Authors & Reviewers: What Do You Think of Reviewers Who Don't Post Negative Reviews?

[Stacy-Deanne]

Hi All,

Due to the behavior of certain authors lately, some reviewers only post positive book reviews. Do you agree with this? Do you think it's fair?

I must be honest, I read a lot of review blogs and I have a lot of respect for reviewers who have the guts to post honest reviews, no matter how negative they are. As long as they are respectful, I don't have a problem with that. I think reviewers should post negative and positive reviews of the books they receive. It's fine if they want to give the author an option whether they want the review posted if it's negative. I just don't think reviewers should flat out say, "I don't post negative reviews." Some reviewers say that if they don't like a book, they won't post a review. But since when does being a reviewer require you to like something? I thought reviewers were supposed to review books they've agreed to review whether they liked the book or not?

I hope this isn't the new way of reviewing. When I go to a reviewer's site and see a mixture of positives and negatives, I trust that reviewer a little more than a reviewer who only posts reviews of books they enjoyed. To me that's not really reviewing if you don't display a variety in the type of reviews you offer. I'd skip a review site in a minute if all I'm going to get are five-starred, "glowing eyed" reviews of books. How can readers take that seriously if the reviewer doesn't appear to not like anything? That's why I like sites like Dear Author. They are honest with their reviews and give you a sample of very good book reviews and very negative ones. That's how it should be if you're gonna review books fairly.

I remember one reviewer who said, "I post all reviews. If the authors don't like what I post, they shouldn't have sent me the book." Now that's a reviewer with some balls, LOL.

Just my opinion. What's yours?

Best Wishes!

http://www.stacy-deanne.net

[Tim Roux]

You reviewed two of my books - 'Girl on a Bar Stool' and 'Fishing, for Christians'. You seemed to quite like the first and clearly hated the second. Actually, as a writer, the hardest thing is to get people to comment negatively about a book. Those that like it will often say so; those that don't will usually keep quiet. So I, for one, really appreciate straightforward criticism either way. In general, most people really like 'Girl on a Bar Stool' and reactions to 'Fishing, for Christians' are very mixed - my wife hates it for starters! What amazes me is that you can get through quite so many books (and thank you for doing so).

[Linda]

You are a gem! I wish more authors had your heart. My worst experience as a blogger was with Christian author who not only attacked my review, but me as a Christian.

[Emma Kinna]

Well done pussreboots!

[Christy Pinheiro]

I don't post all my negative reviews, and I don't post reviews based on political books, because the responses are always ghastly no matter what you do.

I do post some. I'm an author myself, and the bad reviews do hurt, but they make me a better writer. I'm really thankful for them. If all you get is glowing praise and your book really sucks, then your "reviewers" (friends and family) really have done you a disservice.

Christy Pinheiro, EA ABA
www.stepbystepselfpublishing.net - Add your review blog to the author’s resource page

[Victoria Neely]

I've had a similar reaction. I'll scan through a list of glowing book reviews and wonder, "Does this reviewer really like EVERYTHING they read?" Because for my part, I've read a lot of books that I either disliked or felt indifferent about. But then I'm nitpicky. :)

[Anysia]

Most of my reviews are positive because I'm picky about what I'll pick up in the first place so I accept very few review copies. If I'm not convinced that I'm the target audience from the marketing/flap copy/first few pages then a book doesn't make it near my reading pile. I don't have the time to be adventurous in my reading tastes.

Usually if I'm not taken by a book I won't get very far into it ( less than 25 pages) and it won't get reviewed because it's not fair to review a book based on reading that little. The exceptions to that are books with technical issues (editing, etc.) that don't have to with content.

[Christy Pinheiro]

Anysia I totally agree. I think that authors (especially self-published authors like me) really need to hear it when their books are not up to snuff. It makes us better writers and teaches us a valuable lesson.

I've written "three star" reviews for a few books on Amazon based entirely on the editing issue, if it's bad enough to interfere with my reading. I just post the facts and try to keep any emotion out of the review.

[Laura gerold]

I try to post honest reviews of what I read no matter if it is positive or negative. These are the type of reviews that I like to read.

[chrisbookarama]

Most of my reviews are on the positive side because I have to have a really good reason to keep reading a stinker. Life is too short to read bad books. That doesn't mean that every great book doesn't have some negatives. Most of them do. I like to point out the positives and the flaws. And sometimes a really bad book *is* fun to read!

Christina

[Cheryl]

I post both positive and negative reviews. I feel the raders should be aware of what did or didn't work in a book before spending their time or money.

[Stormi Johnson]

If I didn't like the book I will say so, but I do it in a nice way. I know it hard to take harsh words from people, but some books just don't interest me like they do others. I have been fortunate to not have to many books that I have really not liked. I believer readers, publishers, agents, etc have to realise this.

[Emily Veinglory]

Reviews are for readers. If the authors aren't capable of understanding that, they don't need to send out review copies. All positive reviews sites don't generally have many readers and don't do anyone any good.