For a writer, reviews seem to be a taboo subject – the merest mention of which simply conjures up images of green-eyed monsters and seething vats of resentment.

I have to admit, I thought twice about even broaching the subject. Then I thought: “Don’t be ridiculous.” I’ve been a reader for closing in on thirty years and a writer for all of five minutes by comparison, how pretentious would it be to take the lofty approach at this early stage?

And yet, lest there be any doubt, this blog post is the musings of a mere reader. At no point should it be seen as a response, whether explicit or implicit, to any reviews I may have received in my short foray into published writing.

No, I’m simply curious as to the process, the different approaches people take, and what they hope to get out of it - so feel free to share your thoughts.

As I think I’ve mentioned before, I’m relatively new to the whole e-reader, e-publishing experience and to sites like this one. Therefore my previous experience of reviews has been confined to, for want of a better way of putting it, the professionals – reviews in mainstream media or by trusted booksellers. I choose my books by a combination of past experience of an author, gambles on well-written blurbs, recommendations of friends who share or at least know my taste.

And you win some, you lose some.

Personally, I’m not sure of the benefits for me of a swathe of reviews on a site like this. I would be more likely to nosy at the reviews acquired by a book I’ve already read, to see if others share my opinions, than to use them as a buying guide.

Why?

Well, look around. Pick a critically acclaimed bestseller, just as an example. It will have tens of thousands of five star reviews. It will probably have less, but still tens of thousands, of one star reviews. That’s a huge gulf in terms of opinion, in my eyes.

It’s a book that topped charts and captured the hearts of a significant number of people – and yet many others appear to have down-right hated it.

As vamps go, I'll take Angel, Spike, or even Edward Cullen any day over the original ... – a soul-shattering review of Bram Stoker’s Dracula

I’m not talking about a specific book here, but there’s a general truth in that. Books are divisive, that’s as it should be. But what am I missing out on if I just happen to see a host of those one star reviews and take them at their word? Maybe I’ve just bypassed what could have become my new favourite – one of those books you come back to again and again, discovering new insights and revelling in the comfort of old familiarities.

How can the same book be worthy of one and five star reviews?

Of course we are all entitled to different tastes. I wouldn’t dream of suggesting otherwise. But I would go as far as to say that there cannot really be such a vast discrepancy – and that there wouldn’t be if reviews fulfilled their true purpose.

I have a friend who is a well-respected film critic, essentially a professional reviewer in a different medium. I’m not going to name names, but I love his work. He combines a flair for writing and a passion for movies to make anything he reviews a must-see.

What? I can hear you protest, surely he can’t review honestly and be so positive about everything? The answer is simple. He isn’t.

I’ve read reviews which tore his chosen film to shreds and left nothing but an eviscerated mess behind. And he did it with such style and still retained such enthusiasm for his subject that I wanted to go see it for myself, if only to see what got so deeply under his skin.

He also strikes a powerful balance between the subjective and the objective. He reviews everything from the latest leave-your-brain-at-the-door blockbuster, to animated flicks aimed primarily at kids, to the most cutting edge art-house cinema.

They are not all to his taste, so that must be set aside. In other words, you don’t have to like something to respect its power and lure. A true reviewer writes, not to collate his or her personal thoughts or feelings about a subject, but to offer insight to an audience – one of which they may not even be a part.

If you simply don’t like something, can you set that aside to examine its mechanics in the cold light of day? Can you accept you may not be the target audience and see through their eyes instead?

That’s not to knock the simple sharing of views and opinions, but I find the two styles to be very different beasts. And I know which one I trust.