Modern Good Reads discussion

Shomeret wrote: "Belén wrote: "People read reviews so they can get an idea of what the book is about. So, it's really important to write in our reviews a little bit about the story. But just a little bit. Also, it'..."

Well, i guess the only thing we can do is stick to OUR definition. If readers look for our reviews is because they want to know more than what the description says.
Haters gonna hate.

Belén wrote: "People read reviews so they can get an idea of what the book is about. So, it's really important to write in our reviews a little bit about the story. But just a little bit. Also, it's really impor..."

I disagree with your premise. I don't believe that people are reading reviews to get an idea of what the book is about. . . at least they shouldn't be. That, again, is the purpose of the synopsis. They are trying to answer the question, "Do I want to read this book?" They read reviews to find out that little something extra that might be relevant to their reading tastes. That's why I like to provide information like, it's laced with religious overtones, has too much profanity, is really gory, etc. Also, I don't mind adding small pieces of "what the story is about," as long as it isn't a rehash of the synopsis and adds constructively to it without giving everything away.

Devi wrote: "Have a query here. Cant we give a gist of the story without revealing the suspense in the review? Since the review is posted on blog also, the reader can get an idea on what the story line is and t..."

From what you've written, I can't tell if you are writing the review on a blog or if you are reading it there so I will make an assumption.

If I were writing a book review in blog form, I would start with the synopsis written by the author, and mark it as such. This would tell the reader what the book is about in the way it was intended by the author and it would allow anyone who already knows what the book is about to skip it. This would serve to give me the freedom to immediately start into the gritty details of why I liked the book, which is ultimately what you want to convey anyway, isn't it? Then I would add my content, which I believe should include those things NOT mentioned in the synopsis. There are many things to include. If it was an indie author, were there a lot of mistakes, grammar, spelling, continuity and so on. You should mention anything that happens that might be pertinent to a large demographic ("this book advocates the widespread use of back-alley abortions"). But most of all it should include the thing that made you love or hate the book the most. What drives you to write this review? ("What I loved most about this book was the attitude of the main character"). In many cases, something that bothers you is something that would result in a spoiler. Because spoilers are a hot button for many people, if you include them, and I think blogs are probably a more acceptable place to include them, they should be clearly marked so that the reader can decide whether he wants to read them. Importantly, I think the blog should pick up on the other side of the spoiler as if it were continuous to give the impression that if the reader indeed skipped the spoiler, he didn't miss anything.

If you are writing the review where the book is available for purchase (and therefore the synopsis is also available), then you should NOT include details of what happens in the story that is not short and does not add to the author's synopsis in a way that is important for a potential reader to know.

Disclaimer: I am not a professional reviewer and I didn't even play one on TV. These are my opinions, but ultimately a professional reviewer would be giving you his opinion, just with the authority of some kind of credential, deserved or not. You did ask for advice, so that's mine. It is not all inclusive, but it does represent what I like to see in a review.

I always consider the rating and reviews before I purchase a book. However, I tend to only read the negative reviews because they are shorter and don't typically contain a lengthy rundown of the story itself. I feel that the negative reviews are straight to the point and honest. They influence me to purchase the book more than they don't.

Cassie wrote: "I always consider the rating and reviews before I purchase a book. However, I tend to only read the negative reviews because they are shorter and don't typically contain a lengthy rundown of the st..."

I agree with that for the most part. People who like the book usually will overlook things out of blind love. On the other hand I think 3 star reviews often offer a balance as well.

Russell wrote: "I agree with that for the most part. People who like the book usually will overlook things out of blind love. On the other hand I think 3 star reviews often offer a balance as well.
"

I agree about the 3 star reviews. I should have specified how many stars rather than labeling them as negative reviews. Those can typically go either way. I myself have to really enjoy a book to give it 4 or 5 stars.

I have to disagree, people read the book description to see what the book is about. I read reviews to see how..."

This is what I do! I don't want a summary unless the reader posting the review finds, after having read the book, that the book blurb was inadequate. I will also rate an ARC slightly differently than a non-advance copy. I would expect editing needs in an ARC (so won't deduct a star for it, but will warn future readers) and expect a non-ARC to be nearly free of editing needs (I will deduct a star based on how poorly edited a book is).

Thank you Cheryl and Kimberly: voices of reason.

Personal bias, perhaps, but I really dislike a summary of a book. Even worse, many reviews (including the NY Times) of historical books or biographies rhapsodize on the subject and say precious little about the delivery, style, effectiveness, etc. That's not a good review. I've written hundreds of reviews and, no matter how short, strove to say something meaningful about style, readability and voice.

Jeffrey wrote: "Personal bias, perhaps, but I really dislike a summary of a book. Even worse, many reviews (including the NY Times) of historical books or biographies rhapsodize on the subject and say precious lit..."

I totally agree. Summaries are only useful if your audience is not in a position to read the book/article/essay, etc. I think people summarize because they don't have enough original thought to express about a given title. Then again, I tend not to use reviews in my purchasing decisions. Rather I rely on a sample of the book and my own gut instinct.

I always put the author's synopsis in my reviews simply as a way for the review reader to know what the book is about. I then post what I liked, what I didn't like, and my overall impression of the book.

Jeffrey wrote: "A good review does not summarize the book or the plot, and it need to address critical elements. For fiction, that is character, plot, dialogue and writing style. "

I think I've got to agree with Jeffrey on this one: I've seen some lengthy reviews here GR which are, in essence, a detailed synopsis. You read one of them and you don't want to bother reading the book because the reviewers given everything away! However, the spoiler function here on GR is really does help out with this problem. I appreciate readers want to discuss the books they love, we all do when we've read a great book, it just isn't good if you're thinking of reading a book and check out the reviews then trip on one that unfolds the entire plot. So, I suppose the moral is if you're going to give too much away, use a spoiler at those points :).

I think it all boils down to personal preference. Some readers rely on reviews before purchasing. Others don't. Some want reviewers to comment only on style and voice. Others don't. Obviously, though, everyone believes their opinion is the only right one.

I suppose people might have the opinion that 2+2 is equal to 5, but there is a word for a summary of the book and it's NOT review.

I think there are exceptions to nearly every rule and if the review is being posted in a location where a synopsis is for some reason not available or perhaps the author did a very poor job of writing his synopsis or something of that nature, ok, perhaps it is acceptable. However, even if a synopsis is by some stroke of fate appropriate for a book review, I still see no reason it could not be self contained or written in such a way as to be easily skipped, instead of woven into the review. I'd consider this a the bare minimum.

Reviewing has become a casual past time, especially on sites like Goodreads, and there's nothing wrong with that. This site was designed for readers to discuss books, categorize them, and review in any way they see fit.

If you approve of the way someone composes a review, like it and follow them. If you don't, ignore it. Bitching because people aren't doing it "your way" is an exercise in futility.

"Bitching" about people not doing it "my way" IS "discussing books, categorizing them, and reviewing in any way they see fit."

I believe casually exploring all aspects of books is definitely in the description of the purpose of this site, but if you read the first post you will see what I come across frequently is trying to find a good book to read and checking out the reviews to get some insight, only to have to read synopsis after synopsis until I get sick of reading the reviews. I think this is wrong and so I choose to partake in my exercise of futility in hopes that it will make the smallest difference.

What I've found is that there are essentially two kinds of people; those that agree and those who's arguments are, "I can do anything I want," or "get over it," or "just skip that part." No one seems to explain why it's so necessary to summarize a book in the review section. I suspect, it is because they don't have a GOOD reason.

"Bitching" about people not doing it "my way" IS "discussing books, categorizing them, and reviewing in any way they see fit."

Actually, that's discussing reviewers, not books. Regardless, this is all a matter of personal preference. For me, I enjoy reader-written synopsis' in reviews, and don't mind spoilers in the least. Does that mean I should try to convert others? That I should make a list of reasons those who disagree with me shouldn't? No. Live and let live.

(Oh, and a GOOD reason is subjective. I could give you several that qualify for me, but I'm sure they wouldn't measure up for you.)

Wow! Just wow.

Ditto that...

If they are giving their opinion in the course of that summary, then it is still a review. And if they alert people that there are spoilers, and are considerate enough to leave their overall opinion separate from the summary, where's the harm? There's also the option of not reading what they've posted if in fact they are just posting a synopsis. Skim read, look for a statement of quality, and if none exists, run away! Simple as that.

Anyone can write and post a review any way they like. There are no Review Police to monitor and determine which reviews meet an established criteria and which do not. That is how it should be. Censorship is a slippery slope best avoided.

I personally believe that including spoilers and/or a synopsis in a book review to be improper and unnecessary. The same holds true regarding the practice of independent and self-published authors soliciting, trading, and purchasing reviews. However, those who engage is such practices have the right to do so. No one should try to impose their personal philosophy or opinions regarding any subject or practice upon others.

So how do I cope? I just don't read reviews that have obviously been solictied, traded, or paid for or those that contain spoilers or a synopsis. That is my right.

I personally do not write a synopsis-- I drop hints of what the book is about through examples. I once wrote in one of my reviews that I do not give a synopsis because anything I write in it is basically the same thing written by the author/ publisher. There is no point. I agree that in a blog, it is necessary to have the synopsis because the blog, unlike Goodreads, does not provide a synopsis already.

As a reader, I often find myself appreciating reviews that include a brief synopsis in their review. I browse Good Reads reviews for just that reason.

Frequently, I find the synopsis provided by the book / publishing company to be an aggravatingly inadequate blurb full of teasers that try to suck me in. I don't want teasers, I want a super brief plot view. In fact, if a book's blurb is mostly teasers I almost automatically cross it from my list as total pulp that has to resort to cheap tricks to lull readers into purchasing it.

Sometimes a reader review w/brief synopsis can provide what the book has not and may get me to read a book I would otherwise dismiss. Don't get me wrong - I don't appreciate spoilers in a review, but if they're marked, I simply avoid them.

I find that if a reviewer doesn't provide information on the overall quality of a book (character development, writing quality) with reasons for their opinion then the credibility of their review is zero for me and I stop reading it.

That being said, I try not to reveal much about the book in my own reviews (all 2), but do try to touch on the essentials such as character development, plot development, writing style, tone, etc. So I suppose I'm more of a do as I say not as I do kinda reviewer....

As a reader I like to read things I "shouldn't" read in reviews! Especially in non-fiction books - not so much in novels. I find the more I can read about a book in reviews, the more I am likely to buy it as I have more of a feel of whether or not I will like it.

As an author I agree with Christine - authors shouldn't read reviews. Your comment should be required reading for authors Christine!

Michelle wrote: "As an author I agree with Christine - authors shouldn't read reviews. Your comment should be required reading for authors Christine! ..."

I agree. I have posted this same comment numerous times and I'll keep posting it.

I've read comments by very successful writers who will NEVER read reviews of their own books. They don't feel a review has anything to do with them. Steven King says he doesn't want anyone's voice in the back of his head when he's writing - it may cause him to second guess himself - so he has never read his reviews.

Something to think about...

Yeah, there's that and then there's the whole need for a thick skin before reading someone criticize what is likely your cherished work of blood, sweat and tears.

The need for a "thick skin" is eliminated if you don't read them at all - that was the point I was trying to make.

Right. The one I was supporting.

Christine wrote: "Steven King says he doesn't want anyone's voice in the back of his head when he's writing - it may cause him to second guess himself - so he has never read his reviews."

The difference is that Stephen King is getting reviewed by professional critics whose reviews are more about furthering their own careers than about what they thought of his books. Those kind of reviews should quite rightly be ignored.

A writer who ignores reviews from everyday readers, however, is in danger of being accused of aloofness, with some justification. If he/she expects people to take time out of their lives to read their work, let alone to go to the length of writing reviews about it, then it is simply courtesy to take an interest in what they think.

Luke wrote: "...A writer who ignores reviews from everyday readers, however, is in danger of being accused of aloofness, with some justification. If he/she expects people to take time out of their lives to read their work, let alone to go to the length of writing reviews about it, then it is simply courtesy to take an interest in what they think."

At the risk of sounding repetitive - Readers write reviews for other READERS not for authors. Reviews are designed to express an opinion on a book. That opinion is used by other readers to determine if the book is something they would want to read. I review all the books I read including TP authors like Steven King, because I review for other readers. I'd prefer to hear a reader's opinion before I spend money on any book.

Readers are not looking for courtesy. Buying a book is a retail transaction. We don't expect the grocery store to call us to see if our salad turned out okay, or the gas station to check with us on our mileage figures. Why would we be concerned about an author reading our review - it has nothing to do with him.

I think sometimes new authors have never read and reviewed books until they published their own - then they decided to change the rules.

You joined this site when your book published in Nov 2014. Did you read through the "Author Program" because one of the first guidelines is to never contact a reviewer - therefore you comment is moot. No one cares if an author takes an interest and even if they did - reviewers would never know.

The only contact I make with a reviewer is to thank him or her for taking the trouble to review... making such an interesting point... saying something nice... whatever happens to fit, and that is simple courtesy. Assuming reviewers don't know is just that: an assumption. If they've seen there are comments by other reviews they may well read them, and come back to see if the author has "bothered" with theirs.

The only other addition, and only if the reviewer has said they are looking forward to the next book in the series, would be the title. I would never add that if the reviewer said nothing about reading more: it would be blatant advertising and that is not the correct use of the comment box next to each review.

Reviews are there to help readers, but you are so wrong about stores, including grocery, not caring what customers think. Almost every till receipt has "How did we do? printed on it, and a request to fill in a short survey relating to your visit.

Sarah; You have one book published in Nov 2014 and multiple 4 and 5 star reviews on that book. There are NO comments from you, or anyone else, on any of those reviews. I can only conclude your "courtesy" to reviewers relates to something other than the book listed on this site or is fabricated.

Normally when I finish reading a book and write a review, I post that review to various sites and then put the book on my book shelf. I read a lot of books, both self-published and traditionally published and I do reviews on what I read. I'm also a writer. Between writing and reading, I have no time to go back and look at a finished review just to see if someone got better comments than I did.

I never said retailers didn't care, and I'm very careful to say exactly what I mean. ("...We don't expect the grocery store to call us to see if our salad turned out okay...") They may provide a way to comment, but the consumer maintains the option of replying or ignoring them completely. If they called every customer about every purchase, they wouldn't have customers for very long.

Shari wrote: None of us should presume that we speak for everyone."


Which answers the question perfectly. As long as reviewers say 'this may coronation spoilers' no one can tell them what to leave out or put into their own review. Anymore then they could tell the author what not to write.

I do not presume to speak for everyone. Every situation is different, but I do want new authors to understand why things are the way they are. Making demands of reviewers, just means they stop reviewing. After the violence and stalking that has occurred, contact from a writer can be unnerving and again can stop the reviews. I don't think writers want that to happen. We all know how important reviews are and yet many new writers still poke at reviewers apparently thinking they can control the process.

After much research and discussion, the following list covers my understanding of the rights of both readers/reviewers and writers.

1. Reviews are for readers, not authors.

2. Reviewer must always disclose their relationship if any with the writer, and/or if any compensation has been received, including a free copy of the book. (FTC Regulations) If the reviewer did not read the entire book (DNF) it should be noted in the review. Reviewers should review honestly and all comments should be about the book - not the author.

3. Reviewers can rate and review in any manner they feel expresses their honest opinion. Unmarked spoilers are inconsiderate, but happen - readers beware. Some do full synopsis - again readers beware.

4. Writers can read reviews like any other reader, but must understand any criticism is subjective and not a personal attack.

5. Writers cannot tell reviewers how to review or impose rules on a reviewer's methods. They cannot criticize or contradict a review - its an opinion and subjective by nature.

6. Writers cannot contact reviewers to demand ratings or reviews be changed. Writers cannot threaten or stalk reviewers (criminal charges can apply). Contact between writers and reviewers is never recommended and extreme caution is advised.

7. Reviewers have control of their review and have the right and ability to delete any comments they feel are inappropriate.

I think these rules are reasonable.

That said, I do read my reviews. I think there are good reasons for reading them.

-What if the review said something like, "Worst cook book I've ever read. Who uses onions in ice-cream?" when the book was actually science-fiction? Perhaps that review could be removed.

-What if you have 10 reviews and all of them say, the ending sucked or there was no character development. One review you might ignore, but if all of them trend, then maybe you need to work on your endings.

-What if you're just curious?

I have no problems with authors reading their reviews, but that is as far as it should go. They shouldn't try to contact people, blame people, comment on the reviews or any other thing. If the author wants a back and forth, he needs to speak to his editor, not the reviewer.

Ultimately, I agree, it is probably just best not to read them.

Russell wrote: "I have no problems with authors reading their reviews, but that is as far as it should go. They shouldn't try to contact people, blame people, comment on the reviews or any other thing. If the author wants a back and forth, he needs to speak to his editor, not the reviewer... Ultimately, I agree, it is probably just best not to read them..."

Thank you for your comments. You nailed it.

Christine wrote: "Russell wrote: "I have no problems with authors reading their reviews, but that is as far as it should go. They shouldn't try to contact people, blame people, comment on the reviews or any other th..."

I also have no problem with authors reading reviews. I know a case where a reviewer pointed out a factual mistake the author had made in his story. The author contacted the publisher and it was changed.I would under no circumstances contact a reviewer.

There's different types of reviewers, too. As an author, I might write a review more centered around some of the more mechanical aspects of a book, like structure, plot, character development, etc. Others may base their reviews more on how a book made them feel, or what parts of the book they liked or didn't like, without necessarily explaining exactly why. They are readers, as others have stated, and not necessarily writers. Perhaps the way they summarize can provide clues as to why they did or didn't like it.

JSo how do I cope? I just don't read reviews that have obviously been solictied, traded, or paid for

How can you tell? I once read bought a badly written book with a rubbish story on the strength of over 1000 glowing reviews.??????
Mind you, the 40+ one star reviews were probably the only genuine ones.

There's different types of reviewers, too. As an author, I might write a review more centered around some of the more mechanical aspects of a book, like structure, plot, character development, etc. Others may base their reviews more on how a book made them feel, or what parts of the book they liked or didn't like

I try to do both.

Amen to the OP.

How many times, did I Just want to read a review, and the critic, is telling the whole book, all the roads the characters take.
A lot of reviews, seem to review the book, for people who finished it already.

I feel that now there are a lot of reviewers who are writing review to gain status. And thus they go by quantity and not quality. I didn't realize this before, but after I released my first book, I had requested over 30 reviewers to review my book. The ones that summarized the synopsis, it was very apparent that they didn't read the entire book. Which is really sad...