[4691mls]

The ongoing thread about self-pubs had some posts about book reviews that got me thinking about this topic.

I may look at reader reviews (such as those posted on Goodreads or Amazon) before buying/borrowing the book if the description on the library or bookstore website is very minimal, or if it sounds interesting but I am unfamiliar with the author's work.

I don't like a "review" that just tells the story, especially if this is done without spoiler warnings. Then there are the reviews that were clearly written by idiots - like the one that said basically "This series is boring - in every book, someone gets killed and then the main character finds out who did it." (It's a cozy mystery series - what did you expect?!)

I find it helpful to know any of the following: Was the book full of grammar/spelling errors? Was the writing overly simplistic or overly complicated? Was the book full of continuity errors, anachronisms, or historical inaccuracies? Was the ending too sudden, and/or did it not make sense based on the rest of the book? Were there a lot of loose ends that weren't tied up at the end? In the case of a cozy mystery, did the main character continually engage in too-stupid-to-live behavior?

If I can tell the reviewer has different tastes from me, a negative review may even prompt me to read the book. For example, if the reviewer complains that "there was too much telling and not enough showing" or that the main character did too much thinking and not enough acting, I might like the book.

Two big tipoffs that I won't like the book, even if most of the reviewers liked it: 1) There are a lot of positive reviews, but the reviewers come across as barely literate; and 2) The reviewers have filled the page with images of movie or TV actors or cartoon characters that they believe represent the characters in the book.