This is a Premium feature
To use this feature subscribe to Mumsnet Premium - get first access to new features see fewer ads, and support Mumsnet.Start using Mumsnet Premium
Do you leave reviews on books?(11 Posts)
When you read a book, say from Amazon, do you leave a review on it? And if so, do you leave a review only if you love it, hate it? And what if you abandon it, so don't actually read the whole thing? Is it right to leave a review then?
Personally I try to leave a review on most of the books I read. Sometimes I review books I've abandoned too because I feel that if a book is boring enough for me to abandon, that this is a legitimate reason to leave a review. But I know some would say you should only leave a book review if you read the whole thing. What do others think?
I write reviews of books on Goodreads, but not on Amazon. If I haven't liked a book I still review it, saying why I didn't like it. I try always to be honest, and would never make a personal critical comment about the author or an unfair remark about the book.
If you haven't finished a book because you haven't liked it, I think it would still be reasonable to explain in a review why you did so.
I do leave reviews, simply because for 90% of authors it is one way one can support them, there is little money for publicity unless you are Dan Brown so for most it is a slog to get their work out there (and one can say in positive terms why one didn't like it)....
What I really hate to see though is someone leaving a one star review on a book because they have a bone to pick with Amazon, or because they bought the kindle version thinking it was a paperback, that kind of thing. Some people are so thoughtless... I always feel sorry for the authors when I see that, especially if the book has not long been out and only has a few reviews.
But as a reader, I have to admit I tend to read all the bad reviews first before buying a book. Sometimes they are irrelevant to me, but if a bad review points out something that I really don't like myself, then it is useful.
Never. Until last night when I finished Man At The Helm which was so shite I felt I needed to share that with the world.
I went through a period of doing this - I felt it made me think about the book more. Then I got hooked on climbing the Amazon rankings and found myself irrationally angry when someone marked a review of mine down...
The general formula was either: what I expected and what I got and whether it was worth it or not OR a summary of the plot and whether it met expectations.
Recently, however, Amazon seem to be encouraging one line reviews that tell you nothing, especially on heavily marketed books, and the thoughtful reviews are getting lost in this rubbish, which is a shame.
That's why reviewing books on Amazon doesn't appeal to me. Goodreads is a much better place, where you can leave a review and it can get liked but not down voted.
I occasionally leave reviews but only good ones. If I have nothing good to say I just won't say anything at all. Authors read them and take them very personally. If they get ten good reviews and one bad one, the bad one is the one that will stick in their mind.
And don't get me started on the irrelevant bad reviews where they are ranting about Amazon, or the subject matter of the book not interesting to them.
I have a former colleague who was talking about an autobiography she had read. Her criticism was that it was too "me, me, me". Because autobiographies are supposed to not be about the author?
Or the ones that read like Ebay feedback "well packaged and delivered quickly". What's the point?
I've only ever done them on Amazon, but only if there are only a few already, not if they've got hundreds.
I never bother because I don't read the reviews either.
Amazon reviews do make a big difference to sales and most authors make v little money from their writing. If you really like a book by a not v famous author, do consider doing a brief review to put a bit of sunshine in their day.
Please login first.