Authors reviewing their own works?

[patrickt]

I just went through having a friend demand why I hadn't reviewed his book of which he'd given me a copy. I said I hadn't gotten around to reading it yet and that didn't seem to be a requirement. So, I took some time, read the book, and wrote a review. The author was a little miffed that I didn't give it a five. I responded that when I see a book with just five reviews and they're all fives I assume it's his parents, two grandmothers, and himself.

So, I'm curious. If an author reviewing his own book is tacky, does tacky also cover friends and family? I'm a casual friend but I wuold stand behind my review.

I'm looking forward to seeing a review that says, "I want my son to get a job."

[neilmarr]

That's the way to do it, Patrick. Good on you.

The star system is a lazy option to careful and detailed reviewing, of course, but those who use it should award stars comparing the book they've just read with everything else they have ever experienced. If you give a mate's *Invasion of the Gay Zombies from Plant Zogg* five stars, what have you left to register your admiration of a Steinbeck or an Attwood work?

This is one of those situations where honesty can break perceived friendships, where friends in favour are unworthy sycophants or, out of favour, those who offer sincere opinion from the heart in your own interest.

I've often chosen not to review books from friends of mine (and some bargain basement indie authors whose books I have picked up on here at MR, Smashwords and elsewhere) when I find the work under par ... and I admit, even that 'no comment' is a cop-out. But at least I can't be accused of sour grapes.

Reviews are there for the POTENTIAL READER first, the author second -- readers should be well guided by honest opinion (though admitedly and unavoidably subjective -- that's understood if it's honest), and authors should be encouraged by the positive and learn from the negative.

Those who can't take that fact on the chin are 'writers' who deserve no future and 'friends' who don't merit your handshake. And unwary readers have every right to view a faux reviewer with contempt.

Neil

[mish]

Well, I guess I'm in the minority opinion here, but I don't see anything wrong with an author giving themselves a rating or review as long as they clearly identify themselves as the author of the work. I see this on goodreads all the time. Some authors use this as a way to convey more information about the book, and some just say, "Hey, it's my book, of course I love it!" or something like that (Actually, I'd be worried if they said they didn't like it!). I see it as akin to a politician being allowed to cast one vote for themselves. I think authors should be able to give themselves one vote too.

If an author pretends to be someone else to leave shill reviews then that is totally different and unacceptable.

[neilmarr]

The place for such self-promotion, Mish, is not in an arena designated for impartial review.

Quite simply, author and author-circle review, is cheating. It is also amateurish, worthless and devalues all other reviews.

An author has a full book -- tens of thousands of words -- in which to make the point that s/he's worth reading. It's up to non-partisan readers to say whether they feel s/he was right or not. I feel very strongly about this issue.

All my children and grandchildren are the most beautiful and best-behaved in the world, and my cat is the cutest on the planet, by the way. My review. In my company, my family and all friends wholeheartedly agree. Fact! They do ... when I'm listening.

What do other parents and grandparents and pet-owners privately think of my personal assessment when my offspring and moggie are compared to the children and grandchildren and pets of their own or others?

The 'producer' cannot be relied upon for meaningful appraisal of his or her own work to reflect the potential satisfaction of others. And neither can her/his family and friends.

And that is why Satan invented reviewers and critics. It was a good move, Ol' Nick. Neil

[kcmay]

Sometimes friends and relatives think they're doing the author a favor by writing glowing reviews. They don't always understand that readers can see through this ploy. I have a few reviews on Amazon by reviewers with only 1 review. One is my brother :/ one is my high school English teacher (whom I haven't spoken with in over 30 years), and one is a friend. The rest are people I don't know. They might make me look like a poser, but what can I do aside from ask Amazon to remove them... but why?! They're good reviews! lol

[Timoleon]

Isn't it a common practice for authors to write their own screed for the book jackets (inside flaps and back cover)?

[neilmarr]

No, Timolean, it's not. That is the job of publisher and editor; in a big house, of a specialised back-cover text writer (often freelance). Only self-publishing authors write their own blurbs.

I often include for instance, an unsigned and italicised line of two of appraisal of my own in back text to a BeWrite Books title. What you must bear in mind in such cases, though, is that the words are genuine and independent of connection with an author.

The book I am back-texting was one chosen by me from perhaps 500 offers. I rejected, 499 often without even an explanation for declining (time is tight). I was impressed enough to spend many months editing the one book that struck me in this pile of freely available reading and to invest no small sum in publishing and promoting it.

So the book I run with has got to be stunning for one reason or many (I can say why in two lines), and one shining review in 500 reads is not to be sniffed at ... even though I do say it myself.

I do not, however, promote my own reviews of work I am involved in (though I often review books by authors not connected with my own house as an independent reader). It is for others to figure out whether or not I made the right choice on a book we publish and if we and the author got it right.

Cheers. Neil

[GraceKrispy]

KC-(quoting doesn't usually work on my blackberry!) A five star review for a book, and it's the only book reviewed isn't always bad- especially if the review is somewhat specific. Some of the ones I'm thinking of are truly just praises to the book/author and I cannot tell if the book was ever even read.

You're right, you as an author can't really control who writes a review and how they choose to write it. And it's a shame if the only reviews an author has are suspect. Hopefully as the book gets out there, more reviews will help establish the book for what it is.

You are deserving of those 5 stars though I think you probably have enough reviews overall that it balances out "new," possibly suspect reviews with reviews from those who have several completed.

[mish]

The place for such self-promotion, Mish, is not in an arena designated for impartial review.

It is not a sacred cow, it is just a review...an opinion. Authors have an opinion too. I don't need to be a brain surgeon to know it is a biased opinion. I read it for what it is worth then disregard it and move on to valid reviews. The publishing world will not collapse because an author reviews or rates their own work.

devalues all other reviews.

Piffle...

It's up to non-partisan readers to say whether they feel s/he was right or not.

And they do. An author leaving a rating for themselves here and there will not change that. It is much ado about nothing.

All my children and grandchildren are the most beautiful and best-behaved in the world, and my cat is the cutest on the planet, by the way. My review. In my company, my family and all friends wholeheartedly agree. Fact! They do ... when I'm listening.

And since I know they are *your* grandchildren I immediately know it is a biased opinion, will disregard it as valid, and move on to other people's opinion of your grandchildren. It's not rocket science.

The 'producer' cannot be relied upon for meaningful appraisal of his or her own work

well, duh... I never said they should. Like someone else said, it is just silliness to expect someone to honestly rate their own work.

And neither can her/his family and friends.

This is the real problem in my opinion. It is easy to disregard a review by an author who is rating themselves, but I can't always tell when the review is from a friend, family member, or colleague.

[kennyc]

I think it's totally out of line. It's one thing to talk about the book, and encourage others to read it, but a totally different thing to actually REVIEW it and assign a rating.

As ardeegee said, work of a rank amateur, to be avoided.

I would agree about the family and friends being biased as well, but quite often friends do review and rate.....

[meromana]

Originally Posted by GraceKrispy

A five star review for a book, and it's the only book reviewed isn't always bad- especially if the review is somewhat specific. Some of the ones I'm thinking of are truly just praises to the book/author and I cannot tell if the book was ever even read.

This is the crux of it for me. The stars drive me nuts! What is the point? When it comes to fiction, one man's trash is truly another man's treasure. Unless the book is just incomprehensible gobble-de-gook, it's quite possible (in fact, likely ) that I could hate it and someone else love it. As a reviewer, the key is to give some useful insight into the book so that other readers can decide for themselves whether this volume might be worth their time and money.

--Maria

[mish]

I like the star ratings (or letters, or whatever the reviewer uses). It is an at-a-glance look at the reviewer's overall feeling for the book. The star rating is the 30,000 mile view. The written review is the more detailed and up close view. You can either look at them individually or in combination (if the written review is available). Though I'd prefer to see both I'd rather see a star rating only then nothing at all.

[GlenBarrington]

Originally Posted by SeaBookGuy

It's tacky

Yeah it's tacky, but is it any LESS tacky than one famous author giving positive cover blurbs to another famous author in return for service in kind? It used to be that money made the world go 'round, now it seems that everyone takes a certain amount of pride in just how sleazy they can behave without censure. It's sleaze that powers the planet.

[mish]

Originally Posted by GlenBarrington

Yeah it's tacky, but is it any LESS tacky than one famous author giving positive cover blurbs to another famous author in return for service in kind?

Ooh, that is another whole ball of wax and exactly why I don't trust cover blurbs one iota.

One day I noticed a book that I was reading had several cover blurbs. Upon closer inspection I realized that every single one of them was from an author who shared a multi-author blog with the book's author...don't need a math degree for that one!

[C.I.Bond]

I think the problem is 3-fold.

1- It looks unprofessional. It looks tacky to review your own stuff because you have too much attached to it and you add that attachment to your review. It is hard to be objective about your work. If you are a hard-core review I think you can do a better job than if you refuse to create an objective scale and metrics but in that case you might slide too far to the negative side of the scale.
2- Lots of people can’t review to save their butt. Can I say butt? Rarely will an Indy work rank a 4 (but it could happen in some cases) much less a 5 and, sadly, you see that all the time. How many posts do you see in Book Bazaar where someone exclaims that they have a 5-star average? Ridiculous, you’re telling me that an author, who probably can’t get the interest of a publisher for one reason or another, doesn’t have access to professional editing or a slew of Beta Readers has single-handedly written the Great American Novel? It is possible but more likely the author has friends or the literacy rate just dropped staggeringly.
3- No one wants to give a 3-star rating because they think it is an insult but it isn’t, 3 stars is average for a published work. It is good, it is a recommendation, it says this book can stand on its own against published work. Buy it.

When you evaluate the color of a diamond you compare it against ‘test stones.’ This is necessary in a system that is more than just – buy it or don’t buy it flags. I am an author but I am also a pretty tough reviewer and I can conservatively say that my book is a 3, which is okay. If you like the genre you will probably enjoy it but I’m not going to knock your socks off. You won’t name your children after me. No one is going to “teach” this book in a college course.

The problem comes when you compare this review with authors that have 5 stars (because they have friends or they gave themselves a 5) but really should only have gotten a much lower score. Then where does my objective 3-star work sit by comparison, I just screwed myself by rating my own work. You never win if you rate your own work.
______________________________________
I suffered for my art and now it's your turn, but at $0.99 can you afford not to suffer? Blood Bank