Do you think it's fair that readers review books they didn't finish reading? + an Amazon Q.?

[Joss]

This is kind of long. the questions are at the bottom.

I've seen over time where some authors don't like it when someone reviews a book that they stopped reading. Of course, if you stopped reading a book then you're probably not going to give it a 5 star review on amazon.

A famous fantasy author asked on his facebook page when was it okay to review a book that you didn't finish. the answers differed and some readers didn't think it was okay to review the book, while others, like myself, thought it was fine. My off-the-cuff question made me realize something about book reviewing and why *I* review books. this really isn't something I'd thought about until the question was posed. But my thinking was, if a book was so bad that I couldn't finish it then I want to warn other readers about it. It made me realize (finally, right?) that I'm reviewing to help others decide whether to buy a book or not. It matters less about hurting the author's feelings or what the authors think or whether anyone think it's ethical. It's really about what you think about the book and the things you loved about or found troubling about it, you can let other readers know so they can take that into consideration when choosing to buy the book or not.

Of course some authors don't like this because one star rating on amazon can make or break thier overall rating score and that score does matter to some readers. I know of one debut author who complained on twitter to his publisher (more likely the publicity person running the twitter account) about how some guy gave his book a one star review because the ebook was higher than the physical book. The publisher (through twitter) was kind of dismissing it, but the author pointed out that that one bad rating lowered his overall score. I guess the publisher took care of it because so-called review was deleted (it really wasn't a review because the person never bought or read the book; just didn't like the pricing). So, readers do care about those things and I understand it, but they can't possibly think readers owe them anything like not reviewing the book because they didn't finish it. For me, personally, it depends on why I didn't finish it. These are of course my opinions. Youc an tell me yours.

1) do you think it's okay to review a book you stopped reading?

2) Is there a point in which you would give a review for an unfinished book vs not giving a review for it? -- for example, I'm more likely to review a book I didn't finish if I stopped reading because I hated it (it was poorly written, for example). I won't review a book if it just didn't meet my taste - if it was too slow for my reading pleasure or too boring then I won't review it, but I will review a book if I read about 50% of it. If I read 3 chapters and quit because it's boring or not to my liking then i wont' review it. If i read 3 chapters and hate it because it's poorly written then I'll review it to warn other readers - of course it's just my opinon, but you (general "you") wouldn't be reading the reviews if you didn't want opinions on it.

I know this is long and convoluted, but bear with me.


& the google question:

BQ: I've heard from authors that google is now preventing authors from reviewing books (i heard this several months back), even if the book they're reviewing is in different genre and doesn't compete with the author's book. What do you think about this decision, especially if you're a writer.

My computer is running slow, so sorry for all the errors that take too long to correct.
Eh, doesn't freedom of speech (in the us constitution) has to do with the government censoring people, not private businesses or individuals saying you can't post XYZ on their site or censoring what you say in their homes or private business??? Does anyone know 100%?
Eh, doesn't freedom of speech (in the us constitution) has to do with the government censoring people, not private businesses or individuals saying you can't post XYZ on their site or censoring what you say in their homes or private business??? Does anyone know 100%?
@Eibhlinn - okay, thanks, that detail [the moral/etihical] is good to know.

..and now, trying not to do an accidental double post...

[Eibhlinn]

1/ I think it would depend on how much of the book they've read. If they gave up on it within 10 pages then yes I think it's unfair to review it. However if after reading a third to a half of the book, they still think it's terrible, then yes, I'd say they have a right to pass a judgement on it.

2/ A lot of it depends on why I didn't finish. If it's just a matter of "it's ll right, but not my cup of tea/not what I expected" then I'm not reviewing it. If it's because it was awfully written or had things I found offensive in it then yes, I'll review. It would take a lot to make me review it though. I'd have to really hate the half I've read.

BQ: I understand that there is a real problem with fake reviews. Authors giving themselves 5 stars reviews or asking friends and family to do it (and occasionally paying companies who specialise in writing glowing reviews). And authors who give 1 star reviews of rivals' books. But honestly, you can't censor all authors' reviews just because of a few problematic ones. That to me is pushing it way too far and raises serious freedom of speech questions.


EDIT: my freedom of speech comment was a moral one rather than a legal one. I'm certain that legally though freedom of speech only relates to the government's censorship.

[Ellie]

-I generally think it's okay to review a book even if you didn't finish it. I mean, I'd be a little iffy about a review that someone wrote for a book that they'd only read a few pages of, but if they read at least a few chapters before they stopped then I think it's fine to review it.

-The only time I'd ever not let myself review an unfinished book is if I had only read a few pages. Otherwise, I'll write a review whether I stopped reading because it was boring, poorly written, or just not my thing and I'll say exactly why it was boring/poorly written/not my thing. For me, reviews aren't so much about telling people to read a book or not to read it, their purpose is to help someone decide if a book is something that they personally would enjoy. I would never tell someone that they should never read a book just because I didn't like it, but I would tell them that it may not be their thing if they're irritated by the same kind of things that irritate me.

-I understand not wanting authors to rate/review their own books because they have a vested interest in those books doing well, however I don't think that they should be banned from rating/reviewing any other books. Most people who write (including published authors) are also readers and they should be able to express their opinions as readers.

[Rebe]

1) Yes, assuming I gave it a decent try (for me, that counts as reading at least the first 2 chapters). Like you, I want to warn others if I didn't like a book enough to finish it, and I agree that reviews help people decide whether to read a book. A lot of books look interesting, but I can only read so many, so I have to choose somehow, and reading reviews helps a lot with that process.
2) I definitely give the most bad reviews to books where I thought the writing was bad. I feel like being bored by a book is more subjective than being unimpressed by the quality of the writing. If a book is written well but just doesn't interest me, I at least have a certain degree of respect for the book and its author, but if the book isn't even written well, I respond quite negatively to the fact of its existence.
3) I hadn't heard that Google was doing that, but my immediate reaction to hearing it from you was that it was unfair. Google has the right to create their own policy, but that doesn't mean I have to like it. Authors are readers, too. If I ever publish a book, I don't want people to say that makes me severely biased towards every other book in existence because it doesn't. Writing books is not a competition. Well, it is for some authors, I mean, but I feel it shouldn't be. Writing isn't about selling the most books or getting the most acclaim as an author. The creation of a book, and not the kudos the author gets for it, should be the reward for writing.

[cathrl69]

I think that provided they review the part of the book they read, and are clear that's what they are doing, then it's fine.

"some authors don't like it when someone reviews a book that they stopped reading."

Let's be honest here. They don't give a monkeys whether you stopped reading it or not - do you think all those friends who they beg to leave five star reviews have read it? All they care about is how many stars you leave. They'd FAR rather have five stars and "best book EVAH!!!" from someone who read two sentences than two stars and some advice from someone who read all of it.

Yes, I occasionally review a book based on the sample chapter. Invariably that would be a bad review...because if it was going to be a good review, I'd have read the rest too. I always say that's what my review is based on.