Having just complained about the absence of reviews for my latest on BLOGS, I will say I get good reviews. When I get them. So what the devil are all these prime time reviewers doing, reading Meltzer when they could be reading THE CONVICT'S SWORD?
And having seen mostly superlatively good reviews about some mediocre books by other authors, I wonder just how bad this Meltzer guy is. "Sophomoric" could just put him into the bestseller league.
Wait, maybe that explains how he got all those reviews.
You raise an interesting point, Ingrid. Reviews are, allegedly, for the edification of the reader, yet most outlets tend to print the reviews that are most likely to be read, which means authors who are already well known. Meltzer's fans are going to read this book, no matter what the Times , PW, or Kirkus say about it. He'll have to disappoint them several times before they give up on him. (If this book is even a disappointment to them.) You'd think some of the media outlets might like to get out ahead of the curve (IJ Parker) and review a book (Convict's Sword) that might get some notice for a up and coming author (IJ Parker) that the outlet can then claim to have "discovered' (IJ Parker)
I don't think anyone in the business thinks of it that way, though.
I think a snarky review of a bestselling author's book has the potential to sell more papers than a nice review of an unknown's, is all it is. Not saying I don't wish it were otherwise (speaking as an unknown author at the beginning of their career); just that I think the purpose of book reviews aren't to promote authors and help sell their books, they're to help sell the magazines and newspapers in which the book reviews appear.
Yes, true enough. Bad reviews sell books, too. Maybe better than good reviews. Ultimately, it's just a matter of getting your name and book's title mentioned. At some point later, someone's going to be in a bookstore, see the book and think, "Yes, I read about that someplace. Must be good." And buy the book.I don't expect they'll put the blurbs on the back cover.
And of course, the devastatingly bad reviews may be the reviewer's revenge for having been forced by his editor to read the thing in the first place.