Reviewers vs Honesty

[PaulineMRoss]

Excerpts are very rare.

Not these days. If a book is available for the Kindle, you can go to Amazon and download a sample of it to try out, typically 5-10%. You don't have to actually have a Kindle, you can download the PC app, or read on your iPhone or whatever. It costs nothing to do any of that - until you reach the 'End of sample - buy now?' point. It's all too easy (and expensive) to click the wrong button :-)

Combined with careful reading of reviews, that's how I choose my books. I don't really understand anyone who depends on other people's taste to decide. I would never buy any book just because someone else liked it, however much I trusted their judgment.

[Jon AS]

So, what are my choices?

I find this board very useful when it comes to picking books to read. I don't think I've ever regretted a book purchase inspired by people talking about it here, and I don't think I've ever bought a book because it was rated 4 out of 5 stars by either the average amazon customer or an individual reviewer (though I do occasionally venture onto the review blogs of people posting here; most often Werhead's, presumably because I know he also has decent taste in video games ;)).

I also exchange books with friends, which has the added advantage of being free (and if you feel like it, and don't see some of them so often, you can act like spies or drug dealers or something whenever you meet and conspicuous packages change hands...).

[Ormond]

I've found the discussion of numerical rankings on this thread to be very interesting.

Obviously not everyone has the same idea about what numbers or "stars" should mean.

If you translate them to a grading system as in the way grades are normally given in undergraduate college courses, then anything below 60% (6 out of 10 or 3 out of 5) would be "failure." And an extremely low mark (2 out of 10 or 1 out of 5) really should mean that the book was actually unreadable -- not "unreadable" in terms of hyperbole, but really having so many grammatical and spelling errors and/or complete incoherence of plot as to be incomprehensible. One would hope that you could never actually find such a book that was not self-published.

I think a lot of readers of reviews probably think a numerical rating system would translate into "how the book fits in with all the books the reviewer has ever read, on a % basis." So a 9 out of 10 would mean the book was in the top 10% of books the reviewer had ever read. If that's the criterion, it should take a lot more to get a 9 out of 10 (or 4 out of 5) than it would to get that number in the "school grades" system.

Then I think there are probably some review readers who believe the old idea that "90% of what's published is crap" and so think that only 10% of all books reviewed should even rise about the midway point on a numerical scale.

Any of those scales would be legitimate. The problem comes when the reviewer and the reader of the review don't have the same one in their heads. So I guess anyone who is posting regular reviews on a blog or in a column should always have a statement about how they interpret their numerical scale at the top of the page. And I can see why many serious reviewers wouldn't want to assign stars or numbers at all, given the big differences in how they are interpreted.

[Kalbear]

I have no problem with scores or not so long as the reviews are consistent with each other. It's more important to me to find a reviewer who shares my tastes than it is to find one who is more technically proficient. As long as that reviewer stats true to themselves it's fine.

[TrackerNeil]

A note on review copies: Then you realise that publishers deliberately print dozens of review copies per book and send them out to everyone automatically on a list. It's somewhat impersonal, and you are certainly being treated as a cog in the marketing machine.

Everyone in the system - publishers, editors, authors (who have a book deal) and reviewers - benefits from that machine, methinks.

[David Selig]

Is there any SFF blogger/site like this?

01. week - Book 01 This book is utterly bad. Don't waste your money!

02. week - Book 02 I could not get past page 40.

06. week - Book 06 This book is tedious and disappointing.

52. week - Book 52 This book is really engaging. 3,5 stars. I recommend this one.

At the end of the year: "There were 2 good, 11 average and 39 unreadable SFF books."

I think a reviewer's job is to be honest.

So it's only honest if the reviewer hates the books he reads to a ridiculous degree? 75% unreadable? 4% good? This only makes sense if he's a masochist and intentionally picks the most terrible books tor reviewing or if he is paid to do it, his boss really hates him and chooses the biggest garbage for him to review.

[PaulineMRoss]

Everyone in the system - publishers, editors, authors (who have a book deal) and reviewers - benefits from [the publishing industry marketing] machine, methinks.

Yes, indeed. Everyone except the hapless reader, who just wants an idea of whether s/he would like the book, and has to trawl through mountains of fluff to find an unbiased opinion.

[TrackerNeil]

Yes, indeed. Everyone except the hapless reader, who just wants an idea of whether s/he would like the book, and has to trawl through mountains of fluff to find an unbiased opinion.

I'd argue that the self-published authors aren't treated very well by the system, either, but that's another topic.

And let me add that I think reviewers can and often do serve a valuable purpose. I have many times purchased a book simply based on a good review, and by good I mean not favorable but thorough and insightful. That, it my view, is the true role of the reviewer.

However, I take your meaning; there are some reviewers who are simply a powder-puff for this or that author or publisher. All we readers can do is weigh and judge which reviewers are quality and which are...less so.

[pat5150]

Yes, indeed. Everyone except the hapless reader, who just wants an idea of whether s/he would like the book, and has to trawl through mountains of fluff to find an unbiased opinion.

I disagree. Some SFF bloggers have been around for quite a few years and each and everyone of them, I believe, is honest. Sure, there are differences in styles, tones, tastes, etc, but deep down they give an honest opinion every time. If you trawl through a mountain of fluff, it probably means that you are perusing a lot of the new kids on the block, many of whom feel that they need to keep a positive spin on everything in order to keep the review copies coming.

I find this forum to be one of the very best sources for reading material out there. Sffworld.com, with both Hobbit and Rob writing great reviews, would be another.

I'm not dissing the newest generation of bloggers. I don't read them, so I have no idea how good or bad they can be. But if you stick with the "old school" gang, honesty is never a problem, methinks. And check the boards here.

That's all you need. At least it works for me... :)

Patrick

P. S. 6/10, for a paper, an exam, or a book, is a crappy mark! :P

[kcf]

Since so many are interested in the ratings stuff, I'll put in my 2 cents since I haven't done so in a while (it's a recurring topic for blog reviews).

I dislike ratings but I find them usefull. And lots of people want them. When I started the blog 6+ years ago, I began doing scores. I used a 10-point scale, with 5 being the point where the good outweighs the bad. Since I try to read books I think I will like, the vast majority of books I've read are over 5. But, books between a score of say 5-6 are generally books that are flawed enough that I find difficulty recommending them. However, that can also be dependent on my taste - as what I (dis)like and what you (dis)like could be very different.

My biggest problem with scores is that one number doesn't cover it. I rank my overall enjoyment of book. But, books are more than that - they are style, they are prose, they are plot, they are characterization, etc., etc. Basically, I can still find great enjoyment in a book that may have some real fundamental stylistic problems. Or I may really dislike a book that is syllistically superp. Ratings fail in this. This is how book 9 in a series of 12 may rate very high for me, when the book may have lots of flaws - I'm hugely vested in the series and obviously a fan. So, my enjoyment out-weighs any flaws (and I may have overlooked them.

So, now, I no longer publish score obviously. I do rate my books on Goodreads and my review index still has scores associated. But I don't put them in the review - I write my review such that the last paragraph stands as a summary of everything and serves as my 'rating'. The only reason I still do ratings at all is that I enjoy playing with the statistics of them. I have enough reviews to have a statistically valid sample, and the stats indicate that my rating has remained rather consistent through time. It's really fun to play with those stats.

[kcf]

Yes, indeed. Everyone except the hapless reader, who just wants an idea of whether s/he would like the book, and has to trawl through mountains of fluff to find an unbiased opinion.

added emphasis mine.

An unbiased opinion is simply bullshit and anyone pretending to give one in a book review is doing a disservice. The usual words used here are objective vs. subjective. A book review (in contrast to true criticism) is in the end an opinion. Hopefully it's an educated opinion in a knowable context, but it remains an opinion. Therefore, it is full of bias and subjectivity. And that is a good thing. Afterall, you want compare a reviewer's opinion against your own. The key is to discover how your tastes/opinions match up with a reviewer's so you can know where you stand. This is why I take the time to come to 'know' the few reviewers I actually read. This is why I place next to no value in reviews at Goodreads, Amazon or similar. It's also why I really dislike blogs with multiple authors and/or lots of guest posts.

[Joe Abercrombie]

I think readers are rarely so hapless that they can't tell the difference between a substantive opinion and a puff piece, or for that matter a blogger with something interesting to say and one who just says OMG best book evar! about everything. Rubbish reviewers just won't factor very significantly into anyone's decision-making process, which is why sending them advance copies wouldn't be a lot of use. Far better a nuanced or even a negative review that gets read widely and taken seriously than a fanboy/girl gush scarcely read and even then ignored.

[sologdin]

negative review that gets read widely

e.g., i read the first law precisely because of the beating it took over at requires only hate.

[PaulineMRoss]

An unbiased opinion is simply bullshit and anyone pretending to give one in a book review is doing a disservice. The usual words used here are objective vs. subjective. A book review (in contrast to true criticism) is in the end an opinion.

Well, of course it is, and if only all reviewers could remember that. But the context was that review copies are simply part of the publishing industry's marketing machine, and I would suggest that if a reviewer is part of a commercial system, that is bound to skew the review to a greater or lesser extent. Hence the search for an 'unbiased opinion'. I was going to say 'honest opinion', but I do think most reviewers are honest in the sense of not being deliberately misleading. But as soon as you publish anything you write, then you are writing for your audience (in the sense of being conscious of it), and it's almost bound to bias the work.

[Seli]

Pauline, I think you mean bought reviews, rather than biased reviews. Which seems to be a real problem in computer game reviews, but I have not seen a lot of in book reviews. With the one big exeption of self-published books, which also have the disadvantage that 'proper' reviews are not really available.

Biased reviews are fine, as long as the bias is can be calibrated with a couple of known books.

[TrackerNeil]

Well, of course it is, and if only all reviewers could remember that. But the context was that review copies are simply part of the publishing industry's marketing machine, and I would suggest that if a reviewer is part of a commercial system, that is bound to skew the review to a greater or lesser extent.

I think this is a fair point. Reviewers thrive when industry types seek their attention, and that has an inevitable affect on what they do. That's human nature. That's not to say all or even most reviewers write with only the payoff in mind, but that influence has to be considered along with everything else.

[Joe Abercrombie]

negative review that gets read widely e.g., i read the first law precisely because of the beating it took over at requires only hate.

Oh, well, there's nothing better than the old agenda-based attack piece when it comes to driving sales, because people just can't help flocking to controversy, upset, and anger and to any decent spitting forth of bile you'll get as many onlookers who basically disagree with the agenda as agree. So:

a) There'll be a set of people reading thinking, 'hmm, I kind of like what this reviewer seems to hate so much, and they really hate this book, so I'll probably really like it.'

b- There'll be a set of people thinking, 'this sounds horrible. I must buy it and find out exactly how horrible it is.'

c) If nothing else, it establishes a thing as important, significant, dangerous, worthy of attack, something that can no longer be ignored but must be challenged, that can no longer be simply disliked but must be denounced.

d) If you're really lucky, other bloggers will respond on their own blogs, for and against, and publicity will go even wider, spreading the light of one's name to shadowy corners of the internet where it never shone before, where one will be discussed as powerful, dangerous, beautiful yet deadly, a threat to western civilisation, or exemplifying something or other, and further folks may well do a, b, or c.

e) Nothing is better for non-specific name recognition for the largely uninterested majority. People will forget what all that brouhaha was but the name will stick, and later, on seeing it in the bookshop or linked to something or other on amazon, hmmm, that seems familiar, I'll give it a try.

I have never seen so many people undertake to buy my books as in the wake of that fire and brimstone assault by Leo Grin a year or two back. That was quality. I need another of those.

[Larry.]

If numbers/stars beside a review are so important to some, how about a little experiment? I just posted a review of the Clarke Award-winning novel by Jane Rogers, The Testament of Jessie Lamb. Why don't you write in a number/star rating to it and see how that novel would be "ranked." Curious to see if there would be similarities or differences between people trying to figure out a "score" for the review.

[kcf]

I think this is a fair point. Reviewers thrive when industry types seek their attention, and that has an inevitable affect on what they do. That's human nature. That's not to say all or even most reviewers write with only the payoff in mind, but that influence has to be considered along with everything else.

You see, I think this is actually pretty overblown. Especially with blogger/reviewers who have been around longer. If anything, I think sometimes bloggers go too far to show that this isn't the case.

The bigger issue I see is more of a groupthink one. In many ways we bloggers can end being kind of clique-ish. We all like very similar things. When we see someone we 'know' and trust rate a book highly, we rush to read ourselves because we think we'll like it too. I think that it's pretty common for us to not look as closely as we would have in the absence of the earlier opinion from one we trust and too often echo those thoughts.

[Procrastimancer]

If numbers/stars beside a review are so important to some, how about a little experiment? I just posted a review of the Clarke Award-winning novel by Jane Rogers, The Testament of Jessie Lamb. Why don't you write in a number/star rating to it and see how that novel would be "ranked." Curious to see if there would be similarities or differences between people trying to figure out a "score" for the review.

7.63 or 2^2/5 stars.