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?