I receive a lot of review books, but I have never once told lies about the book just because I got a free copy of it. However, some authors seem to feel that if they send you a copy of their book for free, you should give it a positive review.
Do you think reviewers are obligated to put up a good review of a book, even if they don’t like it? Have we come to a point where reviewers *need* to put up disclaimers to (hopefully) save themselves from being harassed by unhappy authors who get negative reviews?
I have mixed feelings about reviews, especially the blurb-type ones that publishers put on the backs of dust jackets. Although I always used to read them before reading the book, now I try to wait until after reading it.
Why? Several reasons. One is that they often contain a spoiler, and I absolutely HATE that. Also, reading reviews can turn me into a lazy reader. I’ve already been instructed. I find myself expecting to think what they think, expecting to find what they tell me is there, rather than just experiencing the book for myself and making my own connections, discoveries, and judgments. I like reading to be active rather than passive.
But after I’ve read the book, I love to read reviews. Then I can feel validated—“Yes, my sentiments exactly!”—or I can argue—“No, you completely missed the point!” Either way, it’s fun. I engage with the text and with other readers.
Now to actually answer the question: Of course reviewers should be honest. Otherwise, what’s the point? The review should accurately represent the book and be a legitimate response to it. One of the risks of putting your writing out there is that some people won’t like it. If you can’t take the heat . . .
3 comments:
I've stopped reading the backs of books too. I often read to back after finishing the book and realize that a good portion of the book would have been ruined by the description on the back cover.
For me it depends whether it is fiction or non-fiction. For fiction, I try to stay away from anything that may alter my perception of the book (classics and widely-read books being exceptions, due to popularity).
However, for non-fiction I usually will read a review or two (maybe more) before purchasing the book. Like you, I buy all my books (I have a fantasy of having a library of my own one day). For non-fiction I want to know the content and whether it is worthy of my time.
@S.C. Denney--You're right. I was talking of fiction here, but I do read reviews of non-fiction, usually from reviewers I trust, before reading the book. Reading time is too precious to waste on non-fiction that doesn't give me the information I need or challenge me to think.
Oh, and I think we share the same fantasy. When I see pictures of huges houses with the walls lined in books--floor to ceiling-- I drool.
Post a Comment