ROBUST discussion

mean that you should expect a fantastic review?

Nope. In fact, I wouldn't expect a review, period, unless I specified that as a requirement in the giveaway (which I would never do).

I don't see why people are sensitive about free books. In trad publishing no one, absolutely no one, pays for a book they will review. Quite the contrary, they take the free book, and whether they review it or not, they sell it on to bookstores that specialize in buying "review copies".

People who intend to review my books should write to info at coolmainpress with the commercial extension and ask for a copy. Of course I expect a great review -- because the book deserves it! -- but accept whatever I receive. What matters to readers, much more than the rating, is that someone felt strongly enough to review the book.

Generally speaking, most people take the same view that I do, that the only books worth reviewing are the ripoffs, which get a blast and one star, and the fab books which rate a rave and five stars. I suppose writers come to count on that...

This came up in a discussion somewhere else where the expectation was that if you are given a book by the writer, the review is to be nothing less than stellar.

I'm of the opinion that if you give away your work as a promotion, there is an unwritten understanding that a review would be welcomed, an honest one.

Claudine wrote: "This came up in a discussion somewhere else where the expectation was that if you are given a book by the writer, the review is to be nothing less than stellar.

That's very unsophisticated. Also a fast way to lose your friends. No, the way to look at it is that the writer casts his bread on the waters. If people are enthused by his book, and write a review, he should be grateful. If they don't, the best policy is not to mention it, because perhaps they're doing him a favour, keeping stumm about a book they hated for some reason.

That said, there are some writers from whom I would not in a million years accept a book, because they take everything personally.

Claudine wrote:"I'm of the opinion that if you give away your work as a promotion, there is an unwritten understanding that a review would be welcomed, an honest one."

That's the normative case, what should be. But the people who need the honest review most, the writers at the beginning of their careers, are also the most likely to be the least objective, the most likely to take it personally.

I agree with Andre here; people should only review they wish, regardless of receiving a freebe or not. I've had a few in my time and normal get a review done, but if I haven't it's probably because the review would be a bad one and I'd feel guilty, particularly if it's some lowly indie writer with hardly any reviews...

I have been hesitant of providing reviews because I'm generally unsure what makes a good review. Is there any particular format one should follow when providing a proper review?

I don't leave reviews because my taste is too idiosyncratic to be helpful or meaningful.

Depends where you're publishing your review and what is expected, or sometimes required in that space. Here on Goodreads and on Amazon just about anything goes but reviews are not generally very extensive and stick pretty close to the book. In the London Review of Books, by contrast, a review can be an essay on just about any subject with the book merely as the launching point because the readership is sophisticated enough to understand that it is the amount of space and the eminence of the reviewer that signals approval of the book, not necessarily the amount of words directly related to the book. Conversely, on the op-ed page of The Times, very few words, usually by an eminent practitioner in one's field, has the same effect. I've been cruising for years on Ruth Rendell saying "Jute is great" on The Times op-ed page.

Here are some tips:

1. Always link author's book.

2. If possible, link the author as well.

3. Right at the bottom, link your own book. "Shawn Cannon is the author of XYZ." This is your authority for writing the review.

4. Always give the book's title in full at least once, and make sure you spell it right.

5. Spell the author's name right!

6. NO spoilers!

7. Mention the subject matter.

8. If fiction, brief notes about the author's abilities with structure (plot), characterization and dialogue are appreciated by readers.

9. Note whether at the end the whole thing satisfied you.

10. If non-fiction, were you convinced the author did his research, whether you agree with his conclusions or not.

More tips no doubt forthcoming from other ROBUSTERS.

Patricia Sierra wrote: "I don't leave reviews because my taste is too idiosyncratic to be helpful or meaningful."

Sometimes I wonder what planet you're living on, Sierra. Who cares about reviews being helpful or, or God forbid, meaningful? Your reviews would be interesting precisely because they're idiosyncratic.

What Andre said.

I don't review a book by any standard format. I tell why I like it and why someone else should consider buying it. More often than not, especially on Amazon or Goodreads, others have dissected the storyline right into the binding of the paper version so there is no real need for me to rehash it.

Shawn wrote: "I have been hesitant of providing reviews because I'm generally unsure what makes a good review. Is there any particular format one should follow when providing a proper review?"

A good example of a review that could have gone either way but, absolutely correctly, went straight down the middle, is Kathleen Valentine's review
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...
of Arcadia Falls by Carol Goodman. In fact, any review by the energetic and cultured but above all well-balanced Kathleen is an exemplar, but I choose this one because it could so easily have gone wrong, to either side.

Reading a few reviews of Goodman's obviously attractive but flawed book, it becomes clear to me that ROBUST members do things better!

Andre, if I wrote reviews, I wouldn't be trying to be interesting; I'd be shooting for helpful -- which is exactly what my opinions would not be.

I take the view that I write reviews for the entertainment of readers. If writers want help, they can read my books for other writers, or ask me. I don't see that the general public would be all that interested in a tutorial about cutting and rewriting, exciting stuff to professionals, no doubt, but a dull grind to anyone else.