Opinion ~ Reviews and Reviewing

Recently [sic], I became involved in a discussion on a facebook post about reviewing books. As usual, I proved once again why I shouldn't communicate without 30 editorial passes first.

It's an important topic, so let's try again ...

To start, an opinion about something personal is exactly that. I like carrots; my sister does not. Period. Neither of us is correct nor wrong. And, like any personal opinion about any personal preference, there is an enormous range of opinions on writing. I think one of the most popular writers in the world, Stephen King, is highly overrated. I just don't like his writing, his style, etc.

But I digress. What started that exchange on facebook was a post about a blog explaining why this person doesn't give less than three-star reviews and doesn't give books’ bad reviews, period.

This surprised me. It led to yet another incident of foot-in-mouth disease, as previously mentioned. Although I apologized for it and have worded it a little nicer, I still believe it to be true. I repeat it later in this opinion piece.

It was said that indie publishers lose their "livelihood" to one degree or another if given a bad review. It was said that no one would read a book rated, say, three stars or less. I have no idea if these are true, but I don't agree that they should be considered even if they are true.

If indie publishers never get feedback on what they are publishing, they will never grow, never improve, never increase their income.

While I will go to great pains to purchase a vacuum cleaner with a rating of four or five stars, that is an easily quantifiable entity. It sucks, or it doesn't. For something like a book, a matter of opinion, someone might give it a lower rating, and, obviously, as stated in the facebook discussion, someone else might love it. So why do I think it is so important to give reviews at all, even if they are deservedly bad, with only the rare exception?

First, it smacks of giving a child a trophy for just showing up. It is childish. It does not raise us as writers, or the craft of writing itself.

Second, I, as an author (unpublished newb or not), want to aim higher than that. I want to be better than that; I also want to bring my fellow authors up to be better writers.

Last is respect. Ignoring my foot-in-mouth disease, it shows a lack of respect to an author or anyone in a creative pursuit to not give an honest review, even a bad one. Either review books properly, or don't review them.

I have not reviewed books in my past. Now, as a writer, I think I should, just on principle. If only books/authors related to my writing. You-Tubers I watch, writers I learn from, and books I read because I became an author etc.

I have two trilogies and three other books (Meg LaTorre's The Cyborg Tinkerer, Jenna Moreci's The Savior's Champion, and Harry Bingham's Talking To The Dead ) to review. I will review them in the near future. Soon. Really.

One book I recently chose not to put on my list to be reviewed was so bad that I did not finish it. This is a special case, and as suggested on the facebook post, could be handled by an email to the author.

One other suggestion that has some merit is three stars for liked, four stars for loved it, and five stars for blown away. No written review. Simple. But I don't think it goes far enough. It ignores the works that need the most help, the ones with fewer than three stars. Again, how will an indie author improve if no one gives them feedback on their published works?

More than one person mentioned that beta readers, critique partners, etc., before publication is the time for critical reviews. I don't agree. The entire process needs feedback and critique, right up to and including what gets published.

The book I DNF was a very rough draft, yet it had been self-published. Almost every page had spelling errors, double words, and all too often, sentences that made little sense. An email to this author could be as simple as stating that. Adding perhaps: don't trust friends and family to be editors.

In fact, I speculated in my facebook post (to paraphrase) if being a well-known YouTuber with a large fan base hindered Meg LaTorre and Jenna Moreci from getting the editorial input they needed. Is going with traditional publishing and their brutal editors the only way to get the required tough love all of our writing requires?

Maybe. I have no first-hand experience with that part of the process. All the more reason to be honest, and yes, supportive, and to be a little mean if required when reviewing our fellow authors' work.

I would hope that people have enough respect for me, for my writing, to be honest with me and give reviews as they see fit. That is why I included my website on the facebook post. It would be hypocritical of me not to encourage reviews of my work.

ericcbaileyauthor.com

Yes, this is the short version.

Read Something: