Anybody else love reading bad reviews?

[Keryl Raist]

Originally Posted by FizzyWater

I like to read honest reviews of bad books.

+1. Great way to put it!

[wvcherrybomb]

Originally Posted by xg4bx

the thing is that many times the reviews are more entertaining than the books themselves lol. theres a lot of funny people out there, both ha-ha funny and tragically funny.

After reading some peoples' reviews I am honestly shocked that they even read!

[ATDrake]

I love good (as in well-done, sometimes to a crispy roasted texture if applicable, rather than merely praising) reviews of bad books.

I also love author blow-ups over "bad" reviews and critical commentary which they consider insufficiently stellar and/or worshipful. Both of them tend to provide me with far more reading enjoyment than I suspect the actual work ever could*.

Case in point: I don't care for romance at all and any genre romances I actually end up trying from the freebie hoard can be considered statistical blips in my regular e-book consumption.

But I really enjoy reading some of the lower grade reviews over at Smart Bitches, Trashy Books, which are frankly awesome† and almost make me want to look up the samples of the originals out of sheer morbid curiosity.

* No doubt I am interrogating the text from the wrong perspective.

† Recommended reads: Pregnesia, Private Sessions, and The Playboy Sheikh's Virgin Stable Girl. Warning for language not suitable for more sensitive Gentle Readers.

Also for your amusement, the Random Romance Novel Title Generator.

[bucsie]

Oh, I remember reading a review of Twilight on amazon, I laughed 'till my belly hurt.

I usually stay away from book reviews because I'm scared of spoilers, I much rather go for recommendations from forum users

On the other side of things, I happened to read some negative reviews of books I already loved and it kind of soured the rosy memories I had of them. I remember I loved them, but then the critic made some valid comments - like the fact that it has a slow start for example.
It's sort of like I didn't mind the slow start when I read it, but now that someone's mentioned it, yeah, it took a while until I was hooked. So now I'm thinking that all the people that might read the book because I recommended it are thinking "This is the best book she ever read?"

[mldavis2]

Pushing this a bit farther than just negative reviews when selecting promising books to read:

I have more books than I can read. Consequently, I've begun to take more time in choosing what to read when looking at a book to add to my 'to-read' list. I look at the number of reviews and the rating on sites such as Amazon, GR and LT. On both GR and LT, I will also click on the author link and see what I can find out about the author. For example, how long have they been a member of GR or LT, how many books have they written and how were they rated, what books are they reading currently, what books are in their libraries and how did they rate them? How does the author describe him/herself in their own biography? I now tend to avoid totally new authors unless their bio is well completed and they've been an active member of those sites rather than just dropping in to dump their first novel. I also read the description carefully with my "hype" meter turned on. Prevention cures a lot of ills and helps me avoid having to rate books poorly, consequently you will not find many books rated below 3-stars in my listings.

Another filter I use is to rely on friends who share my taste in books. I try to limit my "friends" on those web sites that offer book listings and reviews so I can always check to see if my friends have an opinion. That is also the reason I always provide a rating and review paragraph on every book I read, since turn-about is fair play.

Many negative reviews are given by people who just "can't get into" the book. Those I discard as irrelevant, as many books take time to develop threads and the plot. Some of the best books I've read just went "over the head" of some who complained of a slow beginning. You don't always have to find a dead body on the first page.

[howyoudoin]

Originally Posted by OtterBooks

Bad, clueless reviews for good books makes me sad for humanity.

I agree with this.

The kind of books I read are generally those that can be spoiled in reviews, which is why I don't read reviews beforehand.

I do like to read reviews after I've finished a book or movie to see if there are others who have experienced the work like I did. The 1 star reviews generally leave a bad taste in the mouth.

I look at it this way: there isn't a best-selling or well-received book in existence that doesn't have its share of 1 star reviews. If I were to base my reading decisions on 1 star reviews, there would be nothing for me to read

Ironically, the only works that generally don't get 1-star reviews are the classics, and its not because they aren't flawed; it's because the smart alecs posting 1 star reviews elsewhere are too cowardly to stake their 'credibility' criticising works that have stood the test of time.

Sometimes I feel that reviews tell us more about the person doing the reviewing than the actual work being reviewed itself

[Keryl Raist]

Originally Posted by howyoudoin

Sometimes I feel that reviews tell us more about the person doing the reviewing than the actual work being reviewed itself

This is very true. That's why I try to read the reviews people write before accepting their friend requests. I might not agree with the review, that's not the important part, but I will get a good sense of how the person reads, and if they feel a need to be unkind to strangers. And that is very important to me when stocking my online friends lists.

[apbschmitz]

I used to review books and restaurants for print publications back when. Looking back I realize it was always a lot easier to write a funny review that trashed the subject matter. It's harder to write an interesting review that praises a book, and way harder still to write a nuanced review that honestly describes the good and bad of the book, puts it in a context, and conveys enough of your taste as the reviewer so that readers can decide how seriously to take your opinion. Now when I see a book getting drubbed I wonder whether it was the reviewer's honest, considered opinion, or something more like the path of least resistance.

[Keryl Raist]

Originally Posted by apbschmitz

I used to review books and restaurants for print publications back when. Looking back I realize it was always a lot easier to write a funny review that trashed the subject matter. It's harder to write an interesting review that praises a book, and way harder still to write a nuanced review that honestly describes the good and bad of the book, puts it in a context, and conveys enough of your taste as the reviewer so that readers can decide how seriously to take your opinion. Now when I see a book getting drubbed I wonder whether it was the reviewer's honest, considered opinion, or something more like the path of least resistance.

I've certainly noticed it is easier to write a review of a book with serious issues. Great books are hard to review and not sound like a sycophant. Ones in between... actually I like writing them, too, though the balance between criticizing the bad and praising the good can be difficult.

I never thought to wonder if reviewers were being hyper critical because it's easier.