What constitutes an unfair book review?

[Gravy]

You know...
The whole "rating something low you aren't a fan of" is an excellent point. If you prefer to read contemporary, so you rate everything else lower, that's not right. However, I've noticed a lot that people who read classic literature will rate everything else as lower. Pulp fiction is what it is. It's (usually) not trying to be something it isn't...but somehow it's still considered less?

I rate things on how well I believe they've accomplished what they set out to do. Admittedly, this is not a perfectly unbiased way of rating...for instance, I will almost always rate plain horror lower because it doesn't have an effect on me, but it works for me, and I warn when I comment about horror that I tend to rate them low.

[moderntimes]

Very good commentary, TR.

Incidentally, I found a typo in a major published mystery novel just a few days ago. I was reviewing it for my editor and this premiere novel, from a NYT bestselling author, had a real honest typo. First genuine typo I've found in a long time. Understand, I don't review self published book -- only professionally published hard copy mystery novels for the website I write for.

Which makes me feel a little better, in that my first novel also has a typo in it, created after I approved the galleys by an overzealous editor. Oh well.

[alwaysdaddygirl]

First and foremost reviews are always subjective, since they reflect the opinions and individual tastes of their writers.

I agree with your first point.

I partly agree with the second point. If the typographical or other mechanical errors are just a few, I don't downgrade the book, though I may comment on them. However if there are errors on almost every other page, and as a reader I don't care whose fault it is, and they hamper my enjoyment of the book, the book deserves to be rated less in my view.

I disagree about the third point. Reviews should be based on both the reviewer's feeling and the quality of the book. Quality is a matter of view as well after all. If the reviewer can't connect to the book and explains why, not just saying the book sucks, I find the review to be fair. I rate books based on writing, skills, style, and all those other fine points you mentioned, and my feelings on it. Reviews which are impersonal are dry and un-trusty in my view. I read a review to see what the reviewer thought about the book after all and not just the for the factual data. Otherwise I will just read the back cover.... There is no such think as a completely objective review, however hard one may try. Personal presences always enter the equation, and they make the review more reliable and interesting. For me review is more than a dry spiel about the book, and I always take into account that tastes differ and base my decision accordingly.

Aloha,
I was reading an article today about the importance of thank you, etc. I totally forget to do this. This post of yours has been helpful for me. Mahalo!

[gali]

First and foremost reviews are always subjective, since they reflect the opinions and individual tastes of their writers.

I agree with your first point.

I partly agree with the second point. If the typographical or other mechanical errors are just a few, I don't downgrade the book, though I may comment on them. However if there are errors on almost every other page, and as a reader I don't care whose fault it is, and they hamper my enjoyment of the book, the book deserves to be rated less in my view.

I disagree about the third point. Reviews should be based on both the reviewer's feeling and the quality of the book. Quality is a matter of view as well after all. If the reviewer can't connect to the book and explains why, not just saying the book sucks, I find the review to be fair. I rate books based on writing, skills, style, and all those other fine points you mentioned, and my feelings on it. Reviews which are impersonal are dry and un-trusty in my view. I read a review to see what the reviewer thought about the book after all and not just the for the factual data. Otherwise I will just read the back cover.... There is no such think as a completely objective review, however hard one may try. Personal presences always enter the equation, and they make the review more reliable and interesting. For me review is more than a dry spiel about the book, and I always take into account that tastes differ and base my decision accordingly.

Aloha,
I was reading an article today about the importance of thank you, etc. I totally forget to do this. This post of yours has been helpful for me. Mahalo!

Glad to hear it. Thank you.

[alwaysdaddygirl]

Your welcome

?

[ebeth]

Yes I have to agree with you on that

[DB44]

I agree with some but not all of the points raised in this thread. However, to go into detail on these points would be mainly to rehash what has already been discussed. These are in any event mistakes that reviewers make which result in bad reviews. But is a bad review or for that matter a highly subjective review necessarily an unfair review?

Personally I rarely rely on reviews and find them of limited value. At the same time, many do attach importance to them and with the rise of self-publishing reviews have become an important aspect of "discoverability", which is of course essential, particularly to new authors. The point has of course been made here that reviews are subjective, but this point cannot be emphasised enough. I would go so far as to say that reviews are of vary limited use to you unless the reviewer shares similar taste in books, or at least in the book being reviewed. There is no such thing as an objective reviewer. One of the reasons why I myself do not rely on them is my own experience. Too often I read a book or watched a movie with rave reviews, only to find it anywhere from appalling to simply disappointing. People have very different tastes. I have no problem with a reviewer who damns a book because of spelling or grammatical errors. Because for some such errors ruin the enjoyment of a book, or even lead to them abandoning it. I am not overly sensitive to such things, though if a book is absolutely riddled with them even I will take notice and likely stop reading.

Generally I think honesty is the major and arguably even the only requirement for a review to be fair. The review can suffer from many defects without being unfair. And the reader bears some responsibility. If you are not a pedant in relation to spelling and grammar, don't pay too much regard to reviews by a critic who is. If you are a fan of Science Fiction, don't pay too much regard to a review of a Science Fiction book by a reviewer who you know does not share your enthusiasm. Don't be surprised that a reviewer who loves literary fiction gives a poor rating to the laterst genre-fiction masterpiece. If you do want to rely on reviews, it makes sense for you to take some time to pick reviewers who have somewhat similar tastes to you. And don't confuse a bad review with an unfair review.

[alwaysdaddygirl]

I agree with some but not all of the points raised in this thread. However, to go into detail on these points would be mainly to rehash what has already been discussed. These are in any event mistakes that reviewers make which result in bad reviews. But is a bad review or for that matter a highly subjective review necessarily an unfair review?

Personally I rarely rely on reviews and find them of limited value. At the same time, many do attach importance to them and with the rise of self-publishing reviews have become an important aspect of "discoverability", which is of course essential, particularly to new authors. The point has of course been made here that reviews are subjective, but this point cannot be emphasised enough. I would go so far as to say that reviews are of vary limited use to you unless the reviewer shares similar taste in books, or at least in the book being reviewed. There is no such thing as an objective reviewer. One of the reasons why I myself do not rely on them is my own experience. Too often I read a book or watched a movie with rave reviews, only to find it anywhere from appalling to simply disappointing. People have very different tastes. I have no problem with a reviewer who damns a book because of spelling or grammatical errors. Because for some such errors ruin the enjoyment of a book, or even lead to them abandoning it. I am not overly sensitive to such things, though if a book is absolutely riddled with them even I will take notice and likely stop reading.

Generally I think honesty is the major and arguably even the only requirement for a review to be fair. The review can suffer from many defects without being unfair. And the reader bears some responsibility. If you are not a pedant in relation to spelling and grammar, don't pay too much regard to reviews by a critic who is. If you are a fan of Science Fiction, don't pay too much regard to a review of a Science Fiction book by a reviewer who you know does not share your enthusiasm. Don't be surprised that a reviewer who loves literary fiction gives a poor rating to the laterst genre-fiction masterpiece. If you do want to rely on reviews, it makes sense for you to take some time to pick reviewers who have somewhat similar tastes to you. And don't confuse a bad review with an unfair review.

Deep. ?

[khudecek]

I read and review a lot of books.

Awhile back, I was given an ARC by an author to read and review. I never read any reviews until after I've posted my own. I don't want to be swayed one way or the other. After I'd posted my review at Amazon, I was going through the one-star reviews. I'd given this book a 5-star review and I couldn't imagine what had been so wrong with it that it got a one-star.

Whoever had written this one-star review said that he'd read just ten pages of the novel. Ten pages! And his last word of his review was, "Yuck" or "Blech" or some intelligent word like that. A one-star review after reading just ten pages of the book?? No. I called foul on this guy. I told him he had no business writing any review after reading just ten pages. The book is just getting started at page ten. The groundwork is being laid. The story really hasn't started.

That review really angered me. I have no sort of relationship or friendship with the author. I had nothing to gain. But I thought this was wrong and unfair and called the guy out on it.

[DB44]

That review really angered me. I have no sort of relationship or friendship with the author. I had nothing to gain. But I thought this was wrong and unfair and called the guy out on it.

And you were clearly correct to do so. A review based on reading a tiny fraction of a book is not a good faith attempt at a review. I posted that it is arguable that honesty is the only requirement for a fair review, and I don't categorise that type of thing as an honest attempt at a review.

[khudecek]

That review really angered me. I have no sort of relationship or friendship with the author. I had nothing to gain. But I thought this was wrong and unfair and called the guy out on it.

And you were clearly correct to do so. A review based on reading a tiny fraction of a book is not a good faith attempt at a review. I posted that it is arguable that honesty is the only requirement for a fair review, and I don't categorise that type of thing as an honest attempt at a review.

I have a few friends who are authors and they rallied against this guy, too. One of them even reported him to Amazon. This turned out to be a bit of a "flash fire", if you want to all it that.

I'm sure Amazon didn't do anything about it. They're too busy making life a little more difficult for authors and reviewers but that's a different subject for another day.

[MarisaRose]

I agree with some but not all of the original posters points. First, I agree 100% that unfair reviews stem from people choosing books from a genre they strongly dislike! I for one do not like westerns, therefore, I will never choose to review a western because I know no matter how good the book is, I am going to dislike it.

I disagree that an unfair review stems from grammatical errors as well as the original posters opinion that unfair review come from the reviewers dislike of the authors writing style. For me, if a book is full of grammatical errors and misspellings it takes away significantly from the potential of the book. If there are that many errors in the book, it should not be at the review stage, it should still be at the edit phase. What may be a great book can be completely ruined by all these errors as the flow of the narrative is constantly interrupted by seeing this errors. Additionally, if I as a reviewer dislike the authors writing style, that is definitely something I should comment on! How can I give a book a glowing review if the writing style is confusing or choppy, significantly taking away from my enjoyment of the story? I think as long as the reviewer states WHAT they don't like about the author's writing style, it is a fair reviewer because at that point it is up to the reader to determine if they agree or disagree with what the reviewer says about the writing style.

[bookowlie]

I agree with some but not all of the original posters points. First, I agree 100% that unfair reviews stem from people choosing books from a genre they strongly dislike! I for one do not like westerns, therefore, I will never choose to review a western because I know no matter how good the book is, I am going to dislike it.

I disagree that an unfair review stems from grammatical errors as well as the original posters opinion that unfair review come from the reviewers dislike of the authors writing style. For me, if a book is full of grammatical errors and misspellings it takes away significantly from the potential of the book. If there are that many errors in the book, it should not be at the review stage, it should still be at the edit phase. What may be a great book can be completely ruined by all these errors as the flow of the narrative is constantly interrupted by seeing this errors. Additionally, if I as a reviewer dislike the authors writing style, that is definitely something I should comment on! How can I give a book a glowing review if the writing style is confusing or choppy, significantly taking away from my enjoyment of the story? I think as long as the reviewer states WHAT they don't like about the author's writing style, it is a fair reviewer because at that point it is up to the reader to determine if they agree or disagree with what the reviewer says about the writing style.

I agree with you that the author's writing style is a valid thing to consider when reviewing a book and deciding on a rating.

[khudecek]

I disagree that an unfair review stems from grammatical errors as well as the original posters opinion that unfair review come from the reviewers dislike of the authors writing style. For me, if a book is full of grammatical errors and misspellings it takes away significantly from the potential of the book. If there are that many errors in the book, it should not be at the review stage, it should still be at the edit phase. What may be a great book can be completely ruined by all these errors as the flow of the narrative is constantly interrupted by seeing this errors.

How do you stop this? In this day and age of self-publishing, many authors do not use an editor when they should. When I see grammatical errors, I do hold it against the book. If you don't know the difference between "except" and "accept" and a plethora of other words that are mixed up, you need to:

A) Send it to an editor. Every author should do this anyway. You can't do a good job of editing your own work.
B). Brush up on your knowledge before even starting to write
C). Find a new hobby

I'm sorry but I've read so many books that would have been great but bad grammar destroyed the whole thing. I understand that a good editor is expensive and chances are pretty good that you won't make your money back. But, I would rather produce something that has good grammar and not have that be a risk factor in getting a bad review.

[bookowlie]

I disagree that an unfair review stems from grammatical errors as well as the original posters opinion that unfair review come from the reviewers dislike of the authors writing style. For me, if a book is full of grammatical errors and misspellings it takes away significantly from the potential of the book. If there are that many errors in the book, it should not be at the review stage, it should still be at the edit phase. What may be a great book can be completely ruined by all these errors as the flow of the narrative is constantly interrupted by seeing this errors.

How do you stop this? In this day and age of self-publishing, many authors do not use an editor when they should. When I see grammatical errors, I do hold it against the book. If you don't know the difference between "except" and "accept" and a plethora of other words that are mixed up, you need to:

A) Send it to an editor. Every author should do this anyway. You can't do a good job of editing your own work.
B). Brush up on your knowledge before even starting to write
C). Find a new hobby

I'm sorry but I've read so many books that would have been great but bad grammar destroyed the whole thing. I understand that a good editor is expensive and chances are pretty good that you won't make your money back. But, I would rather produce something that has good grammar and not have that be a risk factor in getting a bad review.

True! Even if a book is self-published, it is usually for sale (not free). If an author is putting out a product for sale, the reader deserves to receive an edited book and not something that is riddled with errors.