What's in a Review?

Reviews are something I never thought about until I began writing. If I saw a book that looked interesting to me, I purchased it and read it. Sometimes it turned out to be a really great book. Sometimes okay. A few times a waste of money.

After True Mates published I discovered the not so wonderful world of ebook reviews. As a writer, I understand the power of a good review. As a reader I sometimes use reviews to find out more information about ebooks upon which I'm undecided whether to purchase. Sometimes reviews has revealed story elements that were not listed in the publisher's warning that I really choose not to read. Other times a book that sounded so-so turned out to be a fabulous read.

The thing about reviews, though, is that it boils down to one reader's opinion. An opinion that is based upon that reader's preferences, expectations, life experiences, etc. Things that may or may not coincide with my own.

So why do we give reviews so much weight? And should we do so?

One reason is that reviews are a form of free promotion for authors, one that we hope will be positive. Writers want readers to purchase and like their books. We put a lot of our heart and soul into writing each one. A good review is like applause for a job well done.

A bad review? Well, those can be crushing, and it shouldn't be. A review is simple one readers very public opinion of your work. It's that public nature that cause writers and publishers alike to cringe when a review is unfavorable.

I feel that the role of the reviewer is to rate the story, period. Was it good? Did you like it? Give the reader a summary of the story that tells more than the blurb but not so much that you tell the whole story. And please, no spoilers. Give the reader something to look forward to.

Now for a pet peeve of mine. What's with reviewers that insist on commenting (nit-picking, some of them) on every little error in the book. NO BOOK, no matter the publisher, is without it's errors. Why? Books are published by people and people aren't perfect. I don't care how many checks and balances a publisher has in place, errors happen.

This wouldn't bug me so much if I didn't know the other side of the publishing business. I know what things the writer can control, what the editor controls, and what the publisher controls. An editor's job is to help the writer polish their manuscript. Notice I say help. They can't write it for them. They can't force the writer to make the changes that they know will improve their story, and believe me, not all authors are cooperative when it comes to the editing process. And as an editor I know not all editors are competent.

Publishers hire the best help they can get for the salary they can afford to pay. Trust me, qualified editors are not beating down most publishers doors trying to get jobs. If you're a publisher and you want to stay in business, you do the best you can with the staff you have.

I suppose the same could be said of review houses. Most reviewers are volunteers. A lot are avid readers who don't mind telling others what they think of a book for the opportunity to get in some free reads. They're not writers, editors, or publishers (at least the majority of them are not). They are not professionals. They are simply people who give of their time to offer a service and sometimes get really harassed for the opinions they offer.I know. I've inadvertantly done it myself. Not deliberately offended one, but offended a reviewer nonetheless.

So again I ask, what's in a review, and why do we give them so much power?