Retro post: Do You C, What I C

This was first posted on 12/16/07
As I have been thinking a lot on reviews and grading (again) I figured you guys should be too ;). If you commented before (click the date it was first posted) do you still think the same? If you missed the post the first time what are your thoughts? And yes sorry about the lack of posts yesterday work is a mad house and we are planing BIG things for the month of June

Question I would love for anyone and everyone to answer....

Read more

Tags: making the grade, random thoughts, reviews on reviews, Sybil

New Game: stupid or clueless

TGTBTU is a reader blog.  We are for readers by readers and everything I do - event, news or feature wise - is for readers just like us. 

TGTBTU is very author friendly or at least I think we are.  If you are an author that doesn't like to see honest opinions, thinks there should be no such thing as bad reviews, think Average (a.k.a. a "C" grade) is a bad thing or only want sunshine blown up your arse, then this isn't a good blog for you to hang at. 

So I can't decide:

Read more

Tags: Debra Macgillivray, drama, reviews on reviews, Romanceland, Stupid Author Tricks

Stand and Be Judged (by a duck)

This was first published Dec 4, 2007. Seems like a good time for a retro post....

Many questions are asked of how we grade things around here. Below is a quick reminder of what it means to be judged by the Pond.

Review Grades

A+
Squee worthy. Fantastic "keeper shelf" shelf material. So damn good the reviewer wanted to have sex with the book AND recommend it to everyone they know.

A to A-
Excellent. Highly recommended to everyone the reviewer knows.

B+ to B-
Good. An enjoyable book with a couple of problems but no major issues. Recommended to people the reviewer thinks would like it.

C+ to C-
Average. This is an average read that perhaps didn't appeal to the reviewer, but may to others. Recommended to fans of the author/genre, with buts. (Note - A 'C-review' isn't a bad review on TGTBTU.)

D+ to D-
Poor. Has many problems but one shining moment saves it from sinking into oblivion. Not recommended unless you're a die-hard fan of the author or genre.

F
It blows. No really, the reviewer asks themselves "Why am I reading this?" and then remembers it is so they may share with others on the blog. Not recommended except as birdcage liner.

DNF
Did Not Finish. But for whatever reason a reviewer wants to talk about it to either warn others away, or to see if anyone else was able to get thru it.

Things to keep in mind

Books may be reviewed by more than one person, but not every book can be reviewed. We don't have enough reviewers or time in the day to get thru the mountains of new books published every day.

If there is a particular book you want to see reviewed, feel free to email redwyne @ gmail. com (minus the spaces) and we'll see what we can do - we love new books, genres, authors, and we're always looking for something shiny and different.

If bad reviews make an author sad or feel the need to make an ass of themselves in public, we suggest not reading our reviews of their books. We do not guarantee a good review simply because we've been sent a book. There are sites for that kind of stuff, this isn't one of them.

Feel free to comment on how we do things around here. Not a lot bothers us. Opinions and discussion are what makes the world go 'round, after all.

Tags: reviews on reviews, The Pond

ROB Reviews

I have been reading a ton of 'not my normal kind of reads' lately. I thought about not reviewing them but something made me read them. So where I may have loved some, been eh about some and was very WTF about others they still seem to be worth talking about.

One I invested the time in them, two you might like them and three some of them I liked. So in my ever ongoing quest to drive Gwen and Bev crazy I decided these reviews needed a title! Cuz... uh... I had a reason but it was so long ago I forget. But we decided on ROB Reviews: why you ask?

ROB = Reading Outside (your) Box

go with it

But then I decided eh screw it, why name it? Cuz a review is a review is a review. Right? Thinking about this, which yes I did for a while as normal, it dawned on me that I really have no 'normal kind of read'. So where all of these aren't romance, well we never said we JUST reviewed romance, did we? hmmm well if I did I lied. Sorry... tis a woman's prerogative to change her mind... right?

What do you think? Do you have a 'normal' kind of read? I EXPECT and WANT and get really really really PISSY if the label of the book lies to me. But other than that... if it is historical fiction, I don't expect a HEA. But I do like them, sadly people tend to die though. Bastards.

Do you stick to 'just' romance? I tend to go in cycles for a while I read only smut, I know shocking, and when I say smut I mean that in the nicest way. Jackie Collins type books, le sigh I still own Rockstar, haven't read it in forever but I still have it. For a while it was Anne Rice, back when she didn't suck and did horror. Man I loved me some Witching Hour. One year was crime type novels, loved Faye Kellerman, Dennis Lehan and Jonathon Kellerman.

Than I fell into a ::manyyearsnotgonnathinkaboutit:: fanfic habit and didn't read too many books at all. Then I fell in love with Historical Romance. A fanfic writer who I adore and beta'ed many a fic for (hey mishy!) rec'ed and rec'ed and rec'ed and rec'ed... until I gave the hell in a book she loved.

After reading Shadowheart by Laura Kinsale... well the rest is history. Or I guess my story. So I am thinking we don't really need a label to say YO this might not be romance or what we NORMALLY read right now. What do you think? Do you want to know? Would a tag help you know if it might be something you want to read?

Do you ever step outside of the romance box? If so what do you like? What other places do you visit?

Tags: reviews on reviews, ROB Review, Sybil

F Off…

A while back I discovered many of you see C grades differently than we do here. I thought it was a very interesting discussion and was reminded of it while reading the 60+ comments (from mostly authors) on that thread over there.

As normal most of the authors say they don't mind 'reviews' and as much as they dislike the 'bad' ones they understand them. They hate the 'mean' ones, the 'personal' ones, the ones with 'agendas' or where the reviewer is 'out to get the author'. And many a person say they didn't do 'bad' reviews because why bother.

I have often said I end up buying more books off 'bad' grades than A++++ ones. I tend to like many a plot that is played out for tons of romance readers because really I have only been reading romance for about 3 or 4 years. So I for one WANT all reviews, even the ones I don't agree with. And that lead me to thinking of a book I reviewed once a upon a time, which got me wondering if I see "C" grades in a way many don't.... what about the "F"s?

What makes a book an "F" for you? If you are an author, do you see "F" differently in your work than you do a book you read for pleasure? If you are a reviewers (be it a website, blog, amazon, newspaper or whatever), is your 'reviewer F' ever different than your 'personal F'?

Is there anything that causes an auto F effect for you in a book but you would forgive if a favorite author did it? What is it? Who would it be? I admit I go into a Diana Palmer novel expecting and forgiving plot points or character traits I wouldn't in most other authors. Elizabeth Lowell can use nicknames, really silly ones, over and over in her older (amazing) novels and I love them. I don't expect Julie Garwood to be historically accurate (who knew she did) so I go with the flow.

Things that could be book killers in new to me authors are nothing by those I love. Is that style, voice or a literary comfort blankie?

So tell us.... what F's you of?

Tags: Book Killer, F Effect, Grade F, reviews on reviews

My Way or the Highway?!?

This started out as a short lil comment on this post, regarding "DNF Reads" [aka did not finish]. I, as I tend to do, went off on a ramble. So hey new post!

Caroline Linden brought up the DNF thing but this post in whole is in no way directed AT her. Wanted to make that is clear ('net communication being what it is), although anyone who has been around TGTBTU prolly knows I am rather fond of Caroline, adore many of her books and sometimes disagree with her. As well as this is not, to use a phrase I HATE 'getting anyones back' because I happen to think smart woman are more than able to speak or themselves.

I, of course, should never, ever, evah post at 4amish after just waking up. But what the fuck, that has never stopped me before. This gets long, you may need a nap... [yes go ahead and mock me Bam :)] I know... aren't you glad the blog move stuff is just about fixed and we are back to blogging *g*. Damn I missed you guys.

Authors need to give us credit as readers. We do have brains. Why would anyone assume I couldn't read a post, review or comment and not see it for what it was? Why is it assumed that if it is in print it will ALWAYS be believed? I have had one blogger in 3 years tell me she expects to be believed, always, everyone else I have ever asked excepts and assumes readers will use their brains and decide for themselves.

If someone is telling me they read 50 pages or less of a book, I 'get' they aren't reviewing it. Just as much as I will disregard any book with 30 '5 star' reviews. That tells me the author has gotten bad reviews removed or was so boring no 'real' reader was moved to talk about the book. It reeks of agenda, more so than the few 'bad' reviews from those evol people 'out to get the author'.

Of couse that could just be me.

Barbara Vey, who was just the nicest woman evah, is blogging on Publisher Weekly. What does it say to people when she implies readers of reviewers can't form their own opinion and that she will not 'review' on her blog. Does Publisher Weekly not do reviewers? Is it just for the lil women in romance that can't handle the truth?

Will a good or bad review, make or break an author? No, I don't think so. But I seriously think 'word of mouth' can help. It is beyond sad a blog on Publisher Weekly is being used in such a way but hey seems some of the authors like it. There are more than a few comments in Vey's thread, right or wrong, have impacted how I view them commenter or things about them.

Roxanne St. Claire, an author I like and a person I liked when I briefly met her (it was prolly give mins total), tells me to skip over any review I see with her name when she sez:

I don't ever review books I didn't like, but I love to gush if I've discovered a gem.

So I now know to disregard any 'review' from her but that wouldn't keep me from reading her books, which I happen to like.

Deborah Macgillivray, who seems to do herself no favors when she posts in public, rants:

You get fifteen-year-olds telling you how to write a book. People with hatchets - fans of an authors that consider another author competition. Frustrated writers that have been rejected by a publisher hitting all their writers to get even. Or just topic resentment. Anyone can post anything, including slander or personal attacks, such as when Anne Rice killed off her vampire series. People actually accused her of not writing her books, but that her dead husband had penned them. Amazon did NOTHING. Rice even came to post trying to stop, and it only was gasoline upon the fire. Stalker reviewers slam every book an author writes. Some with more than one "fake name". Worse, the author has no recourse. If the poster crosses the posting rules, and the review is taken down, they go ballistic and will spam all your reviews with no votes, draw in friends to attack. There are people obsessed with being top reviewers that spam no votes on "their Amazon Enemy". I have seen reviews posted and it's clear they haven't read the book. Worse, it's not enough for them to disagree with the books, they rant that others who do like the books are liars and "paid shills". You either agree with their negative reviews or you're stupid or paid.

Sigh. The whole set up is open to everyone who has a problem with something to vent and Amazon plays ostrich to cyber stalking and cyber bullying, and in the case of the top reviewer it became a cyber lynch mob. I am not defending if a person can read 45 books a week or not. No matter, take it to Amazon management, do not attack people in public.

Since I have seen her enter Amazon Message Board posts attacking people in public, this post makes me giggle. The sad thing is, it is very possible she is right about the person but that is lost in her delivery.

Her tone, 'reviewer status' which is mostly if not all (at least of what I have seen & on books by her publisher) 5 star, shows she is adding to the problems she sees in the amazon system. Months ago after seeing her and friends, spank some reviewer for being a meanie I decided to not read her. Ever. Will this mean anything to her, doubt it, but it does allow me to know she doesn't 'review'. No one 'reviews if all they do is pimp because if I can't get a feel of what they like AND dislike, I have no idea if their views match up with mine.

Jennifer LaBrecque, of Highland Fling fame (currently has a total of 8 amazon reviews and by quick glance there are a few missing she had reported to remove), is nice enough to let us know what may be allowed in a review of her books:

I have all the respect in the world for a reviewer who can professionally , insightfully point out that a book perhaps missed the mark because characters weren't fully developed or plot devices were so contrived. I have less than no use for "reviewers," and I use that term loosely in conjunction with these people, who a) cross the line by giving away plot points or specific twists in the story the author has worked so hard to create, b) come across as so frothing at the mouth it does feel quite like a personal attack, c)obviously see the "review" as a forum for their scathing wit and scintillating insight, d)All of the above. And no, I don't read reviews until after I've made up my own mind.

This is pretty much a repeat of what went down durning her fling phase, so it was easy for me to know when, The Big Heat, came out not to bother buying it, even though I wanted it. Hey! I am a Harlequinwhore and bounty hunters... WOOT! But I know if the book doesn't work for me, for whatever reason, my opinion will not be valid. So my money wouldn't be either, nor would my review or praise if I did like it. If you as an author can't respect me, I have no reason to respect or support you.

I am not sure what to make of Jenna Black's comment regarding not being able to read a review and still form her own opinion but I can respect the hell out of her saying:

And I've finally learned to stop reading Amazon reviews of my own books. If I read some of the nasty ones, I'd have trouble writing for days, and I can't afford that when I'm on deadline!

Christie Craig, a past guest on the blog and all around cool chick, makes me want to beat my head against the wall by comparing reviews to grade school. I won't bore you all again with Average = C = not a bad thing = your review isn't a test and no really you are out of grade school please grow up. But this:

It’s about the belief that negativity sells. And to some degree and as sad as it is, they must be right because look at the popularity of the shows and websites that play that card.

Completely disregards any opinion of any book a reader has, unless they say WOOT luved it. Is that really all authors want? Again I ask, if no one tells you anything but happy, happy, joy, joy things about your book, writing or style... can you believe that? Does anyone honestly think that everyone will love their book and those that don't, well it isn't the book it is the person trying to use negativity. Really?

Jusy believes author all author quotes on books are honest and make a book worth a look while saying she doesn't read 'reviews'. I guess because reviewers aren't honest like those author quotes are. Peggy Young shows her love for the 'net with

And Amazon reviews are like all things internet: Consider the source.

Really doesn't everyone know review sites are JUST like amazon reviews? Yes that was sarcasm.

Lynn Raye Harris, I have no clue if this is the author or not, has learned from Vey and Publisher Weekly

I would never, ever post a negative review. I have to admit that I often don't think about posting a positive review either, but some of the comments here make me realize that if I like a book, I should say so.

Go team them! They have sure taught her a lesson, lil woman you best be positive otherwise shut the duck up!

Marilyn enforces the good view people can have of review sites by letting us know she reviewed for one of 'those review sites'. You know the ones that ONLY allow the correct type of reviews, the good ones.

le sigh... by the time I got to Kate Douglas comment I decided I was wasting time I would never get back. Sad to know though she learned nothing from her Wolf Tales book. The fact that she is on number 5 or something of that series just blows my mind but the fact that she is must mean she is selling. It has to mean people ARE enjoying her books but that doesn't matter, she is still trying to teach meanie reviewers a lesson because... because... WHY??? I seriously do not get it. Take your success, enjoy your fans and do not try and talk others into why they should love your work or at least keep their dislike of it to themselves.

If people can not say they don't like a book than everyone needs to stop talking about the books they DO like. You can not have your cake and eat it too. Gosh would that be 'fair'? I happen to think Jennifer St. Giles is a great author and was too sweet when I met her but that so doesn't give her the right to decide my

moral obligation to be objective about the subject, giving an opinion on the positives found and a constructive critique on any overwhelming negatives.

I am more than capable of figuring out my moral obligations all on my own and I am a READER. I am not an editor, I do not get paid to give constructive critique and damn me if I am going to pay an author to provide her with a free service after the fact. At the end of the day, MY opinion is only RIGHT and FACT for me. I know that, you know that, give romance readers a lil credit that they know that as well.

There are a ton of more comments there, although not mine, if you would like to go read. I am gonna try not to go back cuz it just annoys the fuck out of me. Why does it annoy? Hell I just got finished saying it is opinion and everyone - even the small minded-my way-or no way types - have the right to their opinion... well as Jane posted RWA doesn't feel it can 'give' press passes to internet media unless it is "affiliated with a nationally distributed media source".

Publisher Weekly is the first on its list in the email Jane republished.

So isn't RWA enforcing women don't have brains, can't handle crit or be able to read a review and form an opinion when they say Publisher Weekly, who endorses and houses a blog that doesn't want to cloud readers minds with 'opinion'. She may not like all book but no worries authors you are safe there because she won't tell the silly romance readers what she thinks. It is the same attitude you get at Michelle's Lifetime Blog [another blog "affiliated with a nationally distributed media source"], for those real women with no spine who can't grasp the idea that someone, somewhere might not like their work, might have an opinion or not like something. We are women!  We must support each other and the ONLY way to do that is only say happy, shiny things.  Otherwise... what?  Authors will cry?
Way to the illustrate how much we respect the genre, our authors and our readers. It was always been my thought, and again just my lil opinion, we have no business bitching about the world at large looking down its nose at romance when romance readers can't respect it.  And this is the 'press' RWA wants reporting at the conference.

Honestly I had pretty much made plans not to go to San Fran because A. It is going to be expensive as hell and B. I do not agree with the idea "fans" should be there.  I had decided it was worth going for the blog and the plans I made for this year regarding The Good, The Bad and The Unread (more on that in another Bamworthypost *g*) but I didn't want to contribute to the idea that fangrrls should flock to a writer conference.

But hell if this is the information we will be getting?  Yikes.  It is a seriously good thing Jane and the Smart Bitches can afford to go.  There should be a balance between a love of the genre and a want to report on it.  It seems from first glance, RWA will be encouraging "OMG you are just the bestest author ever interviews" and "Real" reporters who you know, always often present romance in a bodice ripper way.  As if we have nothing to offer and are not the top selling genre.  I am sorry but Dan Brown, Nicholas Sparks, James Patterson and on and on and on should all write Nora Roberts, Julie Garwood, Linda Howard and the rest of the consistent romance sellers a fucking thank you note.

So back to me... cuz you know everything is about me... will I be going this year?  Maybe.  I do have a rekindled interest in attending now, yes I know, I do feel shame in the 'tell me I can't and then I must' thing I have going on but hey we all have our issues.

We will have a ton of 'real views from real media'.  Copy & pasting another writers words??!? well of course it is wrong... but this... this is 'just' romance. We are 'just' woman. It is 'just' entertainment. ::pats head and smiles at the child woman. There there, no worries of needing to use your brain in THAT genre.

I am sorry but I will take over thinking and boring posts (WHAT? I have a short attention span) 100 times over mindless chatter. And "I" like mindless sqqquuueee'ing. I am all for fun, fun, fun. Hell I can't stand stupid ass cover model gawking but can appreciate others DO enjoy it. They have fun with it, whatever. YAY.  But what? It is ok to allow that and just smile and giggle alone with their fun (because fun does spread and can't we enjoy people having fun, even if some of us don't 'get it').  But it isn't ok to think, smile and giggle along with that fun along with posts about romance novels in a way that can be critical? LE GASP that might hurt a feeling?!?! How dare us.

The fact there are authors beating the Smart Bitches because of how they run their own site. OMG they cuss!!! OMG they are mean!! OMG watch them kick a poor, con artist who has made a ton from her mad skilz copying and pasting old woman who didn't know better. And why didn't she know better? Because she was female and had lived on the earth for a while. OMG look at that name... the shame... the horror!  That makes me sad, doesn't it make you sad?  I admit I don't agree 'how' it was done, for way different reasons it seems and mostly because I am a selfish and have a short attention span.  And I thought (incorrectly) it was a obvious thing.  That was way stupid of me because I sent an ARC of a Janet Daily book, which was rewritten from a harlequin published in 78? in one of Gwen's review boxes.  I sent it because I thought it was a really bad book and thought it would be amusing for her to skim.

I didn't put a note.  I didn't email her or say anything because I didn't think to... doesn't EVERYONE know about JD and Nora Roberts?  No they don't but that is a story for another post.

I love this genre. I adore many a writer.  I happen to think the websites romance is lucky enough to have, kick some serious ass. As well as I think untalented authors, whose main contribution to the genre is attempting to be coy, 'snarky' and clever while ironically doing to bloggers, who do a hell of a lot to bring attention, respect and readers, what they condemn them of doing are pretty much a waste of space.  But more power to them that is their corner of the world to rule, or private hidden message board, or you know both.
Of course that doesn't stop me from thinking they should just go flock themselves. Or go watch them be clever, coy, snarky all while not naming names ::wink wink, nudge nudge:: because they are oh so much better than THOSE people. Look at them mock the silly lil women fangrrls (aka people who would, you know, buy their books) who have no brain to think of their own and are mindless to resist the power of TEH blogger. Just don't forget to ignore their own fangrrls worshiping at the alter of their greatness (that is different mind you).

It seems like nothing more than watch me [try to] out bitch a bitch. And as Vey sez, her blog, her rules. Shouldn't that go for everyone? Does that make anyone better than another? Life is too short to drink bad wine, enjoy whatever the fuck you want to. If you don't like something, create your own space. You wanna dislike how others do things, woo hoo go team you, but never forget as much as you have a right to dislike their wa,y ten to one many dislike yours, so getting pissed off about it... sort of makes you look like a jackass.

All of them are right, EXCEPT the people who think it is ok to tell others how they are suppose to run their own corner of the world. And no that isn't my point here, I think ferflock and her merry band should just keep on keeping on, creating snarky sites to do it right and abandoning them, one after the other after the other. They can post their bitchy comments about bitchy bloggers, to delete them, even though their have their private cage because where is the fun if no one sees you make an arse of yourself?  Michelle can seek approval, friends and a contract [does it mean something that Smart Bitches have one but...] by being nothing but nice and crown every person who is fortunate to run across her blog (and get it to load) one of 'her' bellas.  And for the record I never had or have issue with people who post there, my issue was/is/remains to be only way to support women is by being a cheerleader (again a post for another day).  Vey can have a stable of authors who like her, really, really like her, because they never have to fear a ::le gasp:: an opinion, much less a mean one.  Mean of course being critical because all reviews are about the author not the book and by stoopid women with agendas who want knothing but to ruin the author.  oops that was sarcasm again...

But do not, do not, do not, sit there and say that is THE only way. THAT is how it is DONE or should be because for every whorish pbwfangrrl there are smartbitchy and/or Dear Author ones. And they are all right - for them.

*I* can decide for myself who is 'right' or 'wrong'. And I am just stoopid enough to think every other reader over the age of 14 can read and comprehend as well. I may not agree with them, but I value their voice and get really pissy when anyone tries to silent the voice of other people. Make those people women, and I go past pissy to ranty.

Every romance reader, regardless of sex, race, religion and sexually orientation has an opinion. And I for one would like to hear it, even. if. you. don't. agree. with. me. Hey this is my blog, my world, my way.... and damn I can ramble.  I doubt anyone is even still here.  I wouldn't have read this far *g*.  See what happens when sybils can't blog *g*.

So now I will shut the duck up... so tell me... what do you think?  Of really anything mentioned cuz fuck if I can recall what my point was

Tags: Ponderings, reviews on reviews, Sybil

If You Can Only Say Something Nice

Does your opinion matter at all?

Barbara Vey, who blogs for PW has a post up today called, "Reading the Book: A Novel Approach to Reviewing."

Yes, yes.  I hear you groaning now, "Dear god, please, not THAT!"  But after reading Richelle Mead's whinepost on BAM's blog about the evol that is amazon and blog reviewers who are too stupid and incapable to pick up on anything subtle in a book running across another blog on the evol of reviews...

Well I figured I would be the charming third in the blogging review pile-on.

Vey says:  "That's why we don't write actual reviews here, we just blurb about the book (my blog, my rules). The WW ladies and friends just do it for the love of the written word."  As well she states she doesn't read reviews because she wants to make up her own mind.

I don't understand that at all. Where does it say a review is meant to take place of a book? If you read the review, what? You no longer need to read the book because now you know how you feel?  Really? Do I not enjoy books, reviewing or the 'written word' because I know what I like and what I don't and have the nerve to tell people?

And why is it that people who can see the problems in reviews, be it at amazon, review sites or whatever, decide to not be a part of the solution? I have always thought that if you see something being done wrong - well, do it right. No?  I totally believe some reviews on amazon are meanies. Some are bad bad peeps out to 'get the author'. But every bad review an author gets, doesn't have an agenda. No really. And if you honestly believe that, you are a few sandwiches short of a picnic.

Some people will love your book. Some people will hate your book. Some will be 'meh' about it. And others won't even read it cuz it just doesn't float their boat.  They will ALL be right.  And if you really, really need to believe all bad reviews are just people 'out to get you' for god's sake stop saying so in public. Because it makes you look like a dumbass and screws with my enjoyment of your book. Damn it.

I did respond to Vey's post but I haven't see it show up yet... so just in case I am spammed or something... for your reading enjoyment I have pasted it here.  You are most welcome.  Sybil Sez:

Why don't you review? Knowing all reviews are subjective and that oh so many authors only get bad reviews because people are 'out to get them' or 'are 15 year olds telling them how to write' why not provide your own honest opinion?

Aren't people who don't want to say anything bad that may be mean, part of the problem with amazon, blogs and review sites? If a person can't say anything but praise than they are never there for the reader. They are there for the author.

And authors who want nothing but praise have to know that isn't an honest view of their work because no book will be liked by all. So what is the point?

How can any author be proud of nothing but 20 5 star glowing reviews when they know, as well as anyone reading it, that it is not a true reflection of them or their work.

Tags: Ponderings, reviews on reviews, Sybil

Do You C What I C?

Question I would love for anyone and everyone to answer....

I know it has been talked about over and over but I have been giving letter grades a bit of thought over the past few days. I never 'graded' reviews before I was apart of AAR. So that pretty much shaped my view of what the letter grades meant. I still pretty much think along the same lines but wondered what you thought.

If you personally grade your books, as I know more than a few of you keep reader logs, what is a "C" grade to you?

If you review what is a "C" grade?

If you are reading a review, how do you view a "C" grade?

If you are an author, how do you 'view' a C grade and is it different than how you feel about it when reading a review of another book?

I admit I do not see a C grade as a bad grade. C = average. It could be a book I have seen a 100 times before, enjoyed while reading and forgot it as soon as I closed the book. "I" don't see that as a bad book but it isn't a B either. A C grade could be a book that hit a few buttons but nothing that made me want to throw it over. A book I would grade a C is a book I could see a lot of people reading and liking or loving.

I have to say though, as a reader I don't pay much attention to the letter as much as the commentary. Am I the only one that doesn't think C = bad?

Tags: reviews on reviews

Retro Post - Sit… Stay… Roll Over… Play Dead

Damn we are barely waiting six months to rehash things...Sit... Stay... Roll Over... Play Dead first posted on 1/6/06 and because there is never enough said about reviewing.

You had to see this coming

If you have visited Keishon aka avid reader's blog in, oh say the last few days, you may have heard of a lil book called:

Wolf Tales

and her love for the novel. /sarcasm

Now we are:
A: Talking of a book I haven't read
B: Talking of an author I have never heard of nor read
C: It is someone from Amazon that said the author requested the review removed
D: It is possible the author never saw the review.

But yikes, is it just me, or is it beyond tacky if an author askes to have a negative review removed from Amazon?

Being something of a potty mouth, free thinker, to each their own type of person - Keishon's review doesn't read to me as offensive. I could see someone whining about the gross comment in this sentence:
This story may not be my cuppa but it might be other reader's (gross).
But hell I have read worse on amazon, is that because the author just didn't remove it? Or can anybody request to have a review removed? Even if I didn't know keishon, if I like the book, that gross comment isn't going to keep me from sleeping at nights. Of course knowing keishon, and the fact she is sending me the book, if I do end up liking it she will just tell me I am gross ;). So hey either way score...

To me, amazon - which has been greatly getting on my nerve lately but that is a different post - reviews are public opinion and are not for the author to approve. And really I read some of the reviews just to get a handle on the book or to look for spoilers ;). In fact keishon's deep love for this book made me look at it twice and think about buying it.

If the reviews are all happy happy, joy joy, I discount them out of hand. Fair? Prolly not. But for every book one person lovesese to death someone else hates - and isn't that ok? When I review a book, I am thinking about what "I" thought of the book. I will say if it is going to AAR I think about my language vs if it goes on my blog I can curse a bluestreak. But other than that... a review is about what the reader thinks not the author. I would hope the author loves the book!

Or am I wrong? If I were to go to amazon and post a review on say.... Lover Eternal by JR Ward. (Which I could cuz I have read it. And a secret between you and me (and angiew) - it rocks, I would tell you more but nope) And after figuring out how to post a review on amazon all I say is JR Ward is a big fat ho don't buy this book.

I could so see Ward sending an email to amazon telling them to get that off. That isn't reviewing the book but the author. (btw ward is as kewl as her books, which means she isn't a big fat ho. Well not that I know of at least )

But other than some type of attack on the author, or someone repeatedly posting a bad review from the same IP, is it ok to request to remove a review? As authors, if there are any of you guys out there, have you requested to have something removed? What made you do it? Did you think after the fact it was a good idea?

As a reader, a bad review can and does often peak my interest in a book. Is that just me? Or course I am still hoping the author didn't ask to have it removed. Or maybe this is common practice and since I have never posted a review on Amazon I have never noticed it. Who knows... I have my own reviews to go finish.

If I recall correctly, keishon's review was reposted, so hopefully after amazon looks into whatever complaint pulled fi's her review will reappear as well.

The more things change the more they stay the same.

Tags: reviews on reviews