.png)
Every so often, a topic of debate sprouts up like a bad weed and I have enough thoughts to warrant a blog post. I prefer this method, because algorithms suck. A blog post feels more private, more personal, less likely to blow up. If I were to share my thoughts directly on Threads, it immediately invites conversation or confrontation from a much wider audience. These kinds of topics only spread because the algorithms push them out when they create conversation or confrontation. No, thank you. I'll continue to post here, shouting into the void, because this void doesn't talk back.
This week's topic of debate is a tricky one: publicly reviewing and rating books as a published author.
Reviews are for readers. That is the widely accepted consensus. Reviews are meant to help other people understand what a book is about, and make their own decisions about reading it or not. Of course, reviews are entirely subjective too. What one person enjoys might not be another's cup of tea. But that is the beauty of reviews--to help inform your choice to pick up a book or not. They aren't meant to educate. An author will not gain insight from a negative review, even if that reviews tears their book to shreds. The book is already published and not likely to change. Especially if that book is traditionally published. Which just means that someone thought the story and writing were good enough, and it went through numerous edits. Tearing a book to shreds is not "constructive criticism." It doesn't add anything. It only helps the next reader decide if they want to buy it or not.
And, sometimes, one-star reviews will encourage other readers to pick it up nevertheless. Maybe out of spite, maybe because the review mentioned something that reader enjoys. Reading is subjective. Wildly popular authors will not appeal to everyone, and someone will always find fault in their works. And yet, those exact faults will be someone else's faves. I absolutely loved The Invisible Life of Addie Larue with all my heart, and just yesterday I saw someone say it was overrated. Did I encroach on their space and tell them they're wrong? Of course not! Everyone is entitled to their opinions.
But when you're a published author, those opinions are scrutinized and very tricky to navigate in online spaces. Reviews are for readers. Authors are also readers. But, when it comes to sharing opinions publicly, where is the line drawn? Is an author's word more valuable than that of a reader, because they understand the intricacies of storytelling? Well, no. This debate isn't about whether the opinion of an author holds more weight, but rather the detriments or benefits sharing opinions publicly can have on their career.
And this is where it gets tricky. The general rule of thumb, I believe, is not to burn bridges. Imagine what would happen if you write a scathing review of someone's book, and years later you're on a panel with them? Awkward. Embarrassing. Probably not the impression you want to leave on a colleague. Because other writers are your colleagues, not your competitors. There was a recent incident where a debut author review-bombed other debuts, and when it all came to light, they tried to backtrack and blame something else for their behaviour. No one is invisible on the internet. Reviews like that, against one particular group of people, will have you blacklisted in this industry. You've ruined your chances in what could have been a promising career. You've burned bridges before you've even built them.
What, then, do you do? Should you forego writing reviews altogether, out of fear that anything less than five stars will ruin any future relationships you could have with other professionals in this industry? What if, like me, you give out five stars generously and without criticism? Do these now come across as ingenuine, because not every book deserves five stars? I'm in this position now where I'm worried about burning bridges before I've even built them by leaving anything less than five stars. I just debuted, so I'm at that point in my career where I want (and, to be honest, need) to build good relationships with other authors, if I want to make it anywhere in this industry. I can't, in good conscience, negatively review someone's book when I know the amount of work that goes into writing something. Perhaps the plot didn't work for me, but that doesn't mean the mechanics were wrong. I am not an authoritative voice on the intricacies of storytelling. No one is. But leaving a bad review, or anything that come across as negative, seems to then be a cry for the spotlight. "This person didn't do this trope correctly, but I did. Read my book instead." That is, perhaps, the quickest way to ensure people will not read your book. Being humble will almost guarantee you the opposite, however. The best writers know they're not the best.
All this to say, you shouldn't be scared to leave honest reviews. Don't use the space to "educate" or bash or criticize your fellow authors, but be mindful of your words. These are people you might have to work with in the future, and the internet is forever. The internet remembers. And do not, I repeat DO NOT, tag authors in negative reviews. Don't do it. You're not helping them. You're not educating them. You're putting yourself on their Do Not Interact list, and if you're an author with stake in the game, this is the worst thing you can do.
As an author, you are also a public figure, no matter what stage of your career you're in. Your words have weight. Remember that the next time you express an opinion online 💀