Who are the Best and Worst Reviewers?

[Keith thomson]

The other day, my fellow Huffington Post blogger took NY Times tv critic Alessandra Stanley to the worldwide woodshed. In so doing, Mr. Levinson recognized that criticizing a critic is almost never done. By the same token, their praise is sung about as often as good umpires. My question to you: Who are the best and the worst reviewers of books in our genre? And Why?

[Jon Loomis]

I think Stasio is excellent, as is Kevin Allman of the WaPo, as is Paul Goat Allen of the ChiTrib, although he seems to be reviewing mostly SciFi and supernatural stuff these days. The worst reviewers are those who don't do their homework, don't read much outside the genre, don't get humor, are easily shocked/offended, and have rigidly conventional expectations about plot.

[Dan Coleman]

Amen to that, especially Jon's last point, "...and have rigidly conventional expectations about plot." How disappointing it is(and angry it makes you)to read a review, then the book, love the book, especially the plot twist, maybe, then have to remember the whining, dilettantish reviewer who was so disappointed, even offended, because the ending was unexpected, not orderly, the way his/her mother promised the world would be.

It's why I read reviews only for their entertainment value, and never depend on them for guidance.

[I. J. Parker]

I like Stasio and Montgomery. But actually, the reviews I got that were most detailed and most perceptive were either by folks that don't review any longer (Jim Fusilli) or by men who write for relatively unknown papers or web sites. I've also had some very well written Amazon reviews.

I dislike very short reviews or the ones that were written to show how clever the reviewer is. As in " ( ) goes down like a cup of hot sake."

[Jon Loomis]

I've had some really thoughtful Amazon reviews, one or two by self-appointed review masters that were clearly drawn from erroneous flap copy from the ARC, and one, as I said, written by someone who obviously hadn't read the book, yet still felt compelled to register their disapproval of what they thought it might be like, or something. I'm also aware of the practice (never done it myself, of course) of soliciting friends and relatives to write five-star "ringer" reviews for Amazon (which I would be happy to do for anyone here in exchange for a small remuneration. Kidding!). I think the trick is to take them all with a grain of salt, and go with the aggregate score.

[Dan Coleman]

But the best reviewers are the ones who help you sell books. Guess that would be a practical answer, without naming names. The worst ones would be those who detract from sales, derail a book.

[Eric Christopherson]

I'll venture to say the vast majority of readers never register the name of the book reviewer. I rarely do, and I read a lot of mystery/suspense. I'll often read award-winning novels, major awards being a kind of collective review, and I'm often rewarded that way.

About the only book critic I'll go out of my way to read is Jonathan Yardley, though he ventures into mystery/suspense but rarely.

[B.R.Stateham]

To be honest, I have no interest in professional critics. They get paid to do their job--or most of them do. That automatically makes me suspicious.

I much prefer fan reviews. Yes, I know all the pitfalls entwined with such preferences--but to me the fan, and the number of fans who take the time to write a review, speaks much louder to a potential reader about a book.

I really appreciate the one or two fans I have. (grinning sheepishly)

[Dan Coleman]

B.R., could I borrow those two fans sometime?

[Debbi Mack]

I agree about reader reviews. After all, they're our "clients" (so to speak). In that sense, a good reader review is like a client endorsement (and those work). And a reader who takes the time and trouble to provide such an endorsement does speak volumes.

These days, I suspect most people go to Amazon and check the reader comments out before buying a book, rather than just rely upon professional reviewers.

[Dan Coleman]

I think someone mentioned it, but, having thought it over some, I believe the worst reviewers would be the ones who dare to compare one's book or writing with someone else's, to some preconceived notion of what might be good, or a standard( though a favorable comparison might be positive). That would indicate to me that the reviewer is incapable, or unwilling(figgin' hardheaded), to consider a work as a unique creation, and, therefore, would be either incompetent or untrustworthy, or both. I don't know enough about the many of them to name names, so I can't help you there.(Wouldn't want to leave out any of the pricks).

It must be disconcerting for an author to read a review of his/her work by a reviewer, only to see that the butcher had someone else in mind the whole time he/she was reading it.

We all should be so fortunate. At least someone would be noticing.

[Debbi Mack]

Hell, I don't mind being compared to someone good--a bestselling author, preferably, but I'm not picky.

[Eric Christopherson]

Comparisons are such an aid for thinking. I've got no problem with them per se. Some reviewers are capable of using comparisons appropriately.