Reviews are vital to readers deciding whether or not they wish to read a book. As an author and as a fellow reader, I appreciate those willing to read and review books. But which part of the review is it that informs fellow readers? I glean the deets, the good, the bad and the ugly, from the written text. A star rating tells you nothing. Does the person consider three stars good/acceptable or, like Amazon does, a big fat fail? It seems to me one to three stars without words tear down a writer's confidence without being helpful to anyone. If the reader paid for the book, or was asked to review as if she did, giving your honest opinion is ideal. But a review of "Terrible book." - One star, helps no one. What was wrong with the book? What was right?

Let's brush aside an author's fragile ego for now, and focus on social manners. People who were never taught how to provide a meaningful critique hand them out left, right and center. I'm not talking about the nice people who have read my books, but those I've come across as a reader. And reading unhelpful negativity disappoints me.

Imagine volunteering to do a car wash for charity and you do a terrible job. Do you expect the car's owner to simply accept your bad work after they paid? No, of course not. But do you think it's okay for them to tell you that your execution stinks, you used the wrong tools, and your attitude sucks? Or should they treat you like a human being and suggest, in a nice way, that while they applaud your cause and your commitment, perhaps you could take a little more care in how you treat their vehicle?

It's this human touch, this show of manners, that is so often lacking.

I take care when I write reviews. My reviews are meant to help other readers, so I will say what I liked and what I didn't. I rarely read books I totally hated, so most of my reviews are five or four stars. Any less, and I most likely would not finish the book.

To all people who wish to review my books. Please be honest, be polite, and if you hate the book, no one is forcing you to read it. Life's too short. The reviews I have already received tell the whole story. If you expect or like straight-forward plot, don't read Guarded. It is not a romance. It does contain sex and swearing. The main cast consists of five people, plus recurring minor characters. Not as many as Game of Thrones, but more than I Am Legend. The plot threads are interwoven, as befits a mystery, but will be resolved without a cliffhanger. If you still read it and hate it, tell others why.

It is not the purpose of a review to judge an author's work, but to judge to what extent, if any, the author's work met your expectations. In other words, you cannot judge a book objectively, because your likes and dislikes are your own. Saying "this book is terrible" assumes you speak on behalf of all readers, which is, quite honestly, ridiculous. Write, "The blurb suggests a romance, but it really wasn't. No surprise I didn't like it." Or how about, "The other reviews suggested a fun, fast-paced romp, but I found the pace extremely slow, with lots of unnecessary description."

Incidentally, the same goes for positive reviews. "I loved it" tells me, the reader, little, and makes me wonder if there was any reason for the review at all other than to massage the author's ego.

Okay, clearly I can't dictate to you how to review. That would be silly. I simply do not have the power to bend the world to my will.

Yet.

But seriously, I simply want to appeal to my fellow readers to remember the purpose of a review. It is not meant to bolster an author's ego, nor is it supposed to tear him/her down. But whatever your verdict is, remember there are non-hurtful ways to deliver bad and good news, while being truthful.

Because until we've discovered a fairer, more informative way to review books, let's use the tools we were given in a meaningful way.