Tuesday, July 19, 2011

One-star reviews

Konrath has a blog post up about bad reviews. He says "for the sake of this argument let's assume a base level of professionalism," but then goes on to say, "If you've ever given a one-star review to anything, you're probably an idiot."

Those two sentences don't match up. You can't assume a "base level of professionalism" with regards to "anything." Sure, there are plenty of good books out there, but there are also loads and loads of crap on Amazon (which Konrath should know as well as anyone, considering that he's read slush for contests, according to his blog). Some of that crap finds its way onto Amazon in an unedited and dreadful form.

Some people insist that every book can find its audience, and that one man's one-star book may be another man's five-star book. But I'm talking about books that are just bad, bad, bad. There are many excellent indie books, but there are also indie books out there that read as if they were written by a third-grader for whom English is a second language. These books deserve one-star ratings. They are atrocious, and should never have been uploaded to Amazon. They're an insult to the readers who spend money on them, and those readers are entirely justified in giving such books poor reviews.

To pretend that books like this deserve more than one star is to undermine indies who actually edit and proofread and craft their books.

I've read and enjoyed books far outside my usual genres because they were well written. I've read and hated books that were in my preferred genres because they were simply just bad, bad, bad.

I don't care how much "work" an author puts into a book, just as I don't care if the book I'm reading lies outside my usual preferred interests—I rate based upon how well the author performs the craft of writing on everything from basic storytelling to grammar.

Personally, I was a bit taken aback by the related Konrath piece precisely because he doesn't seem to recognize that there really is crap out there, or he doesn't acknowledge that some people can in fact recognize crap when the see it. Rating something with one star need not be subjective; the piece may, in fact, be unreadable for a whole host of underlying quality issues totally unrelated to whether or not a particular piece is somebodies "cup of tea."

Good for you for pointing that out, Ellen. There really is far too much crap out there on Amazon and PubIt, and it's the good authors who have to struggle to rise above this stuff in order to find an audience. As such, objective and well-reasoned one-star ratings definitely have a place in helping readers sift through the sewage in their quest of finding that one gem buried within.

Most people nowadays have little time and even less financial resources to waste purchasing crap. Long live the objective one-star review.

Thanks for commenting, guys! And I do think Konrath is trying to say that "objective one-star reviews" are okay; he's just saying it kind of awkwardly. At least that's what I take his comments to mean.

Konrath responded to my comment over there:

"It's a slippery slope, and a lot of subjective gray area.

"Yes, there are some books that don't meet the minimum requirements of narrative structure, or lack craft. These books aren't deliberate. But do they really deserve 1 star? Are you sure they won't appeal to someone, somewhere?"

IMHO, just because they "appeal to someone, somewhere" doesn't mean they don't deserve one star. A one-star review is MY opinion-- I don't think I'm obligated to take into account the possible opinion of every reader everywhere before I post the review.

I agree. It's one case where I think Konrath is simply off base. Even Joe Konrath can be wrong.

If *I* think a novel rates a one-star because it's that bad, then it is dishonest of me to rate it higher than that just because someone else, somewhere, MIGHT like it. If they do, then THEY can and should rate it higher.

Some of that crap finds its way onto Amazon in an unedited and dreadful form.

I don't disagree with this. Which is why I used the word "probably." Please don't put words in my mouth.

My blog post was about confusing subjective taste with quality. But I never said that every book is of equal quality, or even reaches the minimum acceptable threshold of quality, which I believe has some objective definitions (such as grammar, narrative structure, dynamic characterization, etc.)

The vast majority of slush I've read was written by newbie authors who weren't deliberate by my definition. My post wasn't about those folks. It was about reviewers thoughtlessly trashing books that meet minimum quality standards.

If you think something is bad, then you should be able to defend that position. Period.

IMHO, just because they "appeal to someone, somewhere" doesn't mean they don't deserve one star.

This is the slippery slope I warned of. Reasonable people may differ on the margins, but my point is the cavalier dismissal of something based on personal taste is often more a reflection of the reviewer than the thing being reviewed.

If many people like something, and you don't, that's a pretty good indicator it probably isn't crap. That's a taste issue.

What of 5-star ratings? If someone rates something 5 stars, that doesn't necessarily mean it successfully accomplishes everything a good piece of prose should do (just as it is argues that a 1-star piece doesn't necessarily fail to accomplish "minimum quality standards"). Can't it also be argued that 5-star ratings based on personal taste are more a reflection of the reviewer than the thing being reviewed? If many people dislike something, but you do, that's a pretty good indicator it probably isn't that great. True?

"If many people like something, and you don't, that's a pretty good indicator it probably isn't crap. That's a taste issue."

True. And I'm not speaking of books like (in a modest example) yours and mine, which at least use the English language correctly. I get some one-star reviews, and so do you, but they don't worry me too much, because I am confident my writing is not total crap-- it's just not for everyone.

One problem is, if a book has a bunch of five-star reviews, there is no guarantee that they're honest and unbiased reviews. There is of course no guarantee that they're fakes, either. I'm just pointing out that the fact that a book has good reviews doesn't honestly prove that someone somewhere liked it.

"What of 5-star ratings? If someone rates something 5 stars, that doesn't necessarily mean it successfully accomplishes everything a good piece of prose should do (just as it is argues that a 1-star piece doesn't necessarily fail to accomplish "minimum quality standards")."

True, and to be fair to Joe, I think he's arguing that ALL reviews need to be more "deliberate." Gushing five-star reviews with little content don't really tell the reader much about a book, either.

"My post wasn't about those folks. It was about reviewers thoughtlessly trashing books that meet minimum quality standards."

I get that. I'm just objecting to your "idiot" phrasing, which seemed too broad to be supported by the rest of your argument.

"As I said in the comments section, many 5 star reviews lack the same deliberation that 1 star reviews do."

I agree. As it happens, I don't leave reviews on other authors (except the out of print ones), but I'd like to think if I did, they would be fairly articulate. But not everyone is capable of writing a really articulate review, and I don't see that as a big problem. Of course reviews written for sabotage purposes (as apparently just happened over on Smashwords) are bad, but if a reader doesn't like my book, I'm not too bothered if they don't explain their reasons in detail. Ditto with five-star reviews.

"As for my "idiot" phrasing, I had the option to be more restrained, but I wanted to provoke a response.

Guess it worked. :)"

Apparently. But are you sure I'm putting words into your mouth? If you wrote "probably an idiot" with the intention of provoking readers of your blog, then my comments would seem to be exactly what you wanted:-).