I happened to come accross this blog after this reviewer by the name of every author's nightmare reviewed some books of good autors. It was really brutal what this reviewer did, and i'm a bit scared, lol! considering that she has left a comment on my blog that she will be looking forward to reviewing my blog. Guys what do you thing, when should a reviewer draw the line or something. Do you think it's fair.
she even went as far as calling the blog EVERY AUTHOR'S NIGHTMARE..
It's called freedom of speech. Some people are nice and sweet with their reviews. They may beat around the bush. I even heard how some reviewers don't even review books that they were not the best. But then there are some who just say what they want and that's that. They say it bluntly what they didn't like about it and why.
I guess you already know what type of reviewer I am, lol, but all the same, I like her. And even though she is cutthroat, she's honest and that's all you can really ask from a reviewer. Now how they tell the truth is up to them, but at least she's up front and straight to the point. Can't help but to admire that.
Well, she does stick to dealing with the plot and writing - doesn't do much in the way of attacking the authors personally (much). My problem is not so much that she only seems to focus on the bad, but that she is immature about it. Her grammar and syntax is terrible and her punctuation is practically non-existent. There is no explanation of what the book is about or why things were bad, just that they were.
In all, of course she has a right to write it. I think she does it poorly, but there are plenty of other people that can't write well or express themselves cohesively. She just wants to write bad reviews for the shock value.
A friend and I arrived in San Diego for a convention on a red eye flight and the first thing we did after dropping our luggage at the hotel was to prowl the nearby streets in search of food. We found only one restaurant open at 3 a.m., so we entered. The waitress was so rude, I kept looking for the hidden Candid Camera. She was annoyed that we wanted menus. Forget about asking for water glasses. When I pointed out the knife she’d brought was dirty, she picked it up, spit on it, wiped it on her apron, and set it before me. I was ready to scream for a manager, when my friend and I realized we had stumbled into a restaurant where “rude waitress” was the motif. Just as Hooters’ motif was scantily-clothed hot coed waitress”, this place had a shtick. Once I realized the joke, I got into it.
The book blogger in question has a shtick. She is upfront about it in her title, blog description, and bio. Fair enough. I’m also impressed that she admits she brings her own biases to the table.
Here are the problems:
First, she is admittedly biased with a biased agenda. She writes the purpose of her blog is to “tear the book apart till it bleeds from my review.” When you begin with a preconceived agenda, the outcome will reflect the agenda, not the merit of the book being reviewed. This is like a man/woman going on a date with someone who states “all men/women are pigs; I’ve never had a good date”. Guess what? No matter what you do, this date will suck too.
Second, the reviewer is inarticulate. She cannot express herself without constantly falling back on profanity, and cares little for capitalization or punctuation. Her writing is also hard to follow. She also posts a video by another reviewer who is even more inarticulate, perhaps to show us there is worse out there.
Third, and this is purely my opinion, I disagree with several of her opinions. I liked the cover of “Hush, Hush”, and I found “The Lightning Thief” entertaining.
Fourth, someone might actually read her blog (which I’m assuming is tongue-in-cheek and meant to be controversial so it will get noticed) and take her negative reviews as serious criticism, affecting book sales.
Having said all that, she is entitled to say whatever she wants (and be held accountable for doing so); it is a refreshing take on book blogging; and she often does get around to making real criticisms and (justifiably or not) supporting them with rationales, which is more than many amateur reviewers do. I think she has a lot of potential as a reviewer if she polishes her writing and cuts out the gratuitous profanity, but she has boxed herself in by her negative format. Maybe she’ll add a second review blog with an unbiased approach.
Never seen that blog - never will again.
She's trying to be funny and create a nitch for herself. I wish to say she was original by writing nasty posts, but she's not. Others have done it better.
Why concentrate on trashing other people's work. I wrote bad reviews before but I don't make it a habit or the point of the blog. Personally I think the posts on there are juvenile.
I wouldn't take much notice of a reviewer who consistently fails to capitalise I, spell are as 'R', might as 'migh' and sounds like a child with some of their writing.
There is a difference between being honest and critical and just slating books for the sake of it.