Marquise > Status Update

N/A only have the 1 place to review.

I usually post on here or amazon. If it's a book I've purchased, I'll leave a review on amazon as I think it's important to support authors. I post mostly on here, though.

Given the vitriol your critical reviews seem to attract on here, I don’t blame you 😅

I only review here, at present.

Charlton wrote: "N/A only have the 1 place to review."

What would you do if you had another place?

Meredith wrote: "I usually post on here or amazon. If it's a book I've purchased, I'll leave a review on amazon as I think it's important to support authors. I post mostly on here, though."

The question isn't about whether you post somewhere else but if you choose what reviews to post to which place and what's your criteria?

Maria wrote: "Given the vitriol your critical reviews seem to attract on here, I don’t blame you 😅"

I'm not worried about the vitriol per se as in my website I have full control, but any authors I want to interview as well as publishers I'd have to contact for X or Y reasons would check it and if they don't like it, I'd be stonewalled.

They already do something like that on NG/Edelweiss, they check the reviewer's page/blog and have specific criteria before granting ARCs.

Betsie wrote: "I only review here, at present."

But theoretically?

Oh yes. They all go here/NetGalley, but I only post 4-5 stars to Instagram. Sometimes 3.

Mai wrote: "Oh yes. They all go here/NetGalley, but I only post 4-5 stars to Instagram. Sometimes 3."

Yes! That's why I'm asking this now. Do you do this positives-only posting to IG for the reason I'm thinking? Don't want to assume...

That Molly X Chang review continues to haunt me, but also a bunch of authors follow me

Mai wrote: "That Molly X Chang review continues to haunt me, but also a bunch of authors follow me"

That's basically the fear in a nutshell. I have my own "Molly Chang review" (you know that one), and not long ago the author rekindled that stuff on IG.

I can manage all the negativity and trolling here, but the website is a long-term project I want to have a good rep and be respectable...

Marquise wrote: "Betsie wrote: "I only review here, at present."

But theoretically?"

I would post the same ones, all or nothing. Although I understand the idea of presenting different sides of yourself based on your audience.

Betsie wrote: "Marquise wrote: ".I would post the same ones, all or nothing. Although I understand the idea of presenting different sides of yourself based on your audience."

Indeed, authors/publishers/agents do react like your average fan/reader too, but since they're in a position of power in this context and have access to the publicity machinery... It can become messy.

And I'm not the type to go all 'good vibes only' on them for fear of retaliation, so the option left is to cull my reviews and choose what to post where.

I occasionally post a review on my blog, if I think it's interesting enough. Or I'll do a group of abridged reviews without star ratings.

Audrey wrote: "I occasionally post a review on my blog, if I think it's interesting enough. Or I'll do a group of abridged reviews without star ratings."

Good idea, I thought of mini-reviews for the neg ones. But even that is risky...

Sharing the same space with authors/publishers/publicists is complex. It's different to GR out there.

I only review here, and only reviews of books that I bought or received as gifts from friends or family. So I'm not overly concerned about the feelings of authors or publishers in the matter of pointing out bad writing or (in the case of non-fiction) factual errors and misinterpretation. But then I am retired and used to be a tenured full professor (plenus merda, perhaps), so a different case from yours.

Hmm...
Do you intend your site to be a review site or a discussion site? I think if it's a review site, do your reviews; if it's a discussion site, then any negative reviews shouldn't be about the review being negative but instead about what happened, why, how it could be improved, and examples of similar ideas done well

Congratulations, you'd become a text-based video essayist...so an essayist

Fred wrote: "But then I am retired and used to be a tenured full professor (plenus merda, perhaps), so a different case from yours."

Yeah, you got it, Fred-sensei.

Imagine having to balance your audience and your reviewer's integrity like this in a space where you have to share everything with them. Here on GR, it's a readers' space and we're (rightly) jealous of our little corner of the internet and feel authors/pubs as little more than intruders. But out there? We have no such privileges, we have to share for better or for worse.

So that demands diplomacy, a juggling act per se.

At no point do I intend to become a positive-reviews only type of reviewer, that's not me and contradicts my entire mentality. But I have to consider the long-term goals: if this project has to become a reliable resource with a respectable award for retellings . . . how would it look like if I kept my GR style. I'm more frank & direct than many others, and I get backlash for that honesty, and I don't plan on quelling it anytime soon. So what's the option? Know thy public, Plautus would say? He wouldn't be taking his comedies to the tragics, mmm? :)

Automemory Cub wrote: "Congratulations, you'd become a text-based video essayist...so an essayist"

Methinks today's haircut relieved you of a lot of extra hair weight over your head and now you've become wiser. 🤣🥰

(Brashcandie says basically the same, but in different wording. She's more willing than I am to risk flame wars, I suspect it's ASOIAF fandom nostalgia.)

Marquise wrote: "Charlton wrote: "N/A only have the 1 place to review."

What would you do if you had another place?"

If I had another place I would just cut and paste the entire review.

Wherever you post, please do not abandoned the forthright honesty that informs your keen critical skills. 👍🙏🏻😊

It depends on the language: a French website for reviews of books written in French (there's some logic to it, may I dare to say, ha, ha!) and GR otherwise. And given that I read mostly English books, it's GR most of the time

I only post my reviews on Goodreads so far! Only exception being the website of my local bookstore for a few books!

Reviewers who only post positive reviews are usually suspicious of working with the marketing department.

Many books are rubbish. And they are supposed to be rubbish. Few writers get it right the first time. Readers are supposed to come across rubbish books.

I don't trust reviewers who have 4 stars above average. They are either very good at choosing books, or they give rubbish books 4 stars and above.

XOX wrote: "Reviewers who only post positive reviews are usually suspicious of working with the marketing department.

Many books are rubbish. And they are supposed to be rubbish. Few writers get it right the ..."

There's nothing wrong with having a 4 or above rating. Some people only rate the books they love. I rarely write negative reviews because I prefer not to waste time on books I don't like. I mostly choose to DNF those instead. Do some reviewers, especially influencers, give high ratings to books they didn't particularly enjoy, or even read? I'm sure they do. I don't really care if my friends give all their books five stars or if they mostly write reviews that are negative.

I also feel this is a reviewer site for us so I can be more honest but my IG also includes my personal life so I try not to be negative

Persephone's Pomegranate wrote: "XOX wrote: "Reviewers who only post positive reviews are usually suspicious of working with the marketing department.

Many books are rubbish. And they are supposed to be rubbish. Few writers get i..."

I didn't say there is something wrong with it.

I said, I don't trust reviewers who only give 4 stars and above. It is a preference.

Searnold wrote: "Wherever you post, please do not abandoned the forthright honesty that informs your keen critical skills. 👍🙏🏻😊"

Oh, it's not even in debate, my dear Arnold, don't worry. 😊

ERIC wrote: "It depends on the language: a French website for reviews of books written in French (there's some logic to it, may I dare to say, ha, ha!) and GR otherwise. And given that I read mostly English boo..."

There's a French website for reviews? I only know of the BD places (for graphic novels & comics).

P.E. wrote: "I only post my reviews on Goodreads so far! Only exception being the website of my local bookstore for a few books!"

You post your neg reviews there too, or only the positive ones?

XOX wrote: "Reviewers who only post positive reviews are usually suspicious of working with the marketing department."

Fine, but what does that have to do with the question at hand?

Persephone's Pomegranate wrote: " I don't really care if my friends give all their books five stars or if they mostly write reviews that are negative."

Me neither. I do have my opinions about certain reviewers here, but it's not based on their average ratings. There are more telling things than a mere star average that clue you in about what type of reviewer they are.

Anyway, the question is about reputation building in the context of a long-term project in a space that by necessity has to be shared with authors/publishers. That's far more complex than merely hanging about at a readers' place like this.

I'd personally prefer to see your positive and negative reviews Marquise, I like to read your views on all your readings. I don't much like people who only post positive reviews, it diminishes their realness and meaning for me. Just saying.

Mai wrote: "I also feel this is a reviewer site for us so I can be more honest but my IG also includes my personal life so I try not to be negative"

Yes, exactly. Here on GR, it's a space for readers who review, not for authors or publishers (but boy, do they want to turn this into that), so we can say whatever we please.

But on Twitter or Instagram, for example? The author and their fandom you 1-starred are there also, and since those aren't reader-exclusive spaces, they have as much right as we do to be there. And the danger is ending up in a fight one could lose if one's a small account or simply an anon reader.

So I think it's not as simple as a matter of being honest, but of reading the room and choosing your battles.

John wrote: "I'd personally prefer to see your positive and negative reviews Marquise, I like to read your views on all your readings."

I would prefer that as well, John. <3 I'm not a fan of 'good vibes only' reviewers either.

But my negative reviews come at a cost to myself, they're not consequences-free as much as some of you like and enjoy them. I could spare myself all the vitriol if I only posted my 4/5 star reviews, I've always been aware of that but chose otherwise.

In this case, however, reviewing politics have caught up with me. That's the downside of having a project.

To be clear, I'm not talking about stopping the negative reviews, not at all, apologies if anyone understood it that way. I'm talking about where to post what, meaning where my negs go and where my positives & neutrals go. That sort of thing.

Marquise wrote: "XOX wrote: "Reviewers who only post positive reviews are usually suspicious of working with the marketing department."

Fine, but what does that have to do with the question at hand?"

Reply to your struggle in posting your negative reviews to your site. I encourage you to post your review. The space of your site allows you to put more analysis to your reviews.

It is also possible that I interpret your question differently. Let me know.

XOX wrote: "Reply to your struggle in posting your negative reviews to your site. I encourage you to post your review. The space of your site allows you to put more analysis to your reviews."

Ah, I see.

Basically, what we concluded with my besties & co-blogger was that negative reviews can be posted to the site but not on the same basis as here on GR.

Meaning: not every 1 star & 2 star should end up at the website, and part of it is that most of those books don't deserve a full review or deep analysis. They're rubbish, you don't dissect every single rubblish you find, no? I can post all my bad reads and negative reviews here, but the negative reviews that end at the website should have something to merit it. Something uniquely bad, something outrageous, something out of the ordinary.

Marquise wrote: "XOX wrote: "Reply to your struggle in posting your negative reviews to your site. I encourage you to post your review. The space of your site allows you to put more analysis to your reviews."

Ah, ..."

Agreed.

Not every rubbish book deserve analysis or review. It could be a collection of rubbish books in one single article.

It would be interesting to see why so many writers make similar mistakes.

It also reflect your pet hate that is linked to either personal preference or value.

As for the balance, it is good to agree with a percentage so it there will be a balance on the site.

I post my reviews on 3 sites. They are all the same review. I post the positive and the negative reviews. Reviews are for readers, so if you are sitting on the negative or rant reviews you are doing a disservice to your followers who are following you to find out what is good to read or not. Just my 2 cents. 🤷🏻‍♂️

On the other hand, you do seem to attract more rabid lunatics than most.

Whether you post the negative reviews to your site or not depends on the purpose you have in mind for your site.

As you say, not every poorly written books needs in depth analysis, but you could have a separate section where you put the books you didn't like with just a paragraph explaining why (I find the explanation more useful than just a rating or "didn't like"). Or you can just post the negative reviews on GR and leave links to your site for the other longer reviews.

Personally, I find "negative" reviews very useful. Just because you had issues with certain aspects doesn't mean I have problems with those aspects, and I may even pick up the book because you didn't like it. Am I making sense? Reviews where the reader complains that a science book is too complicated/complex/dense and gives it a 1 star rating is going to automatically make me take a second and third look at it, simply because I want more information in my science books.

"I hesitate to post my neg reviews to my site, not for fear but for reputation-building reasons (bad optics, authors/pubs don't like neg)" >>> From this, you have plans for your site that don't necessarily mean it's just for readers. You are basically providing free marketing to those people you don't want to offend. I assume it's free. Maybe you get something out of it too?

It actually sounds like you are trying to do something like reactor mag dot com? I don't think I've ever come up with a bad opinion of any of the media on that site, even if the post author has something critical to say.

Sorry for the waffling, but this does require some thought and it depends on what the purpose of your site is supposed to be.

Marquise wrote: "John wrote: "I'd personally prefer to see your positive and negative reviews Marquise, I like to read your views on all your readings."

I would prefer that as well, John. <3 I'm not a fan of 'good..."

🫶

Marquise wrote: "P.E. wrote: "I only post my reviews on Goodreads so far! Only exception being the website of my local bookstore for a few books!"

You post your neg reviews there too, or only the positive ones?"

I post all review on GR, while on the library website, only the ones about books and films/documentaries standing out for me! Another element playing a part in this: for the time being, I can't rely on a PC at home so I have to manage my time efficiently at the library and at work when I wanted to publish more elaborate reviews :)

Hmm, I’d probably do both just because I like to be honest, plus if I was a published author looking into a reviewer I didn’t know and only saw positive reviews I’d be a little suspicious of dishonesty or someone who always and only wants to be praised as a “good reviewer” whether they like the book or not.

Elentarri wrote: "I post my reviews on 3 sites. They are all the same review. I post the positive and the negative reviews. Reviews are for readers, so if you are sitting on the negative or rant reviews you are doin..."

Very well said, I agree wholeheartedly!

Scott wrote: "If you want my two cents 🪙🪙, and of course you do, I would say to post your in-depth analysis reviews on your site, and reviews of anything else, good-bad-ugly here,"

Yeah, that's basically it, with some tweaks. I'll spend your 2 cents well, Scottie. 😂

Sarah wrote: "Hmm, I’d probably do both just because I like to be honest, plus if I was a published author looking into a reviewer I didn’t know and only saw positive reviews I’d be a little suspicious of dishonesty..."

In my experience, the authors who are appreciative of ALL reviews of their books aren't the norm.

In trying to balance the needs of readers with the expectations of authors, some reviewers end up being "diplomatically dishonest," for optics and being on good terms with God and the Devil.

P.E. wrote: "I can't rely on a PC at home so I have to manage my time efficiently at the library and at work when I wanted to publish more elaborate reviews :)"

Aha, I see what you mean. Writing reviews at the office means you either have too much time to kill on a lazy day and end up with a pages-long essay, or hurriedly write a couple of lines that barely makes some sense. 😂