I subscribe to a nifty monthly newsletter put out by the Insecure Writer's Support Group, which contains great advice and links for writers of all abilities, among other things. It also sponsors a monthly blog hop, which I haven't participated in quite some time, and in conjunction with that blog hop, the newsletter will have a question prompt for that blog hop in case you're lacking a topic of choice for your monthly participation.
For the month of December the question had to do with book reviews, specifically, when you write a book review, are you critiquing the book or the author of said book?
For me, back in the day when I was able to write book reviews on Amazon for books that I had borrowed from my public library (current Amazon policy is that you have to spend at least $50 with a credit or debit card before you can leave a review), the majority of the time I would review the book and not the author.
Being a semi-professional writer, I was quite sensitive to sledgehammering an author over a particular book, since I had quite a few people do it to me, so I would try my best to critique a particular book. Very rarely did I critique the writer, as I would always try to give them the benefit of the doubt, especially if it was for a book that I didn't like or understand (example, I don't understand most poetry nor traditional prose). I always try to find something positive about a book, which is why I usually go no lower 2 1/2 stars on my public reviews.
On at least three occasions though, I did critique the author of a particular book. The first time was a book that started out decent but quickly nosedived into a master's thesis: very analytical and devoid of emotion. The second time was a memoir written by someone who was a civil rights lawyer, but it too nosedived, only this time it was the equivalent of a novel length apology from a White Liberal Savior. The third time was a well known indie musician turned writer who wrote a bio on a well known early R&B singer, but the bio basically read like a bio of the group they were in and not of them.
Beyond those three, all my reviews have concentrated on the book. I do try to point out in the reviews of books I don't quite understand why I would give them just a three or three and a half star rating, and I always try give props to those writers who write in genres that I don't understand.
I know it may sound like I'm being wishy-washy or waffling with those 3 star reviews, but I simply can't see myself hammering a book simply because I don't understand it. I find there's a huge distinction between reading a book and not liking it, and reading a book and not understanding it, so I always wrote my reviews with that philosophy in mind.
Oh and, in case you're wondering about the reviews of books that I'd enjoyed, almost without exception I do 4 or 4 1/2 star reviews. I have problems giving 5 star reviews, but that's a me problem more than anything else.
So my friends, this concludes my semi-shallow dive into my little slice of the topic called "Book Reviews". Hope you liked it and were able to learn something from it. Have a great week.
{c} 2023 by G.B. Miller. All Rights Reserved
Good point about not understanding a book.
ReplyDeleteGlad you subscribe to the IWSG newsletter!
I'm glad too. Lots of great info contained within.
DeleteThere are quite a few genres that I don't get, no matter how hard I try. So in the cases, I usually compliment the writer on their ability to write that kind of prose and move on.