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

[Stacy-Deanne (Novelist)]

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

[Clark Isaacs]

Simply, why bother to be negative about a book. Only a few can get through the scheme of competition to sell. When I read a book for reviewing, I find that if the first 3 chapters do not hold me I caste it aside.

There is a lot of work and effort in writing a book, soon after attempting publication and sale the author gets the idea whether his book is good or not. It does not take a genius to say no way Jose! You should know by the sales. People seem to read reviews to know about the book and whether it fits within their likes or dislikes. With the cost of books as high as they are, readers are more apt to consider good books rather than waste their time on bad ones.

[Charity Gamble]

However, the issue here is, just because YOU don't like the book, does not mean that others won't. Look at the Harry Potter series. I have several friends who think it is complete and utter drivel, and I have a couple friends who absolutely adore the series.

This is also why there is a library. If they're not sure, they can check it out at the library. But for me, even if I don't like the book, I HAVE to review it because frankly, just because I didn't, doesn't mean one of my readers might not be intrigued and pick it up somewhere and love it.

[Rita Hestand]

Silence is golden. And certainly not a cowards way out. For reviewers are merely people, not Gods. They are an opinion.Negative reviews help no one, including the reviewer. How many authors would send their book to you if they realized you were often negative in your reviews? How much repeat business would you get.

By giving a negative review are you upping your status? Or is that the reason for the negative review in the fist place.

Again, silence is golden. You don't have to be silent to the author, you can honestly talk to them about the book. Especialy if you find there are problems with the book. In this way, you help the author see some of their own pitfalls.
However, blasting a negative review damages or could damage the author's reputation, is that what you seek? Are you such an authority? Or are you playing God because you can?
Silence is golden....

Blessings
Rita

[Charity Gamble]

The thing is, if the only reviews a book gets are positive ones, that isn't going to help anything. If no one ever posts negative reviews under the "silence is golden" rule, then frankly, it starts to look like the reviews are being paid for in some way.

A negative review is NOT going to damage an author's reputation because the negative review is YOUR opinion. Again, someone can read a negative review and still want to read the book. (I have, because MY tastes may not be YOUR tastes.)

I would think an author would want to send their books to a reviewer who would be honest about the book as opposed to someone who only posts positive reviews so as not to injure an author's ego.

[emperatrix]

I have posted a few negative reviews, though I find that I often don't bother reviewing books that I didn't enjoy reading. That said, I if I can't get into a book, I generally don't finish it; reviewing a book I didn't finish seems beside the point to me.

[Alyssa Kirk@Teens Read and Write]

I post positive and negative reviews but in either case I give specific reasons why I like or dislike a novel. Reading choices are so subjective and something that I dislike may be appealing to someone else. Sure it's hard to give a negative review if you feel some sort of obligation to an author but those are the breaks. Honesty is always the best policy, and you can always be tactful in your response.

I don't have a problem if a blogger only wants to post positive reviews as long as the review is honest. If a blogger decides to not review a book rather than give it a negative review, that's their preference. And the truth is that bloggers have complete say in how they run their blog.

[Katinka Hesselink]

On my blog I post reviews of books I can honestly recommend. There would hardly be a reason to recommend a book I don't think is any good, so I don't. The only exception might be if a book was long expected within my niche and just HAS to be reviewed, whatever I think of it. But in that case it's not likely that the review will be VERY negative, just a few negative points among the good.

Then again, my blog is not ABOUT book reviews, that's just something I do every once in a while too.

[Charity Gamble]

I cannot remember who it was at the moment, but there was a blog I used to read (last time I tried to go there, the blog was gone) who had received a flat out verbal attack via email from an author due to a negative review that was posted. The author basically stated that as they provided this blogger with a copy of the book, they were required to give the book a glowing review and stated they would never send that blogger a book again, and would make sure their publisher knew not to send books from any author to them.

Frankly, they should be glad that those reviews, positive or negative, get posted at all. A lot of us have large TBR piles to go through, and expecting us to just drop everything when their book comes to us and read it, then to post a positive review of a book we didn't even like then there is a problem. This is why I've noticed a lot of bloggers posting review policies that state that the review might take a long time to get posted, and that it may not necessarily be a positive review.

I find it utterly ridiculous that any author would blast a reviewer for giving their opinion. Yes, I realize that authors want to have everyone like their books, but not every book will be liked, and that negative review might help someone decide that although it wasn't the reviewer's cup of tea, it is theirs. But when the author sends the book or the publisher sends the book, they should be looking for honesty, not "I got this for free so I'd better post a good review."

[Harvee Lau]

My first really negative review and I'm not proud of it, but being honest....Social Lives by Wendy Walker, review

[M.D. Griffith]

I've had good reviews and average reviews. I think having bad reviews are fine because not everybody likes what you wrote. J.K. Rowlings, Stephen King, and I would venture to say, ALL of the rest of the great writers have had bad reviews. It just comes with the territory and writers need to have thick skin in order to become the best they can be....jmo. :)

[RYCJ]

Sounds like many reviewers develop their own guidelines.

I personally don't care for a synopsis provided in reviews, which some professional reviewers stipulate that one should be provided. But why? Not only has the author and/or publisher given one, but 10 reviews later and the story, to include the ending is synoped <-- I know. Not a real word.

Also, as someone already mentioned, critical reviews can be included in favorable ratings, which has a better potential of reaching authors to consider these points in future work, or in a general perspective they may have overlooked but use in day-to-day living. Personally it's a way of saying, "I want to hear more from you."

And still, those with other guidelines certainly shouldn't stray away from their personal choices in providing reviews.

[Jaime Huff]

I agree about the synopsis. It irritates me when reviewers provide a synopsis only but not a review