these social networking sites, people are generally reading reviews by people whose opinions are similar to theirs, or who at least write interestingly. But in a lot of ways, it really is like reading the product reviews of anything else before you buy it.

(Books, though, are different in that because tastes are so subjective, it's not uncommon for people to decide they are interested in a book for the very reason that another reviewer hated it, or vice versa. And 1-star reviews and 5-star reviews alike can be entertaining and interesting regardless of how closely they align with your own opinion.)

If there is a book that looks kind of interesting to me but I don't know if I want to add it to my TBR list, I will go read the Amazon and Goodreads reviews. Obviously no one person is going to tell me whether or not I should read it, but I can certainly read a bunch of reviews and get the gist of whether or not the book is likely to appeal to me. Likewise, my Goodreads friends have often recommended a book whose review convinced me that I wanted to read it.

I know people have decided to read or not read books because of my reviews, because they say so. That is not my aim, per se - I don't keep a scorecard or cackle at the thought of costing some bad writer a whopping five sales. I am just sharing my opinion on books with people who like sharing opinions on books.

I do the same thing with movies and boardgames. I doubt my review of Interstellar affected Paramount's bottom line, and as with books, as you pointed out, it's unlikely any movie actually tanks or succeeds because of reviews. Even if all the professional movie reviewers are unanimous in their praise or condemnation of a movie, it's questionable how much that affects the box office.

So what? Reviews serve a purpose to those who read them.

You may find them useless, and that's fine. Other people who are not you, however, may indeed find value in writing and reading reviews, positive or negative.

I don't leave negative reviews anymore. I've realized that my unique brand of "verbose," "snarky," and "merciless" causes me to sucker-punch every writer I read in the ovaries. It's better if I just... don't.

If I were a reader instead of a writer, I would. I would review the shit out of everything. I feel frustrated by the low-quality books in my genre. Poor editing, cliche plots, low-quality prose. I'm sick of having to research each book -- plus the author -- before buying.

I appreciate those of you who leave negative reviews. You're doing a community service. But I'd decided it's best if I don't. I'd rather not make enemies.

Now I do like to read a bit of professional criticism from time to time. The critics I like to read are great writers themselves. A studied dissection and one-sided discussion of a book I've loved (or hated) is, for me, a valuable sidecar experience to the book itself.

Certainly it's a different tier of reaction than reader responses, but I don't discount it as pointless. I've definitely read books specifically because of a professional review.

I just ran across a Q&A yesterday with Dwight Garner, a reviewer whose work I enjoy. He talks about negative criticism a bit.

Like a few others here, I only review books that I finish. If something is bad (in my opinion), I stop reading. Life is too short and my to-read list too long for any other approach.

Yes, I will a leave a 2 star rating on Goodreads and I started reviewing everything I read as of October. However, if I truly thing it's that bad, there will be an attached review going through what I liked and didn't like and what ultimately bothered me. Usually, those two star reviews are books where I see the potential merit, but I ultimately found them grating and spent the entire book waiting for it to be over. I let people know that in my review. Also because I'm a softy, even if I don't like something, I will still search to compliment something I did like about it.

I've only given one book a 1 star review. That was because it broke my soul. I couldn't read for months after that.

I almost never post reviews on Amazon or GR because I am a professional reviewer. It would just feel weird. But I do read and appreciate the candor of those reviews. I use them and samples to decide what to buy, and because I'm stingy and picky, those decisions take a while. I've never bought anything I hated enough to give it a one-star review.

Pro reviewers typically make an effort to be positive and polite and damn with faint praise for many reasons. With the volume of books being published each month, there's really no point in calling attention to any book just to bash it. (One exception would be an awful effort from a well-loved, acclaimed, or best-selling author.) The only real function of most pro reviews is to let folks know a book exists. Who cares that an unheralded debut novelist's book really sucks? Better not to call attention to it.

Pro movie reviews are a whole different deal, because far, far fewer movies are released than books (it's an even wider gap if you're talking about a "wide" release to theaters in Podunk areas like mine). On any given weekend, people's moviegoing options are limited (well, assuming they go to theaters, which is increasingly rare). They may not be terribly influenced by reviews, but I think they appreciate them. Some people like to read a vicious pan of a film they never intended to see, a pan that would be far too cruel if you aimed it at an unknown author.

For all these reasons, I do get some reader feedback on movie reviews. On book reviews? Zero, zilch, nada, unless it's the author thanking me. I doubt many people read them. But while they're skimming the paper, they may see the book cover and title, and that right there is free publicity.

I leave negative reviews on Goodreads not for the benefit of other readers, but for myself. I don't have a great memory for names or titles, so I use my own Goodreads reviews as a tool for selecting future reading... and I need the reviews to remind myself of what I liked or didn't like about a book so I can decide whether to read something else by the same author. Just a star rating wouldn't really do that for me, because, for example, a two-star rating would generally mean I shouldn't read something else, but sometimes my comment might be along the lines of: "I just couldn't connect to the characters. The writing was lovely, and I'd like to read more of this author, but this one just didn't work for me."

The only time I don't leave stars or reviews is for work in my genre, unless I can honestly gush about it. We're a pretty small group and it's hard to know who I'll run into. Before I had this policy I left a three star review for a book (which is a pretty high rating, for me) with an explanation of what had worked and what didn't work, and it got back to me that the author was REALLY offended and was complaining about me to others. Which is petty school yard shit that I don't really care about, but the author is fairly well-connected and 'popular' with readers and I don't need the drama. So now, if I love a book in my genre, I leave a rating and review. Otherwise, I just mark them as 'read'.

I never review a book I haven't finished; since I don't finish books I dislike, this means I don't leave many bad reviews. I think the one exception on GoodReads is a book that was pretty good right up to a total-collapse-into-fail ending. It was a well-rated book by a well-known author, so I didn't feel bad about the one-star. Even so, in retrospect, it merited at least two stars for the rest of the book.

Bad endings, though -- they equal a bad last impression. All of us, beware!

I don't buy or not buy books based on reviews. I read reviews for entertainment, choosing review writers who write well themselves and who have instructive or amusing (or both) reactions to what they've read.

I buy a book (or put it back) based on my own reading of the opening and random spots toward the middle, where they're available. The voice of the author/narrator is the critical factor, I find, and if that's not quickly evident, the book's probably a no for that reason alone.

Since becoming the recipient of reviews myself, some thrilling, some not so much, I've become sensitive to the effect a one-star can have on overall ratings for those of us without legions of fans (many of whom will rate a book 5-stars months before publication -- see Patrick Rothfuss's remark that time-travelers must be his biggest fans.) The fewer reviews a book has, the more that one-star is likely to smart.

I've decided that slapping the flank of a whale probably won't bother it much, whereas an equivalent slap to a midge, splat. Since my karma quotient already takes enough of a beating from my rage against bad drivers, I've decided to leave the midges alone. Naturally, your karma quotient will vary.

A few reviewers, in these days of social media, HAVE become all about themselves and their "like" numbers and their positions on the reviewer charts, not about the books. These reviewers I avoid; their invective may be amusing, but it leaves a bad taste in the mouth after a while.

But in the end, the no-review on not-finished books rule does keep my reviews positive.

I like it that way. Again, my personal take on the matter. As long as you leave the sticks and stones (and Uzis) on the ground and just throw your words, love or hate as you will.

Bonus question: All five-star ratings? I assume only your family and friends (and perhaps hirelings) have reviewed you. The greatest books ever written (hence widely reviewed) have other than five-star ratings.

I can't figure out a way to say this without it sounding like a humble-brag, but... with the understanding that my books are in a niche market and don't get that many reviews, and that the first people reading the books are probably fans who are predisposed to like my style, etc...

I actually find myself anxiously hoping for the first three or four star reviews on Amazon, b/c threads like this one make me aware that people seeing my books with all five star reviews are probably suspicious!

Generally, if I see a book with all five-star reviews, I click on the reviewers and see what ELSE they're reviewing and how they're rating things. Still not foolproof, but it helps.

All of this, obviously, applies to the books with not-that-many reviews. For the ones with hundreds or thousands, I can usually find a good representation in the comments.

If people won't give negative reviews, or won't state why they couldn't finish a particular book, then what good are reviews at all? All they become is a cheering section for the author - all books are wonderful reads! So no, I don't pay attention to reviews because so many 'reviewers' are afraid of hurting the author's feelings or 'discouraging' them.

When I give a four or five-star review, I don't just gush. I go into why the book worked for me, often to the extent of 1500 words of blog-copy.

If I'm the only person who thought a book sucked dead green bunnies through a straw, and all the other reviewers adored it, I'm going to assume that those reviews are from 1) friends and family or 2) fangirls.
Neither group is going to be objective in responding to my negative review. I already have plenty of online opportunities for flamewars that are much more worthwhile battles.

I don't get paid for my reviews. I have no overwhelming responsibility to the 'greater good' to review everything I read. Thanks to sample texts and speedreading, I seldom buy or borrow anything I'm not already disposed to like.

ETA: I actually don't care if I discourage a fragile author or not; if they could be swayed by something as ultimately minor as my opinion, then maybe publishing isn't really their thing. I just realistically look at my time and effort. I'll certainly consider pulling my punches if the (bad) writing is obviously therapy writing done by someone recovering from an event or illness. My crit wouldn't help them at all, so there's no point in treating the work as if it was not therapy writing.

There's a world of difference between a string of generic, uninformative five-star reviews ("A thrilling page turner!" "Pitch-perfect!" "Best thing since Stephen King!") and a string of five-star reviews by real, analytical writers who can give you a sense of the book's voice and flavor.

In my experience, the best critics tend to lean toward three-to-four-star reviews (which is why I look at those first), because they're, well, critical. Even when they love something, they have issues. Still, there's no rule that says you can't write a substantial five-star review. When judging reviews themselves, I look at prose and level of analysis, not the rating. Do they say things like "I hate these characters" with no examples to back them up, just a bunch of funny GIFs? Or do they analyze what the author was seemingly trying to do with the characters and why it didn't work? I can very quickly tell whether the reviewer is someone who reads similarly to how I do. Which doesn't mean we'll agree on everything, but does mean I'd take their five-star review seriously.

Well I don't review anything on goodreads. If I give a bad review, I'll give actual in depth reasons related to the book on a blog. And of course, avoid useless star ratings.

Jamesaritchie said:

The truth is also that bad reviews are meaningless. They don't do any good, they don't even really make anyone not buy the book.

Good reviews do help people, and also mean you don't have to spend a minute reading a book you hate.

Click to expand...

As someone who has written for publication good, middling, bad and flat-out abysmal reviews of films, music and books, I can state as fact that bad reviews are most certainly meaningful.

A review--positive or negative--is simply an opinion and opinions are subjective. Depending on the depth of the thought put into the critique, even a bad review can be enlightening if it points out the cracks in the foundation.

What can anybody learn from nothing but "attaboys" and "way to go?" Praise is great for positive affirmation, but after the ego stroke what good is it? Reasoned and constructive criticism is valuable because it isn't an echo.

Good reviews have merit when they can single out an underrated and underappreciated talent and bad reviews are equally worthwhile when they slag a lazy and uninspired bit of product by a hack.

The suggestion only good reviews should be bothered with is laughable to me. Nobody is above criticism and certainly no one who wants to extract money from my wallet in exchange for their art.

If you only post positive reviews you're not really a reviewer you are a promoter. Something that bloggers have been accused of being a lot. (Especially by professional reviewers, for some reason...) That is your choice of course, but to me that destroys the integrity of any review done by the reviewer who only does positive reviews.

I review books on my blog. (Although I've had a break due to things happening in real life.) I am someone who will always finish a book, so I have done some negative reviews, and I know that has led to people not getting the book. My blog is a small one, and I know most of the regular readers of it from social networks online so I get a lot of feedback as to how my reviews effect many of the people reading them. I can say that I have without a doubt helped sell more books than I have stopped people from buying books.

When it comes to Amazon and Goodreads I think the cummulative star rating and Amazon's "also bought" feature have a bigger impact than the reviews themselves. But that is pure guesswork, and without Amazon making all their data public I think that is all we have to go by.
The studies I have seen suggest that books are more likely bought by recommendations from friends than anything else, and that bookshop dicoveries is still more important than any one thing happening online.

I think it is bad form to review a book you don't finish.

If you finish it, then give it the appropriate number of stars and a brief description of why. Ratings with no review are absolutely no help to anyone looking to purchase a book.

Of course, I think an individual's answer depends on whether they believe the ratings/review system is in place for writers or readers.