Reviewers, Reviewing and a Review

All authors deal with book reviews in different ways. Some are more emotional than others. Some don't read them at all. Some find them clinically interesting. Authors who get a ton of reviews may be able to shrug them off more handily than authors who don't get that many or who haven't been in the biz as long. And by "shrug them off", I mean the negative reviews don't send them into a spiral (of despair...or bad behavior) and the positive reviews don't give them a big head.

I feel most book reviews are and should be written for the READER, since books are, once published, a consumer product as much as movies on the screen, food in a restaurant or items on the shelves. Do reviewers take the car manufacturer's feelings into account when they review a car? Do they care that the chef might be offended when they describe a restaurant experience? If they do, they are doing their own readers a disservice.

I know a lot of people feel if you don't have anything nice to say, you should keep your mouth shut, and in certain circumstances I agree. In reviewing, however, I do not agree, unless your intent is to share only "recommended" reads, which is different from straight up reviewing. It's also perfectly legit, as is a venue that shares only "don't waste your money" reviews with whomever its audience happens to be.

If I were trying to make a decision about a rare and precious night out with hubby and skimmed some restaurant reviews, I wouldn't want the critic/patron to have glossed over things like undercooked meats, overly salty veggies or poor service (with the understanding that that was one person's experience). I also wouldn't want a book reviewer to gloss over things he or she found unpalatable in a book, though I do prefer some explanation as to why.

I also understand that when we're talking about works of art, reviews are based more heavily on opinion than other consumer products, but I don't think that negates their usefulness or appropriateness. Readers of a review can determine for themselves whether or not they think they'd agree. They realize different people like different things and a review only represents one person's assessment, especially in artwork reviews that are not as fact-based. If a reviewer finds very little that is redeeming about the product, he or she is under no obligation to be "fair" and say things like, "But the green beans did appear to be green and some diners may really enjoy that."

And all this is a way of introducing my latest review. I figured Survival of the Fairest was getting a pass from the notorious Mrs. G this time around (it has been very slow to accrue reviews, period), but I was mistaken. Just noticed on her site this am:

"All in all, this is an above average comedy fantasy romp from an author that may just appeal to you if you like fantasy romantic comedies that are amusing but not too over-the-top amusing."

http://www.mrsgiggles.com/ebooks/wallace_fairest.html

I can admit to a certain degree of relief and satisfaction that the reviewer enjoyed the book, but if she hadn't, I just wouldn't quote it on my reviews page :). I also wouldn't go on some campaign to discredit her and her evil ways or whip all my web buddies into a frenzy. Even as a small press author, I hardly think a negative review will diminish my royalties, because the positive reviews don't affect them, that's for dang sure.

Jody W.
http://www.jodywallace.com/