Modern Good Reads discussion

I'm here to ask you to cut it out. I read somewhere that if the review contains a synopsis that it was probably written by the author or his surrogate, however, I just read a bunch of reviews for a book called Rollback and I must have read what was virtually a synopsis about 10 times. Some of these were 2 star ratings, so it can't all be an ad campaign. Reply with your thoughts or just reply as a form of pledge not to do it? Thanks for listening.

I find this practice quite annoying as well. I can read the synopsis or dust cover or e-book promo. I don't need the reviewer to repeat it. Why they do it? I can only guess.

Either they need to prove they actually read the book or they're simply unable to explain what they liked or disliked.

The other issue is they may not have given much thought to the rating they gave the book and really have very little to say.

But giving the reader the benefit of the doubt - maybe they think this is how a review is done.

Many readers cross post their reviews in places where the blurb is not available, like a blog for example. Rather than editing the review several times for several locations, we copy and paste. Hope the helps...

A proper review clearly explains why the book received a specific rating by the reader - poorly written, weak storyline, boring, incoherent, inconistencies, etc. - any and all of which can and should be stated without revealing spoilers.

Anyone reading the review who wishes to know the story overview may reference the original blurb created by the author or publisher.

I don't know why some reviews include a synopsis, but I will say that I don't read reviews that do (or I just skim to get to the meat).

Jim wrote: "A proper review clearly explains why the book received a specific rating by the reader - poorly written, weak storyline, boring, incoherent, inconsistencies, etc. - any and all of which can and shou..."

You nailed it Jim. It's not hard to do and as for needing to include the synopsis because you are cross-posting shouldn't enter into it. Jim is right again: "Anyone reading the review who wishes to know the story overview may reference the original blurb created by the author or publisher."

A synopsis is not what I'm looking for when I check out a book review. I can't understand why it would ever be included.

I have had people do that to my books and it's very annoying. Even if I get a great rating, it's hard to believe, since I can't tell if they've really read the book.

I suppose that's a matter of opinion, Christine. Some of my favorite bloggers always include a summary, and I appreciate that because we aren't on Amazon or Goodreads and the publishers blurb is not handy on their blog. But to each their own. I will say, though, that reviews are for other readers, rather than authors.

It's true. This is an annoying habit of some reviewers, many of whom I love dearly by the way :) But if asked, I would tell them, just please say what you thought about the books, its strengths, weaknesses, a few examples wouldn't hurt terribly just so long as spoiler warnings are included. But please, oh please, don't tell everybody what happens throughout!

B/c it's MY review and I'll summarize it if I want to! Period. Don't like it, then don't read it.

Note: I DO make a note to mention that my reviews may contain spoilers. So if that note is there and something is 'ruined' for you b/c you keep reading anyway, then it's your own damn fault - I warned you...

Seregon wrote: "B/c it's MY review and I'll summarize it if I want to! Period. Don't like it, then don't read it..."

That's what it all boils down to!

Jen wrote: "Seregon wrote: "B/c it's MY review and I'll summarize it if I want to! Period. Don't like it, then don't read it..."

That's what it all boils down to!"

Quite true.

Seregon wrote: "B/c it's MY review and I'll summarize it if I want to! Period. Don't like it, then don't read it.

Note: I DO make a note to mention that my reviews may contain spoilers. So if that note is there a..."

Uh-oh... please don't stop reading our stuff. Us indies need people like you!

Seregon wrote: "B/c it's MY review and I'll summarize it if I want to! Period. Don't like it, then don't read it.

Note: I DO make a note to mention that my reviews may contain spoilers. So if that note is there a..."

I really wish you would reconsider. I really don't think people go to the review to find out what the book is about. In fact, I'd say a very high percentage of people already know what the book is about, that is why they are reading the review. They want to know if it's any good.

Do you really want me NOT to read your review? Plus I kind of have to read it to find out that you've summarized it, don't I? I could stop as soon as I see a synopsis coming, but I do really want to read your opinion. It's kind of like being forced to watch commercials during your favorite show. As I mentioned in my original post, about 6 people included a synopsis in their reviews so I wound up reading over and over what the book was about. I, in fact, did stop reading reviews for that book because I just didn't want to read yet another synopsis. So in a sense including them kills OTHER people's reviews.

Can you please explain WHY you feel it's necessary?

And thank you for reviewing. It really is important to other readers. . . and the authors.

Jen wrote: "Many readers cross post their reviews in places where the blurb is not available, like a blog for example. Rather than editing the review several times for several locations, we copy and paste. Hop..."

I can see your point. I do the copy/paste thing too. However, I don't see the harm in creating a template for yourself. If it's a blog, where it may be desirable to have a synopsis IN the review, you could make that your first paragraph. Then just delete that paragraph when you are posting to Goodreads or Amazon. Or at a minimum, mark a little section like this:

-------------Synopsis--------------------
It's about a man who replaces his heart with the pump from a fish tank.
-----------End Synopsis -----------------

Very convenient for the person reading the review.

It's just a suggestion.

A synopsis beats spoilers, which some of mine have come close to.

Russell, that's certainly true...but a lot of readers just don't want to go to the trouble. While I can see that a page of reviews all offering a synopsis might be frustrating for those looking for the meat, there are some reviewers talented enough to make these summaries entertaining by offering their own entertaining spin on the plot.
Even so, we should all just be grateful for those who take the time to review. If they didn't, I doubt I'd buy a fraction of the books I do.

Russell wrote: "I'm here to ask you to cut it out. I read somewhere that if the review contains a synopsis that it was probably written by the author or his surrogate, however, I just read a bunch of reviews for ..."

As one who used to review books for a newspaper, I think reviewers who give a synopsis are rank amateurs who don't have a clue what to say about the book. I rarely did it--but I was terrified, before writing almost every review, that I'd have nothing to say about it (and then I surprised myself because I did!). My guess is that kind of terror drives amateurs to fill the space with a synopsis because it's easier!

Wow...

I wrote the above post before reading all comments, and now that I have, I see most people are referring to reviews on blogs, Amazon, Goodreads, etc, rather than in newspapers, magazines, book review rags, which is what I was talking about. Do the same rules apply? I'm not sure....except, since I was actually paid by the publisher for my reviews, I couldn't just say "It's MY review and I'll do whatever I want!" LOL. I had to conform to certain standards, the major one being to let readers know if the book was worth reading.

And if you want to write synopses you could go work for a publisher writing their catalog!

By me its close to it. I know But these are the things which keep me glued to the book. The mixture what makes me getting lost in it, and reading it again. I will sure try to stay to a more general review now.

Jen wrote: "Russell, that's certainly true...but a lot of readers just don't want to go to the trouble. While I can see that a page of reviews all offering a synopsis might be frustrating for those looking for..."
Ok, I didn't understand what you said. I think you meant that a lot of REVIEWERS just don't want to go to the trouble, in which case that's exactly what this thread is about. They need to start going through the trouble. They took the trouble to write the review, they should take the trouble to do it right. In fact, just leaving the synopsis out is LESS work not more.

I love writing reviews and I strive to provide information not provided in the other reviews, when possible. I think this helps people and may be one of the reasons this is a hot button for me. I read a lot of reviews. I think it's important to writing a good review not only to come at it from a direction that will help a reader decide whether to read a book, but also to possibly address an issue that seems to recur in other reviews.


My pledge:
If I write a review of your book, I pledge not to repeat information contained in the synopsis. I'm humbly requesting you do the same.

Russell,
Like I said, I see your point. Many of the reviewers I "tune into," have their own blogs and they write reviews primarily for their own sites. Doing so, they feel an obligation to introduce this book to their subscribers - including both a synopsis and their own take on the work. When those reviews are posted on GR and Amazon, they are merely cut and pasted from the original review (from their blog).
Personally, I don't have a blog. When I include a synopsis in my review, I do so for a variety of reasons. Sometimes I think the author's or publisher's blurb is lacking. Sometimes I think it tells too much or not enough. Sometimes, while composing my thoughts, I begin with a brief summary for no particular reason at all - except that I like the way I've condensed the plot and it feels like it fits.
Though I am now aware of how obnoxious this is to some people, I will likely continue to do so. I write reviews for myself, my friends, and the people who DO like what I have to say. Anyone else is free to ignore me...to ignore every one of us who fails to meet the standards of "professional reviewing."

Well, there's not much I can say to that except, like I said to Seregon. I hope one day you reconsider.

In the reviews I write for fiction pieces I try not to reveal much that would be considered 'spoilers.' Given that I hate when someone gives away to me what happens in the book I'm reading, or the movie I'm watching ... so I try not to do the same to anyone else. And when reading reviews I tend to skip over the these parts and focus on the reviewers ideas about the mechanics of the writing, the depth to the characterization, etc.

In non fiction reviews though my approach is different. I feel free to go into detail about the contents of the book ... especially ones that are geared toward educational or how-to topics.

Now having said that, I don't have a problem with reviewers giving a bit of a rundown of the book and I'm sure many people enjoy them. I have sometimes read these kind of reviews after I have finished the book and found that the reviewer did a better job of getting to the heart of the description than the blurb itself.

I think this is more a matter of preference that a one way is right and the other is wrong. Or at the very least I don't feel comfortable telling someone, "Hey you shouldn't it that way, do it this way." Especially when speaking of the readers who purchased the book. They are taking their own time and effort to write these reviews.

The author wrote the blurb so I don't have to. I do like to give a sentence or two about the premise and the main characters, but more to have a context for explain what I loved or loathed about the story (or editing as sometimes is the case).

Mad wrote: "In the reviews I write for fiction pieces I try not to reveal much that would be considered 'spoilers.' Given that I hate when someone gives away to me what happens in the book I'm reading, or the..."
While I respect your opinion and I certainly wouldn't want anyone to stop writing reviews, I don't see anything that changes my mind. I'm not going to tell anyone how they must do it, but I'M more than happy to tell them how NOT to do it. I just don't see a review as a place for a synopsis.

Don't do it!

Russell, why don't you just skip down to the part of the review that you want to read? That's what I do. I usually put a few synopsis lines when I write a review, mainly to get the ball rolling as it relates to the points I want to focus on in my review. And I agree with one the person who said sometimes the actual book synopsis doesn't say exactly what I want to focus on.

Everyone's thought process is different so they will write differently too. And the majority of readers on goodreads are readers not authors and will write whatever way is comfortable for them, even if it's just stars. I doubt you will change over a million readers minds on this.

I write reviews often and I'm very careful not to summarize or give spoilers. I consider a spoiler to be an answer to one or more of the questions the writer uses to entice a reader to keep reading. I do not like to see spoilers on reviews for my books. I do like reviews so I never complain to my reviewers.

This is a great discussion.

Cindy wrote: "Russell, why don't you just skip down to the part of the review that you want to read? That's what I do. I usually put a few synopsis lines when I write a review, mainly to get the ball rolling as ..."

The purpose of this thread was to point out to the few who have an open mind on the subject not to include things that don't belong in a review. Perhaps they don't realize that their review does not exist in vacuum and that they are merely repeating what many people have done before them.

It can be difficult to just skip this part of the review because some people actually wind their review into the synopsis.

If the synopsis written by the author isn't complete or as accurate as it should be then the reviewer should not write a synopsis, but should instead write a compliment to it. "The synopsis says it is a story about revenge, which it is, but it is also in large part about the development of teleportation." There you go. It adds to the synopsis without again saying, "When so and so was left behind to die in his damaged ship, he sought out his revenge on the crew of the ship that left him," you know, like the author said.

Sorry, I just don't see the need for it and nothing anyone has said has really changed my mind. It just serves to make the review longer and repetitive. Do I expect to change millions of future reviews? Of course, not, but I got to get it off my chest and it does seem a few people agree with me. Are you suggesting a forum is not a good place to bring up a subject, because I thought that's sort of what forums are for.

When I started reading this thread I was in total agreement with Russell. To me, a synopsis is written by the author/publisher. When included in a review by a reader I considered it more of a book report. I've changed my mind somewhat now. I can see the importance of a blogger writing their own synopsis on their blog because their readers want to know what that blogger thinks the book is about. Their followers respect that blogger's opinion or they wouldn't be reading the blog.

Nope not saying that at all Russell, just trying to pose options.

Personally, I write a review on nearly everything I read, but I don't necessarily post them everywhere, and I can appreciate the economy for those who do. However, I never write a summary, and most certainly never include spoilers. Who am I to take the fun away from the next reader? I also keep my reviews concise (no more than 300 words) because the attention span of most people is all too brief.

There was a time, not very long ago, when the titles author and reviewer generated respect and financial rewards for those who proved themselves sufficiently proficient in their chosen field.

Today, anyone with a personal computer and access to the internet, may technically lay claim to either or both of those titles - proficient or not. Whether this is a good or bad thing is another subject, best suited for another time in a different thread.

A knowledegeable reviewer can effectively critique the author's work without providing a detailed description of the story line that, more often than not, includes a spoiler or two. Evaluating the technical writing ability, narration skill, and originality of the author is sufficient to encourage or discourage a potential reader.

I hate it when book summaries are included in a review. I want to know what the reviewer thought of the book, not what the story is. If I want to know that, I look at the blurb on the book cover or read the book myself.

Two of my books were recently reviewed with a complete synopsis of the story (including the climax and resolution and all the plot twists I put in) without anything to flag that the review had spoilers in it. I was very annoyed.

Authors should be careful not to sound ungrateful. There are tactful ways of getting a point across, without alienating anyone.

@Russell - I get where you're coming from on this, but Jen is right - reviewers are readers - not people you want to alienate.

I have already voiced my opinion back in May and at that time explained I did not agree with including a synopsis in a book review. But there may be other issues here that may be clouding this discussion.

I believe we've reached a point where reviews are becoming longer and longer. As a reviewer, there are times I feel guilty writing a short review. But I get over it quick. A person who does not usually review may be intimidated by the length of many reviews and as a result, NOT review at all.

I don't think there is a right or wrong way to do this. I think a reviewer needs to do whatever works for them. I would like to see all the readers on this sight feel comfortable enough to review everything they read. There are no rules when you express an opinion. Whether it takes 10 paragraphs or one line to express it - that's fine.

Spoilers are always a concern and hopefully everyone understands how inconsiderate it is to include spoilers of any kind in a review. Reviews are for other readers and every reader appreciates honest reviews. Just remember: giving other readers too much info about the story ruins it for them and no one appreciates that.

Yes, Christine. I couldn't understand why a person would think that writing out the entire storyline was a good idea for a review. It seemed a bit excessive, even when not considering all the things in the story that I'd rather the reader didn't find out before they started reading the book. It seems common sense to me not to do something like that. Occasionally, when writing a review, I might mention something in the storyline if I want to make a point about it, but I try and keep the details vague and always flag that it has spoilers in case anyone's trying to avoid anything about the story at all. But putting the whole storyline in? Why even do it?

I agree with Marcy. I think most of the people who write reviews on this site are amateurs. And by that I mean that the reviewers don't work on a professional level with editors looking over their shoulders and publishers trying to sway them. They are simply people who either love or hate the book and want to share their reasons why. If that reason is because the story is not plausible or boring than a brief synopsis to justify that opinion is not out of space.

Spoilers are a different matter and should not be encouraged.

But we must all remember that this is a site for readers and the majority of reviews are as much a discussion of the book in question as a breakdown of the authors storytelling technique or craftmanshipand sometimes the sotry is the thing. So, I don't think that any harm is really done and if you come across a review that is giving away too much of the storyline you can always scroll down to the next one - I'm sure there are many more reviews to be read, afterall.

Russell wrote: "I'm here to ask you to cut it out. I read somewhere that if the review contains a synopsis that it was probably written by the author or his surrogate, however, I just read a bunch of reviews for ..."
No idea why anybody would write a synopsis of a book they didn't like, unless it was to point out why.
Good reviews pull out the aspect a reader liked best. A synopsis is bordering on a spoiler. I read a review to see if others liked a book, though it's a very individual decision. Ratings probably count for more, or they would if everybody remembered to do them.

Its a heinous practice for sure.

Jen wrote: "Authors should be careful not to sound ungrateful. There are tactful ways of getting a point across, without alienating anyone."
I agree. ALL reviews should be welcomed. Good ones are a boost, to morale as well as sales, and bad ones could just have a point worth taking on board. If they're just plain nasty they're best ignored: it's only one individual's opinion.

I'll probably sound like a snob, which is not my intention, but I've written hundreds of published review of nonfiction books and have some pretty strong ideas about what's a good review and what isn't.
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. A lot of "page-turners" are poorly written but well-plotted; I guess the latter carries the day. But a fiction reviewer really should address how well the author met some of these key benchmarks. "I loved it" and "kept me up at night" is not a review, but a reaction.

Still, if it kept someone up all night it at least means it kept them engaged in the story, which means the author has achieved one objective.

The GR prompt for anyone writing a review is: "What did you think?"

I'm just saying...

True - and that is how I accepted that particular review, and many others. Not everyone enjoys the same reading experience. At other times someone who knows you personally, and loves you, may give a great review when in actuality they would not have read the book if by another person. It is all subjective!

I don't understand why more people aren't grateful for those two stars. On GR, it means "it was okay," and only legitimizes their higher ratings.

I must confess that I don't like getting two star ratings myself, especially since they lower the overall rating. I'm fine with this guy giving my books one star if he read them and thought they deserved that, but I doubt that's the case.

CAUTION: I NEED TO RANT (and it's a bit off topic)...

Why are authors reading reviews? Why aren't you off writing somewhere? Reviews are for other readers and are supposed to help them select books. They are not for authors.

Reviews are not supposed to critique writers, or tell them what they are doing right or wrong - you have alpha and beta readers to do that. Reviews are not designed to boost your ego or insult you. Stop reading them and they won't bother you anymore.

Oh look another comment about bad reviews being done only for ulterior motives. Please give it up. (Readers are obviously much smarter than you think - they don't select books based on 1 review.) Are some authors so ego-driven, they can't deal with the idea someone didn't like their book.

Writers: If you didn't read reviews written for READERS, none of this would bother you. If you insist on reading reviews, then learn to deal with it.

I find reading reviews helpful, as it can give me an insight into what the reader liked or did not like on a level that editors and beta readers can't always provide. Being an editor myself, I can critique a writer based on technique, but helping them connect with an audience is a different issue. Reading reviews can help with this, as it tells an author what the word is on the street about what they have written and whether or not it connects with a general audience.
This is why I often have trouble with people just rating rather than leaving a review, especially if they've given me a low rating. If my writing didn't work for them, I want to know what it is that didn't connect. It might be something I can work on. It's always a good thing to get as much input as possible and then weigh it up and see if it can be put to use.