Meaning no disrespect since i am a reviewer as well, but some reviewers are damn nasty.....

[J.O Jones]

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..

[Larissa Hinton]

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.

[Rosie of Proses' Roses]

She wrote valid reviews with reasons and she didn't attack the author personally. So I actually don't think the blog is as bad as you seem to make it. Although she seems to be quite a negative person. She critiqued the writing and plot which is what you want in a review. At least she admits she isn't going to be nice so all authors and readers are forewarned.

[K. C. Blake]

I want my reviews (the ones on my books) to be honest, but I hate it when someone seems like they are trying to be funny and ripping apart my book just so that they can get a laugh.  They are the Kathy Griffin/Don Rickles kind of reviewers.  Or maybe Simon Cowell.  There can be truth in what they say, but most of the time it seems like they just want to rip books apart for the entertainment value. 

[J.O Jones]

freedom of speech is that what they are calling it these days... Okay thanks for the heads up.

[Larissa Hinton]

It's the truth! We are allowed to say what we want because of freedom of speech. Simple known fact. And besides, you don't have to listen to what she says. You have the freedom to forget about her blog just as she has the freedom to say whatever she wants.

[Anya Millar]

Just be careful you don't cross the line into libel.  And honest is great but is it really necessary to be deliberately mean about it? (And no, I didn't care for Simon).

[Jennifer Kitchens]

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.  

[J.O Jones]

Thanks Jennifer, at the moment there, with the early replies, i was beginning to think i was weird for not liking swoonk's method of reviewing. I hope she writes a book or something so i can read it and learn how to write better....

[Keith B. Darrell]

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.

[ManOfLaBook.com]

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.

 

http://www.ManOfLaBook.com

[Tome Keeper]

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. 

[Kathy Maxwell]

Bravo, RYCJ!!!  Well said!