Recently there has been a lot of discussion about the author/blogger relationship based on several disputes on Goodreads regarding negative reviews and author responses. This has now reached the stage in which mainstream media such as The Guardian have turned their attention to this topic.

I am a relatively new blogger and have not been involved in any of these incidents, but have observed them with some interest and read some of the many responses to it.  I also have never interacted with the bloggers involved or directly with the authors, however this a subject I couldn’t stop thinking about as a blogger. What I have mentioned above may mean that my opinion is thought of as without worth, I am an intruder to a discussion I am not invited into and I accept that. I do not mean to offend any authors, fellow bloggers or anyone within writing this. It is just my own feelings on blogs, reviews and the recent kerfuffle as best as I can express myself.

The main point of contention I seem to have gleamed from reading the responses, reviews,  articles and related stuff is that negative reviews warrant response. While I am prepared to accept that some reviews can border on offensive, the majority of reviews I read just employ a degree of snark. Is it a question of articulation? Are authors saying if a blogger removes their profanities and gifs and personal comments about an author’s home life, they will accept the review? While I wonder what would happen if that is the case, I cannot help but think they would still feel a degree of hurt/annoyance/anger at a negative review.Why? Because I might if I was them, because I’m human and so are they and writing is an intrinsically personal thing.I am a writer, yes I am unpublished so perhaps this may not count to you, but it does to me. I have a good quality degree in English Literature and Creative Writing from a high ranking British university and am currently at the same institution honing my craft with my Masters in Writing course. Writing is incredibly important to me, it’s one of my life ambitions to be published and I know I want, no need, a job that involves books or writing in some way in the future.  Why have I mentioned this? Well, I think it is important to be able to view things from the author’s perspective and as part of my degree I have peer reviewing sessions of my writing. Sometimes they don’t like my writing, it happens and a lot of the time there is a good reason why and something I can fix or improve on. The first time it happened, was I a little hurt? Yeah, sure, then I remembered you can’t please everybody and I am not always right. Not only that, but I was in a privileged position to be able to correct any flaws in my work, develop plot holes and improve as a writer. Now I thrive on my feedback. I receive constructive comments and value them. As I receive these in person, I understand a virtual review is different – words can be misconstrued and tone, which is invisible online, can be taken differently than intended. I also understand that while passion is at the heart of blogging and reviewing, personal insults are that. Personal and insulting and people will be offended.

Part of being a writer, particularly one in the public who exposes their work in the public domain, is having a tough skin. It’s a lesson I’m constantly learning and trying to remember, but there is a line between reviewing and insults. In a way once a book is written, it is no longer just yours and part of you, even if it feels that way. Certainly, I gather that was what Julie Bertagna suggested in her Guardian article on this. People will make their own decisions and impose their own impressions on a book and the author’s intention perhaps is not the same as the reader’s reaction.

I also wonder when does snark or insults make a review not a review as has been suggested by some? According to the dictionary on my computer (Oxford Dictionary of English) a review of a book or film, etc is described as a critical appraisal, but what does that mean and am I, and any other bloggers, not reviewing a book and only expressing a reaction or impression when we blog? I decided to dissect critical appraisal (appraisal means formal assessment apparently) further; in the context of reviewing a book my dictionary says:

2. expressing or involving an analysis of the merits and faults of a work of literature, music, or art: she never won the critical acclaim she sought.
• (of a text) incorporating a detailed and scholarly analysis and commentary: a critical edition of a Bach sonata.
• involving the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgement: professors often find it difficult to encourage critical thinking amongst their students. (Oxford Dictionary of English)

So are our reviews critical? More than that are the ‘snarky’ reviews (not necessarily those involved in the scandals of late) critical too? Well the ones I read involved an analysis of the faults (and some did mention merits where relevant but some didn’t). That said they may not have focused on merits or been objective. That said, are all professional reviews? I certainly have read biased reviews and believe a natural bias exists anyway in any articulation of personal opinion of any sort.  It’s a difficult situation and one I cannot make a certain judgement on. Is formality essential to make a review a review or can an informal review still be a review? When does informal detract from critical merit? It’s up to the individual, I guess.

On a personal level, when I write a review, positive or critical, I place myself in the author’s shoes; how would I feel reading this? Would I feel it was inauthentic or pandering, would it feel honest, and if critical could I take it? If I think I couldn’t take it then I’ll edit until I could. That said, there is a place for negative reviews and I am not suggesting reviewers pander to an author all the time, I am suggesting honesty and a degree of tact in writing reviews.

I consider my reviews carefully and use my academic background as part of this, I approach reviewing in much the same way as perhaps an essay. I consider more than one argument and I find evidence from the text that supports every claim, no evidence then no inclusion. That said, I don’t always cite every page because I don’t think my readers necessarily want to see this, but ask me and I will have evidence to support my claims, just as in an assignment. I approach my work as  professionally as I possibly can. Yes, I may gush occasionally about books I love, it’s something I’m trying to rein in actually. It’s a fine balance between demonstrating  passion for a book and full on unbelievable prostration to a novel or an author, in the same way as there is similar relationship between demonstrating dislike for a book and taking a review too far.

Furthermore responding to a review by personally attacking a reviewer/review  is inexcusable and relegates an argument that the review offended an author to a typical playground “she started it” like situation that I do not condone. It is interesting that the majority of furor has been over responses to reviews, not reviews, suggesting negative reviews do not affect sales in the slightest, right? Reputation is important and in this age of being able to instantly comment and respond without thinking needs to remembered: a bad reputation cannot easily be salvaged as in some cases, authors have been judged guilty by association by some reviewers and bloggers.

Am I as one tweet in the dispute indicated rashly tainting any chance of a job in publishing or reviewing by writing negative reviews? I certainly hope not, both fields are careers that I really want to try and work in after university. I adore books and I am proud of the way opinion is shifting towards book-lovers; perhaps no more will you mentally picture me as a fat librarian with several cats and no romantic life, but a person who just reads because it makes them unbelievably happy? I don’t know, but if this blog, which I created both to understand the YA market more (a field I want to write for/work in) will jeopardise my future career then something has gone wrong.

I, in fact, will spend more time writing a negative review than a positive one because I feel it is much more important to have a cohesive and clear review in this instance. There is no place for rambling anecdotes in my opinion, but a need to respectfully and decisively demonstrate why this book didn’t work for me.  I am writing my first ‘negative’ review for my blog and it is undergoing more drafts than a general positive review. It is a book that many people, including my Goodreads friends enjoyed, but for me personally did not work and had points that concerned me. Does this review mean that my friends have no right to have enjoyed this book or future readers shouldn’t pick it up and read it? I don’t think so, people will always like some books as much as others hate them. The world would be boring otherwise.

The one thing I realise at the end of this, is that my assertion that the world would be boring if everyone liked the same books is definitely shown in the YA blogosphere, which  the volatile relations of late show is anything but, and if you’ve reached the end of this long mediation, thanks and wow! I take my hat off to you.

So what do you think of the recent issues within the blogosphere? Have any of you been personally affected? Do you feel any differently about writing negative reviews and do you take the author into consideration? I hope no bloggers or authors have been offended by my rambling, it’s just my own musing on a news story and not directly at any one person in particular.

Stone Bearers (1)

Summary from goodreads: There’s a war going on and humanity is the prize.

Caught in a battle between two supernatural forces, five junior high students are killed. But Constance, Jonathan Avery, Maria, and Danielle return from the dead — and they’ve changed.

They each carry a piece of a soul stone and with it they have extraordinary powers. Now they can summon weapons from thin air and even start fires with their minds. With these powers comes a connection they never wanted, and coming back from the dead hasn’t wiped away the grudges between them. When one of them loses themselves to the power, they are soon caught in a battle against themselves and an enemy that wants to make sure that this time they stay dead.

I found this book much easier to get into than Burnt Children, which surprised me as I had expected it to be the other way around when I first received this book – once again, this proves first impressions can be wrong.  It was an engaging MG-YA read with interesting characters and a flowing narrative style.  I love that Washington starts off with the universal and realistic topic of being bullied and then goes into the more fantastical world. It was a really nice way of setting up the premise and made the book extremely easy to get into from the outset.

The characters were realistic and I liked that they didn’t start out friends from the outset but were pulled together and didn’t always get on. I am definitely interested to find out where the next book takes us. There were a couple of confusing aspects that have already been picked up by other reviewers, however  these flaws do not outweigh the novel overall.

I think that this novel shows a lot of promise and while it could be tightened in places, is a decent read.

Burnt Children

Summary from goodreads: In Meli, if you’re born with the wrong magic the Purifiers rip it out. They’ll etch a black flame into your skin, labeling you a Burnt Child. Elaria is one of those Burnt Children.

She’s not allowed to handle magical items and the only thing she can do is work with dangerous rokas stones that are likely to explode at any moment. But Elaria has a secret. She can see magic.

This rare ability draws Elaria to a strange locket that holds a dangerous mystery surrounding the leader of the Purifiers and a conspiracy that could change all of Meli. Soon, Elaria is hunted by Purifiers, befriended by a murderer, and haunted by the ghost of the very woman who doomed the Burnt Children fifty years ago.

All Elaria wants is to find a place to belong. But with a strange power growing inside of her, she realizes she must choose between saving herself or saving the world.

I  would like to start by saying that I absolutely loved the concept of this novel so I was so excited to receive it for review. I think because I had such high expectations, I found it harder to get into than I perhaps had anticipated. In the first few chapters, we are introduced to a plethora of names, concepts and a whole new world which I struggled to get my head around. On one hand, this was refreshing as in dystopian fiction I recently have become quite tired of tedious world building for the first hundred pages, that said I would liked a little smoother introduction to the world as I found it really hard to get into and at several points I abandoned the book.

The book improves if you do persevere with the novel, however I must admit that I personally felt distant from the book. This may not be the author’s fault but my own due to my own preconceptions of what sort of book this would be. Certainly, I would say this is more fantasy than dystopian and so if like me, you read the summary and expected a dystopian novel, be prepared to have these preconceptions challenged. I must also say Washington uses language very well within her writing which suggests to me that perhaps this book was just personally not for me at this point than the book itself being a problem.

If you love fantasy novels and aren’t fazed by being thrown into a world straight away then this is worth checking out.

I received both of these books for free through the Paranormal Romance and Urban Fantasy Goodreads Group R2R and am very grateful to the author and group for this opportunity.