Authors Reviewing Authors

[jimhines]

Two questions for the readersphere:

1. Do you think it’s appropriate for authors to post reviews of books/stories by other authors?
2. Do you think it’s appropriate for authors to post negative reviews of books/stories by other authors?

Years ago, when I posted about the creepiness of one of the Xanth books, I was told I’d broken an unwritten rule by speaking badly about another author’s work. There was no substantive reason given; it was just against the rules.

Sure, fine, whatever. But I’ve been thinking about the author-as-reviewer thing a bit more lately, wondering about potential ethical pitfalls and such.

I’m pretty comfortable talking about books I’ve enjoyed and recommending them to others. That’s part of the fun of being a reader and a fan. I love posting a review and seeing commenters complain, “Dammit Jim, there goes more of my book-buying budget!”

I’ll usually try to acknowledge flaws or problems I encountered, even in positive reviews. But what about when the review is generally negative?

From a pragmatic perspective, there’s the potential for burning bridges. Will Chuck Wendig refuse to speak to me if I review his Star Wars book and complain that Jar-Jar Binks, Jedi Master made me want to burn my eyes out with a lightsaber? If I give a negative review to an author from one of my publishers, am I going to piss off my editor in the process?

At the same time, does a positive review lose value if the reviewer is unwilling to post a negative review? Do the rules still apply if it’s awards season and you’re discussing nominated works?

And finally, if a reviewer is ethically obligated to disclose any real or potential conflicts of interest, then as an author who could potentially be working with any of these publishers in the future, isn’t every review I post pretty much saturated with conflicts of interest?

I’ve got more thoughts and opinions on this, but I wanted to throw this out for discussion and see what other folks thought.

Mirrored from Jim C. Hines.

Comments

[alexseanchai]

It is indeed appropriate on both counts. Reviews exist for readers to share their feelings about books, positive or negative. If some of these readers are also writers, that is of no importance, in my opinion. Awards season is also of no particular importance.

That said, no one is obligated to post a review at all. So if someone decides they don't want to review a book for any reason (possible reasons of course including but not limited to "the review will be negative" and "the review being negative will affect my professional relationships"), they don't have to review the book.

[al_zorra]

That's bs, is what it is.

The NY Times Sunday Book Review always gets other writers who are supposedly well-versed in the subject or mode of book, fiction or non-fiction, to review books of related matter.

It's always been that way. Who else reviews? Because reviewing takes a great deal of time to do right, and it sure as heck doesn't pay -- so other authors, who presumably do reviews on occasion for professional reasons that are part of their job as writers, scholars, etc.

[mythochromos]

I can see where there might be an ethical concern as a sort-of competitor, and the conflict of interest if you may be working with that publisher later. I've never seen an author disclose that in an interview but I don't see how it would be bad to do so. Except perhaps creating a line of disclaimers so long it could be in a pharmaceutical commercial, heh.

When something is questionable, that's definitely a bigger concern to me. No matter what the rules, I think you should be telling people when you see creepiness, bigotry, or potential triggers. Everyone should.

I can't answer you about editors and publishers; I don't know. When it comes to authors, I don't think any of them have much power over the direction of another author's career and you don't have to share an office with any of them. The spec fic authors I see regularly around the interwebs are grown-up people and I think their relationships would withstand a polite, well-thought-out negative review. The others would matter to me only inasmuch as any crying whinefits interfere with my day, and...no power over career, no sharing an office. *shrug*

If I finished a book and you reviewed it negatively, I'd accept any part that was a difference in taste and be curious what I could do better technically. I'd take a review from you or Scalzi or Saladin Ahmed more seriously on everything but taste because you clearly know what you're doing, so even if I went and had a good cry first, I would be grateful to see that feedback.

I don't think that writing only positive reviews is necessarily a problem. Or writing only negative ones. The gaps say something too.

Writing only positive reviews of works nominated for a specific reward in a specific year might be inflammatory...why didn't he write a review of X? There may be speculation and speculation may turn into rumors. If it were me, I might review ALL the things if I had the spoons, review everything in certain categories and nothing in others, or review only the works that get my top vote for the category.

[azurelunatic]

Like comedians, I tend to feel that authors should punch up rather than down. There's also a difference between a negative review ("Overall, I didn't like it, and this is why:") and a sporking/MST3King ("This is terrible: pull up a chair, because this shit is *hilarious*!") -- and I feel like sporking has to be handled with much more care if you're also playing in the same field. Dorothy Parker could get away with it. Precious few people are Dorothy Parker.

I don't think it's playing fair for someone with an audience of thousands to make fun of the book of someone with an audience of tens or hundreds. I think it's reasonable if someone with an audience of thousands has a go at a bestseller, even if it's a mean-spirited bad review.

I think it's entirely fair for someone with an audience of thousands to post a well-considered but negative review of a book by someone else with a similarly sized audience, regardless of whether it's awards season or not.

I do think it's okay for an author with a reasonably sized following to say something like "I didn't think this was particularly good" about a less well known work, if that's the author's honest opinion, but I also feel like that's somewhat tacky unless someone asked. (Nominated works during awards season counts as someone asking.)

By "review", I'm assuming this is published somewhere, rather than kept to a smaller circle. The more vehement and detailed the review is, the more attention it draws to the book it targets. Negative reviews tend to fall into either "this wasn't to my taste and this is why" and "nobody should read this and this is why". "This wasn't to my taste" reviews about otherwise okay books serve both the people who share your taste and those who don't, and can help an unloved book find its people. For the "nobody should read this", an author with a substantial platform should carefully consider whether the review will more help guide people who might have otherwise read the thing away from it, or whether it will draw undue attention from people who might otherwise have never heard of the thing.

As a reader, I suppose I'm more concerned about an unwarrantedly more positive review than a negative review, as the result of industry connections. Perhaps you know Chuck Wendig and hang on his every profane and wrathful snarl, so you're willing to overlook the small sections of cloying glurge about Jar-Jar Binks in an otherwise rip-roaring Star Wars yarn. Having never met Chuck, those sections may go for me about as well as an 8-ounce glass of glucose tolerance drink served room temperature on a sweltering July day. I may be very cross that a good review led me down this terrible path.