While I was on blog hiatus, author Hannah Moskowitz posted an open letter to people who post nasty reviews on Goodreads (language NSFW). (UPDATE: I believe I actually misread Hannah’s point, which I think has to do with commenting on bad reviews than leaving bad reviews. So please take this more as a jumping off point than an extension of that discussion.)
In essence, Hannah argues that while vitriol from readers is hard to take for any author, it’s especially hard and egregious coming from fellow authors. Hannah suggests that authors actually give up their right to write casual (and especially casually negative) reviews:
…I don’t really get to be a reader anymore, not fully, and that’s
just [bleeping] reality. And maybe it’s not altogether awesome, and maybe I
miss it, but it’s a pretty small price to pay for being a [motherbleeping]
author.That doesn’t mean I can’t write reviews, even negative ones; I do
sometimes, and there are some amazing combination writer/reviewers out
there–Phoebe North,
anyone?–but it does mean that if I go out there and comment on bad
reviews with sarcasm and bitchiness and general [bleep]-dom, I make
writer-hannah look like a [bleeping] idiot.
So is she right? Do authors give up some rights when it comes to reviews?
While there’s a great and long tradition of writers penning thoughtful negative reviews that demonstrate respect for the subject at hand, I agree with Hannah. I do believe writers give up the right to write casually bitchy reviews.
For the following reasons:
1) You don’t need the karma.
And forget the cosmic implications, this business is hard enough without having people out there wishing you ill. Behind every book is a team. You don’t need teams turning against you.
2) You should be following the Golden Rule.
How would you like it if someone casually dished your book as a piece of trash not worth the pixels it was printed on and it should be burned in a fiery pit of suck?
Not very much, I’m guessing. Not very much.
3) You won’t look good.
There’s no way to write a cruel review and come away looking like anything more than a mean person. No matter how wittily you think you tore the book apart.
4) You’re better than that.
You are! Look at you. You’re smart, you’re erudite, you have a way with words. You insult yourself by resorting to ham-fisted takes on books and not giving them the thoughtful treatment.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying authors can’t write reviews. But writers should require themselves to write thoughtful reviews. They should elevate the discourse, not lower it. And they should treat their fellow writerly comrades at arms with the respect they deserve.
What do you think? Do writers give up rights when it comes to reviews?
Art: “H.L. Mencken” by O. Richard
Stephany says
I can't speak for everyone else, but personally I only leave positive reviews. If I can't say anything nice, I just don't say it.
JJ Wylie says
I agree, and for all the reasons mentioned. The "casually bitchy" review is irresponsible and unprofessional, especially when it comes from a fellow writer.
I remember hearing a writer once say that he had more in common with the worst writer in the world than with the most well-read person who has never written anything original.
February Grace says
I don't think writers should review other writer's work at all. I think there's just too much stuff to get in the way that's why I recently wrote a blog post about what I called 'ordinary' readers.
It just gets too ugly- and I think that writers should just recuse themselves.
Just my view. Love the post, Jedi Master.
~bru
Dana Rose Bailey says
Good points. I agree, but extend it to anyone writing a review not just writers.
Tabitha Olson says
Yes, I totally agree. When one aspires to be an author (or if one is an author), one enters a realm of professionalism where ranting reviews just don't belong.
I do write negative reviews, but I *never* rant. And I always look for the good in every book because there's always something good in it–even if I hated the book, there's still something good about it. I just need to take a few steps back in order to find it. Also, my readers have told me that, even if my review is negative, many of them are still intrigued with the book and seek it out. I think that's key.
Basically, for me, reviews are about promoting a love of reading. It's not about my opinion, or anyone else's, really. It's about how much we all love to read, and if someone else can enjoy a book that I didn't like, great! That's what it's all about.
Miranda Hardy says
I believe you hit the nail of the head with your insight. I would never review anything negatively. It's just another part of being an author. I don't even review books, really, but I'll promote a fellow friend.
Francine Howarth: UK says
Whether a writer or not, all book reviews should be professional in content: brief summary of overall content, no personal likes or dislikes in plot structure etc., no slighting of author or book.
If you didn't like it give it to a charity shop. Someone else make think that same book the best thing next to chocolate!
Amie McCracken says
I don't think writers give up any rights. But that's because I don't think any person should write cruel reviews. There is never a need to be rude, not for anyone. We shouldn't be held to a different standard just because we understand the craft.
Matt Borgard says
I don't know. Twain's comments about Jane Austen were pretty epic:
"I haven’t any right to criticise books, and I don’t do it except when I hate them. I often want to criticise Jane Austen, but her books madden me so that I can’t conceal my frenzy from the reader; and therefore I have to stop every time I begin. Everytime I read Pride and Prejudice I want to dig her up and beat her over the skull with her own shin-bone."
But, point of fact, I think everyone has the right to make casually assholish reviews, if they so choose — haters gonna hate, after all. The caveat being that this is going to make you look like an asshole. But some authors get a lot of publicity maintaining the "asshole" persona.
Rachel Menard says
Funny, I just posted about using Goodreads on my blog the other day, and am not sure I entirely agree with Hannah. True, as writers we should choose our words wisely. But we also shouldn't give every book we read a glowing review. We should be honest because as a reader, I want to read honest and thoughtful reviews. And as a writer, I'm fully aware I could read something harsh about one of my books one day, but I feel if you can't take a bad review then you should get out of the business because they will come.
Anonymous says
I don't think writers give up their right to review, per se – but I am perhaps a bit biased, given that I have a blog devoted to (affectionately, mostly) ripping an entire genre. I would be horrified if an author found my blog and was hurt by what I'd written, but at the same time I'm just one piddly voice in a sea of millions and I'm upfront that these are my opinions, colored by my beliefs. Of course this could come back to bite my ass in a big way, so let's talk again in a few years!
On the other hand, I absolutely without question believe that writers must NEVER respond to negative reviews of their own work. They come off like whiny babies and it leaves a bad taste in the mouth. People on the internet are jerks; if it upsets you, step away and find better headspace.
Justin Luke says
Maybe I read her blog wrong? It seems to me that she's actually pissed off about authors WRITING BACK to readers who review them, and belittling them.
In her argument, I agree. Writers shouldn't really respond to reader reviews, besides a nice 'thank you' or something of that nature.
As for writers writing reviews? Sure. That's totes cool.
Carmen Ferreiro-Esteban says
"I don't really get to be a reader anymore, not fully, and that's just [bleeping] reality."
I totally agree with the previous statement.
And with JJ Wylie's quote about writers having more in common with any writer than with any critic.
I have been reviewing books for a while for Myshelf (always emphasizing the positive), but I have been lately considering whether I should for the exact reasons you give.
Leah says
It troubles me that all this drama over a few socially inept authors behaving badly on Goodreads/Twitter/etc. may have a chilling effect on writers posting any sort of criticism of other writers' work.
No one, whether writer or reader, should write a thoughtless review.
But there's no reason to take that to extremes and say authors should never review other authors, or tell authors they shouldn't say anything if they can't say anything positive. (Which itself is an empty axiom; even the worst book has some positive qualities a good reviewer can comment on.)
While it's disappointing to see certain authors taking critical reviews badly, it's also disheartening that authors are sort of being railroaded into censoring themselves and not participating in discussion and criticism of books. Are we not readers, too?
It's frustrating that we're coming up with solutions to problems that could be easily resolved if people simply behaved with maturity, civility, and respect. But I suppose that is asking a lot. 🙂
I won't let a few bad apples spoil the bunch, and I'll continue to review books no matter where my publishing career takes me.
Gina says
I like the distinction: "casually bitchy" is off-limits, but well-thought-out negative reviews are not.
And frankly, that just ought the be the way it is for ALL people.
Mieke Zamora-Mackay says
"Do writers give up rights when it comes to reviews?"
In my opinion, being able to say anything in any way you please is not an absolute right. I consider it more of a privilege.
For example, I consider it a privilege you give me to be able to comment on this blog post. You created it. You maintain this space. You basically own this white space. Your allowing me to visit here and speak my mind is a privilege.
I would like to extend that thought towards how I view books by other authors. Only a fellow author knows how much hard work goes into each book. In my view, that must be honored.
I love that you encourage "elevating the discourse." Thank you.
Robin Reul says
I try and apply the golden rule that if you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all. Negative reviews are reserved for private conversation where friends (writers or otherwise) might directly ask me my personal opinion. To post negative reviews publicly, especially from a fellow writer, is just mean-spirited and in the end, isn't really helping anyone. We all have personal opinions, but do unto others as you wish done unto you, I say. Boy, I'm just full of adages this morning, aren't I?
Aside from that, we as writers may see things another reader would not. For example, my husband is a film editor and I am a writer. Between the two of us, it's almost impossible for us to watch a movie and not notice its flaws, whether its me shouting out the next plot twist or him knowing there was unnecessary content and it would have flowed better if they'd made it ten minutes shorter. So honestly, it's unfair to pass that along other than within private conversation with people we trust, or unless the writer is specifically asking me for line edits or story feedback, and even then, I would never go about it in a way that didn't also balance, for the writer, what I thought they did well.
Kendall A. says
It's interesting. I actually just thought about this subject on my own blog. I do a review of a YA book every Thursday, and I realized that some of my reviews were on the negative side–not sarcastic or "casually bitchy," but not "THIS IS THE BEST BOOK EVERRRR!!!!!" either.
It worried me a little because it seems in YA, reviews that really poke holes in stories seem somewhat rare. In fact, I know of several reviewers who refuse to post negative reviews and will only discuss books that they love.
But that struck me as wrong. I agree with Hannah. As a writer, I've lost the ability to casually read a book. The books I read, I read for research, and when I write a review, I'm cognizant of how best to frame it to improve my, and my readers', writing skills.
It feels insincere somehow to gloss over parts of a novel that didn't resonate with me. I don't point them out to bring the author down. On the contrary, I have a lot of respect for writers, and, if I do comment on something negative, I make sure to do it thoughtfully and with support from the text.
I agree that negative reviews can be difficult to read. But I believe that they can be beneficial and have their place in the YA community.
I wrote a bit more about this subject on my blog here: https://bloggingforya.blogspot.com/p/on-reviews.html
Jaye says
Hear, hear, Nathan. "…elevate the discourse, not lower it…"
I think many writers, those who care enough to post reviews, miss a huge opportunity when they leave it at, "I like or didn't like." Or when they use reviews to express frustrations with their own careers (yes, it is obvious). Writers have skills. Book blogs are a great way to showcase them.
On my book blog, I don't actually review books, I talk about elements I find interesting. What makes a quotable author, antiheroes, using mythology, or humor. One of my most popular posts talked about creative cursing. I think my readers enjoy it. I know they wouldn't enjoy me tearing a book, or author, apart.
The book blogs I read talk about more than the books. They talk about what the books mean to the blogger, how it relates to their lives and the messages they take away. They are interesting. They don't trash books or authors, because if they did, they'd be boring. Don't bore the audience should be every writer's number one rule.
Gale Martin says
Great post, Nathan. I recently had a really discomforting experience with another writer who I gave a book to, in a gesture of friendship. He said he wanted to buy it but he didn't have the cash. So, I handed him a signed copy and said he could send me a check when he was flush. He proceeded to run it down on FB. I was mortified. Very disappointed in humanity that day. Yeah, it's great to be so gifted and discerning you can pick out all the flaws in others' writing. But if you yourself haven't published and you're a writer, you come off looking really, really bad.
Steven J. Wangsness says
If you put something out there, you are inviting people to give their opinion of it. Last I heard, writers were people (most of them, anyway). So far my novel TAINTED SOULS has gotten good reviews, but you never know… Best thing to do is to stop reading when you realize the review isn't going the way you'd like.
Ms. T Garden says
I will review books on my own site but not often on any other. My reasons are simple. I don't need the ego stroke of people reading my opinion on someone else's work in a more public venue.
Too often I find that people are spewing poorly concealed envy at the success and/or adoration someone is receiving. Whether it is an author who's work may not be as popular or a reader who doesn't want to deal with the fact that someone else actually finished a book and dared to put it out there.
There is also the false sense of security being on the internet brings. After all how many people would recognize the person they were being a buttwad to if they met them in person?
Reading and writing reviews shouldn't be based on middle school standards of popularity or on the type of behavior you can usual find there.
chrysoula says
Ah, but what if the reviewer thinks it's a 'thoughtfully bitchy' review instead of a casually bitchy one? Perhaps even an 'earnestly bitchy' review? What if she's interested in what people are doing with fiction, wants to discuss it, and in discussing it, pulls a book apart?
And then people cry 'nasty review! Feelings-hurter! Mean agenda!’ and one of those people is the author. And other people say, 'wow, thanks, this is thought-provoking?'
There is no real reason for a review discussing literature and trends in that literature to behave like constructive criticism in a crit group. Ultimately if an author can't deal as an adult with the occasional tear-apart or Twainian reaction post, I think they've given up their right to read reviews of their own work.
crow productions says
I theorize there are more writers than readers. If writers give up their rights, that's ludicrous. I say to that person to get off their high horse and walk in the cow pies.
Tapper says
I follow the "only leave a review if it is positive and constructive", which, for me, means three stars or above. But then, I also feel an obligation to the readers. If my book, or any book, is horrible, shouldn't they have fair warning? I like reviews that say what things bothered them, without shredding the book or the author, and leaving it open to others having different opinions.
Nathan Bransford says
Justin-
Oops, I think you're right, I misread her point. I'll update the post.
Kathleen Basi says
The problem with the "Golden Rule" philosophy is that readers don't want a barrage of glowing reviews; they want honest, in-depth reviews that will help them decide if they want to read a book or not. Thoughtful negative reviews, mixed reviews, or generally positive reviews that acknowledge a reservation or two, bear a *whole* lot more weight in my mind. But as a writer, I'm afraid to post any sort of negative critique at all–because after all, I'm trying to break into this business, and if I go around telling other people what's wrong with their work, it's not very politically savvy, is it? I don't know what to do with that dilemma.
Hillsy says
I must admit, I find the whole idea of writing online reviews a bit strange anyway.
I mean I have my opinions (so does everyone) but why should I foist that upon the world unasked?
I mean the rise of the "amatuer expert" has destroyed some industries. Trip advisor for one has put small hotels out of business because people drunk of the power of playing "voice of the people" take to the internet over trivialities which come across as indemic issues.
And even worse is the concept of only leaving "Good reviews". Think about it logically: if everyone only left a good review, and never a bad, then the only review system we'd have would be to measure the number of good reviews on a book to book basis…..so then…what of the book just out? Zero good reviews, the same as another book that's been out months and no-one had anything positive to say. So without studying the release date, finding out the sales figures, factoring in the average reading time……..you see it gets a tad ridiculous.
Personally, I give little credence to amateur reviewers – I'm not saying they can't be correct in what they say (Ghandi himself said "In a minority of 1, the truth is still the truth") or that they arn't trying to be as professional and fair as possible.
But at the end of the day a professional book critic gets paid for their opinions – and, sorry, that's worth something to me too.
(NB: I don't just rely on one critic of course – I'll check out 5 or 6 at the same time)
E. Arroyo says
Writers are not average readers. We see things differently now that we've learned the craft and so our review is biased. IMHO
E.Maree says
I hate "casually bitchy" reviews, because they are *not reviews*. I'm write book reviews, and the key is to be BALANCED – rarely gushing with praise, and never stooping to attacking the author. I'm a writer and a very critical reader, so there's usually things I don't like and things I love about every novel.
"Casually bitchy" reviews are rants and moans dressed-up to look less petty than they are. It doesn't work.
Jenn Greenleaf says
I'm bothered by the writers who use pseudonyms to write their nasty reviews – that way, they can be mean and unprofessional in disguise.
Deb says
I reviewed on Amazon for over a decade. As far as I'm concerned, I would have lost credibility if I had only left positive reviews. Ultimately, the reviews are for the consumers/readers, not the authors. "Bitchy" is never helpful, but pointing out why something didn't work- and yes, even why you didn't like something- can help other consumers make informed purchases.
I also write and I don't see any conflict in continuing to review. If I'm doing it with an agenda- that author is terrible, you should buy my stuff instead- in general I can hide for only so long. Doing that is more of a risk to my reputation than the person I've trashed, so the smart money says to refrain.
Authors should NOT respond to their reviewers, especially the negative reviews. It makes them look petulant, and I cringed every time I saw it. And to the person who said they'll only leave reviews of 3 stars I'd more, the worst case I saw was the one in which an author was irked by a FOUR star review.
If we can't review honestly- negatively as well as positively- reviews are useless.
Lori Folkman says
I couldn't agree more. Stephany summed it up perfectly. We should all take a "Thumperian" approach–if you can't say something nice, don't say nothing at all.
And Nathan, thank you for the bleeps. I really appreciate that your blog is always free from profanity.
D.G. Hudson says
If reviewers think being negative is cool, they're showing their immaturity.
I like Nathan's old sandwich rule -what's good, what needs work, and what you liked about the book. If it's only the cover, better not write anything. As Hannah said, it makes the writer look a little tarnished.
Besides, what's with the vitriol against other writers? Mud-slingers aren't welcome anywhere – politics, or in writing groups.
So, if a writer can't judge a book without tearing it apart, I'd say 'as a writer' you need to brush up on your skills of diplomacy.
Mirka Breen says
‘Casually bitchy,’ while ubiquitous on the Internet, has no business in my soul. Not good for me. If I were to be ‘bitchy’ there would be nothing casual about it. The offender better be a serial killer who got off on a technicality.
Also- any review or reply, good and especially bad, draws attention to the product. Why would you want to draw attention and raise interest in something you found to be unworthy?
I find Mr. Bradford to be spot-on, as always. The day I disagree with him I will be silent.
P. Kirby says
Nope, I don't think authors give up the "right" to review. I say that with a pile of reviews, most mild, a few glowing, and a couple "ranty," to my name over at Goodreads.
As someone who (I like to think) is well aware of how the Internet works-the tribes, the lynch mobs, the various subcultures, etc.–I know full well about karma. I also know that having no one talk about your book is actually worse that a couple of snarky reviews.
I don't insult the authors, nor do I go out of my way to be nasty. But I write honest reviews. I'm not going to hide behind a pseudonym to write reviews. I have an opinion. I own it. I put on my big girl pants and accept the consequences.
Ross Lampert says
Like some other commenters here, I don't see being smart about how you review a work as "giving up a right" but rather as accepting the responsibility to be a respectful, decent human being. That doesn't mean being honest if you didn't care for a work, but it does mean citing the reasons rather than resorting to an ad hominem attack against a person you don't even know. The French critic Roland Barth said a book is two books: the one the writer writes and the one the reader reads. That's a good reminder that how a book strikes one of us will be different from how the same book strikes another of us. Each book is really a million books, a different one for each reader.
My writers' group follows this philosophy: critique the writing, don't criticize the writer. On-line reviewers would do well to subscribe to that ethic, too, instead of giving in to the casual meanness that the anonymity of the internet makes it so easy to hide behind.
Rebecca Burke says
I like what Deb said.
I usually avoid writing reviews of books I don't like. Sometimes it's because I realize I may not have been a book's perfect audience. But also I am always, as an author, aware of how incredibly difficult it is to write and publish any novel. I would hate to hurt anyone's feelings unnecessarily; unlike the old days, a negative review lives online forever.
When I wrote book reviews for our newspaper and a column I had in a regional mag, I only reviewed books I was excited about. My thinking then was "the world's full of good books, why not steer people to them?" It seemed pointless to waste a whole column ranting about a terrible book that I figured no one should read!
Now I think of it as almost a responsibility to leave a review on Amazon or Goodreads if I read a wonderful book. If not me, who? I'm a writer and book-lover (and former English teacher!) and can point out all the reasons why a book has merit, something many readers cannot do as well. I want to spread the word for good books and encourage readers to discover something that might be off the radar of the NYT bestseller lists, etc.
Anyone reading my reviews will always find perfectly good reasons why a book is tasty–I don't just boost, I provide arguments and examples. And as much as I would love to tell the world about the atrocious book I read last week that has been nominated for a really big fiction award, I will resist! I was definitely not the reader the author had in mind (I think there are only about 20 of those . . .in the world!).
Doug says
Book reviews are useless enough, but it looks like some writers want to make them even more worthless. Maybe we should just ban book reviews entirely?
I don't give up any right to express my opinion.
If writers don't write reviews, then reviews will only be written by people who don't understand writing. That can only lower the overall quality of the reviews.
I never write a simple "yay" or "sucks" review. I explain what I liked and what I didn't. (Avoiding spoilers, of course.)
If I can't be honest, I won't write reviews. Spinning my reviews doesn't do the potential reader any favors. If I didn't like a book, I say so and I say why I didn't like it. I let the reader of the review decide whether my particular concerns matter to them or not.
It's not my problem if the author takes offense. Bad reviews are an occupational hazard of being an artist. If I take a writer to task for rampant comma splices (which I've done), the author can choose to ignore my comment, to learn to avoid comma splices in the future, or to stand by the comma splices as being an artistic choice that I was too dense to grasp.
I'll even review a book I didn't finish. I'll make it completely clear that I didn't finish the book, and I'll state how far I got into it and explain why I gave up. However: I won't review books I didn't finish that aren't "my kind of book" in the first place.
I think we authors owe it to the potential readers to give them honest appraisals of the books we've read. The good points and the bad points, along with disclosing anything that might color our viewpoint.
I think the above falls in line with Nathan's viewpoint.
As for the (re-evaluated) original topic of authors writing back about reviews: I'm generally not a fan. Once published, the work should stand on its own.
Rick Daley says
I think a writer should have the right to leave an honest review. If that review is critical, then I think the reviewer should be fair and even-handed in the criticism. Constructive, even…
That being said, leaving a negative or critical review is different from just being an asshole. I've read reviews that are quite grandiose, as if the reviewer is using the review as a platform to really say "Look at what an excellent writer I am, my review is certainly five-stars, even if the book is obviously one-star" rather than "Here's what I thought about this book, and why."
WORD VERIFICATION: teusne. Sorry, I got nothin.
D.G. Hudson says
Not everyone uses pseudonyms to write nasty reviews, so let's not get stuck on putting down pen names. For some, it's a security against trolls.
Maria says
I guess everyone has their own philsophy. If you are only going to review books you like, that's one way to go about it. A bit cowardly I think, but oh well. If you want to honestly review all the books you read, then you're going to have some more critical reviews. That's valid too. No one has to like everything. I do NOT think a writer has to give up their right to be a casual reviewer, the writer should consider how they want themselves to be percieved. I think the "positive only" review philosophy is in part born of fear of backlash from other writers.
Suz Korb says
An author should NEVER comment on a negative review. As for authors writing reviews, as an author I don't feel I can write thoughtful (if negative) reviews any longer. I'm afraid of the backlash on my own work in response. That's just the reality of it. So, if I ever review books anymore, it's only of ones I've enjoyed.
Maya says
I felt there were 2 separate points being jumbled together incoherently. Maybe it made more sense if you read the whole blog post, but I didn't want to because it seems like a rant.
However, commenting on reviews for your own works and writing reviews are completely separate things.
1) Never, ever comment on a review of your own work. Good or bad. Even if it was a good review, you seem like a psycho stalker. I'm not kidding. And if it was a bad review…heaven help you when word gets out that you took that misstep.
2) You may write reviews as an author, but of course you must do it more judiciously than before you became an author. Not only does the review reflect on your perceived character, but it could be really awkward if you end up sitting next to the author you trashed at any publishing or writing event. It's a small community, people!
Marsha Sigman says
I think we can do reviews but as writers our words carry more weight and can influence more people. We are considered the professionals in the field and we should damn well act like it.
With great power comes great responsibility. (could not resist)
Cheyenne Hill says
@Rachel Menard, I agree. I, too, blogged about GoodReads and this very topic recently. I come from a background of studying film criticism/journalism on my degree, and that's a serious world of potential snarkiness.
There's no good in being cruel or rude, obviously. But if a review isn't honest (with good manners), what's the point?
I blogged because I tire of seeing fellow authors Tweeting things like, "OMG!! *squeeee!!!* BEST BOOK EVER! So good WANT TO DIE!!" It's great to be excited and celebrate awesome books, and from the general reading public, that kind of "review" is welcomed and acceptable.
But from fellow writers, and published/agented ones at that? That's the sort of "review" that really gets under my skin. It doesn't say much about the author's own abilities, either 😉
If you have something constructive to say, writer or not, and you say it without being flippant or mean-spirited, why *not* say it? I would never want to hurt someone's feelings, no matter how little I liked their book or how amazed I am that it's successful (if it is). But if people only ever put "AMAZING! SO FREAKING GOOD" out there in terms of feedback, how is that useful? Apart from making someone feel good, anyhow 😉
Especially on Amazon or GoodReads, I like to see honest feedback. If every single review is gushing about a book's perfection, I'm going to be tempted to think there's something funny going on in most cases (call me a cynic). If an author dares to give another author's work 4 stars instead of 5, I don't see what the problem is, as long as it's good-natured and honest. Especially since we're able to publically crit one another's work in forums and things of that nature. You can't expect to only hear good things, no matter how amazing a writer a person is.
Michael says
I always use my real name on reviews anywhere, so I never write bitchy or mean reviews. I'd hate to publish my book and then have people trashing it.
Katherine Hyde says
I wouldn't frame it as a question of "rights," but I do agree it's unwise and generally bad form for writers to trash other people's writing. I try to review only books I can honestly say nice things about. If I've received a free review copy and therefore have to review the book regardless, I try to be as objective, constructive, and kind in my criticism as possible. That's what I hope other writers would do for me.
Yat-Yee says
So the question here focuses on authors not writing "reviews with sarcasm and bitchiness and general [bleep]-dom." In this scheme of thinking, it's okay for non-authors to write in this manner?
Writing a negative review is one thing. Writing a negative review with vitriol is a different thing. My opinion is that the difference lies not with whether the reviewer is an author or not an author, but whether the reviewer chooses to put their point across in that particular manner.
(I didn't read the original post, just this one.)
Rashad Pharaon says
Writers should be able to properly review others writers:
First of all, if you are an unpublished author and write derogatory reviews, well that sums up your own work (note, I say derogatory, not bad). The method of communication pervades your own writing. I certainly wouldn't be surprised to learn that you write egocentric monologues in first-person POV.
Secondly, if you are a published author and write derogatory reviews: you know better, or should.
Constructive, bad reviews ought be welcome, but they should be carefully worded in their delivery, with supporting facts, so as not to become derogatory.
Either way, what goes around comes around–your book sales (or lack of) will tell your story. And for the derogatory reviewer, bitter that story may be.
Best,
Rashad.