✨Bookmarked✨ discussion

What do you think, when reviewing a book, is an author's review better than the reader's or vice-versa?
Does being an author provide an extra eye to the technicalities of book, such as writing style, character development or the plot of the story or a reader's POV connects with other readers better?

Can it be said that an author's acclamation about a certain book guarantees it being an actual masterpiece?
Whose review is more important to the success of a book?

Share your views here.
Kindly note, that this is a healthy debate and everyone is entitled to their opinions, and everyone must respect each other's opinions.

I prefer an author's review. Especially if I know and love that particular author. It just tells me that if an author that wrote books I enjoyed, loved a book, it tells me I'll probably like it too.

I definitely think that an author would be more experienced when 'judging' a book and reviewing it, although, for me that does not guarantee that I will like it. There is actually a higher chance for me to like a book based on the review of a reader. I also believe that no matter how much more experienced an author is and how much more validating that makes the quality of the book, both the author's and the reader's reviews are just as important. The reader's opinion is (of course) the one who truly controls the fame of a book (and the author's) because they are the ones whose opinions affect it the most (through their ratings as well as reviews).

I've been thinking about this a lot and I simply just don't know which one's better. Some authors are friends with each other, so would their review for one of their friend's books be skewed in order to not make their friend upset and therefore their review wouldn't be honest? But at the same time author's are more experienced when judging a book like Evi said, so their reviews may be better. I just don't know