This blog entry is prompted by me making the blog circles, just by jumping from link to link, and realizing that one of the neverending chicken-or-egg arguments is the impact of reviewers on an author's career.

This issue also puzzles me because, to me, the answer seems clear-cut. I have never stopped myself from buying a book, seeing a movie, or purchasing a CD because a review panned the work. If I read a review where the reviewer doesn't share my opinion, sure, sometimes I'd think in my mind, "What a weirdo!" But even that, it's not personal on my part. I don't hate reviewers who disagree with me, just like how I don't hate authors who put out a book I don't like.

Is that just me? I'm wondering because there doesn't seem to be too much sense of perspective among the parties in this neverending debate.

Reviewers will insist that they play some noble and selfless role in defending the genre from Bad Books. That may be true, but come on, who are we kidding? We are readers first and foremost who happen to stumble upon a blog tool or a webpage maker. We are not heroes. Personally I do my thing on this website because I'm a vain person who just likes to see my ramblings being put online. Anything else is just icing on the cake. Maybe other reviewers start out with a more worthy goal, like wanting to create THE website for impartial reviews to help readers locate good books. But at the end of the day, reviews are nothing more than opinions that just happen to be put out on a public medium instead of being exchanged between friends over the water cooler. They aren't THAT important to people. People can live without them. I have lived just fine with Ebert telling me why chick-flicks will rot my brain for, oh, a long time now because I just ignore that fat dumpy and leave him to his lascivious drooling of Natalie Portman disguised as Intellectual Appreciation of Perky Mammaries That Can Act.

Readers should stop deifying reviewers as defenders of the corruption or something like that because reviewers are infallible as much as everyone else. I have thankfully stopped receiving emails from people who swear that they loved my reviews until I happened to pan a book they like and now they will hate me forever, ugh. But readers who believe so deeply in reviewers as some defenders against Evil Authors and Evil Editors should take a step back because that is not even close to the truth. Some reviewers (in print, on some websites) are paid to review. It's their job. Other reviewers review for free. Some do it for free ARCs. Others do it because they are so star struck by authors that being a reviewer will help them become friends of these authors. Some reviewers see their position as stepping stones to getting their own writing career, such as bloggers hoping to get book deals from editors that happen to frequent their blogs. The good intention may be there, but it is naive overgeneralization to assume that anyone who criticizes a reviewer is an enemy against Free Speech.

In fact, I believe that an author should be allowed to defend her work. I have no problems with an author taking some snarky potshots at a reviewer, although I confess that I find it easier to be amused when the author does this on her own website or on the review site. An author who goes around in forums and listservs badmouthing a reviewer instead of confronting the reviewer directly, for example, or someone who marshals her fans to do her dirty work for her - these authors strike me as more annoying and passive-aggressive than someone who has the guts to tell the reviewer that she hates the review and she hates the reviewer's guts more. That's just my personal view, really, because I prefer upfront battles than hypocritical two-faced smear campaigns and I respect authors who choose to do the former instead of the latter. Also, I do wish that readers who laugh at snarky reviewers will allow the authors to be equally snarky. It is not fun to go to a message board to see an author getting ganged up on by faithful forum denizens because it is a fight between the author and the reviewer and having people butting in will only make matters worse.

I wish authors will realize that bad reviews hurt their ego more than their book sales. The same things that reviewers have been panning since 1990 are selling like hot cakes out there, so the numbers back up the fact: MANY READERS DON'T CARE ABOUT REVIEWS. Actually, a far more accurate statement will be: MANY READERS ONLY READ THE SYNOPSIS PART OF THE REVIEW. The people who discuss books on AAR, for example, are either using the reviews there as a platform to start a book discussion or to ask fellow friends that they know have the same reading taste as they whether they should buy a book from a certain author. If readers do base their purchases on reviews - and I come across very few of these readers compared to those who just read reviews out of interest or curiosity - that's not these "slash-and-dice" reviewers' fault, it's the fault of those happy sunshine reviewers that saturate the online scene with meaningless feel-good reviews that force these readers to find some more "realistic" review source - one that tells things like it is.

At the end of the day, the whole argument between readers and reviewers versus authors is, in my opinion, more about egos rather than actual concerns about the genre. Reviewers want to feel that they matter to the authors and the editors. Authors don't want to feel vulnerable. Neither do reviewers, sometimes, who lash back at any authors criticizing them as someone who wants to censor honesty or what-not. Readers take sides and act accordingly. But ultimately, what a reviewer should be more concerned with is whether she is being honest with herself. An author should be more concerned about her readers' feedback instead of a handful of reviewers' opinion of her books. A reader should understand that both reviewer and author aren't entirely in the right or in the wrong - only she can make the decision to like or dislike a book. If she makes herself like or dislike a book because her favorite reviewer or her favorite author tells her that this is the "right" thing to do, she has stopped being a reader and instead become a follower.

as I already said, I think it's a matter of trusting the reviewer to have a similar values system, or a similar (higher) intellectual level. If there is a reviewer who I think is a genius of arts and the most brilliant mind I've ever encountered.. then I'm likely to listen to his opinion.
But no matter how bad, a review isn't likely to stop me from buying a product.
And on the last snarky note, the first review I got for my own book shocked me -- no, it wasn't bad, it was pretty good actually, in the terms of 'reviewer liking it' -- but it read like it was written but a not very bright and completely uneducated twelve year old girl, and every third word was misspelled

I just finished Sapphires and Garlic, the latest book by the former NT Times restaurant critic and I think she says some of the best stuff on reviewing I've heard lately. I haven't yet met a real life Spock, so I always assume reviews are biased by the fact that it's human beings (again - a MAJOR assumption) doing the reviewing. Which means that the review is immediately suspect.

Every one has an opinion. Fine by me. I'll weigh in with mine, if the subject matter challenges me. The problems start when big egos kick in. Either an author or reviewer develops a god complex and acts accordingly. It becomes about personalities and the work itself is left behind.

If a work of fiction moves me, I have specific reasons why this is so. My opinion is one of the facets which someone else's creation brings out. It's alchemy, the kind which keeps me writing and reading. The crap reviews are a part of the whole work, and should be something the author learns from (either a) there are a lot of freaks out there walking around or b)I'm getting lazy... time to work harder). It's the ego that gets them, and eventually kills them off. My humble opinion.

I read reviews, but more for entertainment than anything else. I have really enjoyed reading your book and movie reviews. In many, many cases, I totally agree with you. And in many, many cases, I totally disagree with you.

I read your reviews because they make me laugh (which I prefer to the dry elitist/literary wannabe type reviews or the personal attack reviews that try to be funny - and fail - that are neither an expression of my tastes nor entertaining - IMHO, of course). I don't mind the reviews that are perky and positive - I can get some of the best book summaries from these (which is what I look for, beyond the entertainment).

Overall, I don't think *most* readers choose books according to reviews. Readers either know they like an author and auto-buy, or they browse the shelves and read the backcover blurbs, until they find something that interests them.

I think it's the online reader, and most specifically, a certain type of online reader, that has become entirely dependent upon certain review communities/sites. Some believe if the reviews are strictly positive, they are written to stroke the author's ego (like, it couldn't be that the reviewer really likes the book). And some believe that if a reviewer shreds a book, it makes her one of the elite, and because she's negative, she can be trusted.

Yikes.

Reviews are opinions, by people who are READERS. There is no college course or training for reviewers. You don't need training to give an "opinion" - you either have one or you don't.

My theory: IF a reader wants to rely on reviews to find the books they want to read, she would be best served to read multiple reviews by multiple reviewers so you can see how the book struck the majority (and not all positive reviews are written by author worshippers, and not all negative reviews are written by smarter, braver or more honest reviewers).

Not buying a book just because a reviewer's negative (and therefore must be honest) could cost a reader

(darn word count limitations!)

Continued from previous post...

Not buying a book just because a reviewer's negative (and therefore must be honest) could cost a reader 5 hours of reading pleasure. As readers, we owe it to ourselves to choose our books ourselves. That's not to say reviews can't be factored into our decision, but when all is said and done, if the storyline sounds interesting to us, who cares what any reviewer says about it?

Perfect example: You didn't care much for the movie DROP DEAD GORGEOUS. If I'd have chosen based on your review of this movie, I'd have missed out on a movie I absolutely LOVE. Even if I'm the only one in the world who laughs like an idiot every time she sees it, that's OK. I enjoy laughing! Even after seeing it probably 10 times, I still crack up when the beer can is fused to the mother's hand. (Hey, what can I say? I enjoy politically incorrect:))

On another note, though I can honestly say no reviews haven't prevented me from reading a particular book, your reviews have brought new-to-me authors to my attention that I've ended up buying. So I guess you can say reviews have played a part in some of my buying decisions:)

Laura, I just had to say that I love Drop Dead Gorgeous, too! :) I think I've seen that movie a dozen times, and I still crack up.

Okay, so here’s the thing...

I’ve long suspected that there’s some kind of urban legend that writers subscribe to about the power of a good review. Indeed, I think there’s been a lot of misconception about the power of the Internet, period.

Look, I’ve gotten great reviews and I’ve gotten horrible reviews, and I have to tell you, the book that’s done the best for me is a book that received some of the most conflicting reviews of any book I’ve ever written. By contrast, the book that received overwhelmingly positive praise by all but one Internet site had average sales. One would think given all the positive word of mouth about the “good” book that it would have done better than average, and yet it didn’t. And I’m not the only author to notice this phenomenon. A certain well-known author (whom I adore!) recently stated that a book lauded by most everybody was not, repeat not her best selling book. Did that surprise me? Not at all.

Taking this one step further, I went so far as to compare the sales of books (via Bookscan which tracks sales at the point of purchase) which had gotten stellar reviews with those that had gotten poor reviews. I compared books written by authors who seemed to be on the same level with each other (eg: I compared a lead author with another lead author/a midlist author with another midlist author). Without fail, the positive reviews had absolutely NO impact on sales, or at least none that I could see.

I’m not saying that Mrs. G. and other Internet review sites can’t help with sales because to a certain degree they obviously can. I think the point I’m trying to make is that the difference is so negligible that it doesn’t even register.

Most readers go to a bookstore, see a cover they like, scan the back cover copy and decide to buy the book—or not. It’s your traditional “impulse buy”, and when you’re a newer author, it’s what gets you sales. A good cover, excellent distribu

(LOL, Laura, I was truncated, too!) Here's the rest of that post:

...A good cover, excellent distribution (to major wholesalers), some decent print advertising—these things help you to sell more books. Not, I repeat NOT reviews. Not blogs. Not even your web site. Word of mouth is also a powerful thing, but that’s not to be confused with the kind of buzz that you sometimes see on message boards. Indeed, I firmly believe that when you read a lot of comments online about a particular book what your seeing is an echo of what’s going on nationally.

Of course, I don’t have any concrete evidence to support my hypothesis other than my own distinctly unscientific study, LOL.

Yes, but since I wrote that RTB column, I learned that the majority of readers online generally avoid "always positive" review sites.
So in that aspect, you are right - those review sites have little impact on readers. Mostly, purely because they aren't trusted. IMO too many authors put faith in those publications that enforce 'always positive' policy.

I mean, an author recently announced that her romance novel received full marks from a certain web site. The announcement has absolutely no effect on me. Based on a chat with four fellow readers, they reacted same as I did. They don't 'trust' that site, therefore they have no faith in the author's announcement. I think this contributes to reasons why online reviews don't influence book sales that much.

Secondly I believe that reviews that determine some books 'bad' are more likely to have some readers buying copies, because at least this way, they buy a copy with their eyes wide open. I think that's why some readers prefer 'bad' reviews to 'always positive' reviews. Excuse my waffle. :P

All I know from online reviews is, when the flamer and or blunt reviewer spells everything wrong, people don't usually listen.

I don't belive to a great number of reviews but read them. By the way great post. Lesbian Fisting Video Lesbians Movie Samples Home made Porn XXX Amateur Porn Private Amateur Videos