Why I don't write (or read) bad reviews

[karenkincy]

I once was a bad review aficionado. I'd cherry-pick all the most negative reviews and read them first. 1-star? Surely more useful than all the gushing 5-star reviews that didn't say much about the book beyond, "I <3 this!!!" I preferred snarky, intelligent commentaries exploring the mechanics of why a particular character sucked or why the author

Comments

[karenkincy]

As I already said, I agree that "OMG!" good reviews or "This sucks" bad reviews are equally useless. And I'm not arguing that bad reviews discourage reading *in general*; however, I am making the point that there have been many incidents involving myself or another reader where a particular novel was scorned thanks to scathing reviews, only to be sampled later and found quite tasty. That's what I'm arguing against, here. Judging books solely by their reviews, rather than giving them a chance.

I do think that there are reviewers out there who fit your tastes well enough that you can use them to forecast your own reaction to a book... but since I happen to be Karen, Karen, quite contrary, more often than not I don't agree with good *or* bad reviews. So I just browse the book or get it from the library, then make up my own mind as to whether I want to buy it or not. (Not, of course, implying that people who read or write critical reviews aren't freethinking; just advocating for more recommendations in the book world.)

Thanks for your thoughtful reply! This has been an intriguing discussion. :)

[hooton]

Okay. Coolio.

Not, of course, implying that people who read or write critical reviews aren't freethinking; just advocating for more recommendations in the book world.)

Yes to this in a big way.