There are some really interesting comments in the posts on reviews (look in the right hand column -- and I'm hoping you see a right hand column) for a list of recent posts, if you're curious.
However. Some of the points made make me believe I haven't been clear, so I'm going to state my position, once and for all, on reviews:
1. Reviews are a good thing. In the best case, a review is useful for the author and the readers both. A successful review will make people think and encourage discussion. This is true whether the review is positive or negative.
2. Anybody and everybody is free to make their opinion of a book known. This used to happen primarily when friends talked about what they were reading, but with the internet there's a much bigger audience and it's easier to reach out. So these days it's possible for just about anybody to put out reviews for public consumption and discussion. Which is right and good.
3. A reviewer who takes the process seriously is somebody who deserves a lot of credit. Even if I don't agree or like the approach, I still recognize the effort that goes into the reviewing process.
4. Any reviewer, professional or amateur, has some responsibilities to the reader. My list:
- a reviewer will sign his or her review, and take responsibility for it;
- the reviewer provides thoughtful commentary;
- he or she doesn't spoil things by revealing major plot twists;
- a responsible reviewer will not skew or misrepresent a book to influence sales in one direction or another;
- the reviewer's opinion can't be directly bought (accepting money or favors in return for an excellent or terrible review);
- the reviewer will reveal any connections that are relevant to understanding the context in which the review is written (for example, she went to school with the author, or the author once turned her down for a job, or the author is the publisher of the newspaper in which the review is appearing);
- the reviewer focuses on the work in question, and doesn't indulge in personal attacks.
4. What motivates an individual to post reviews is (mostly) irrelevant. A sincere interest in writing and reading? Great. A real love of discussing books? Wonderful. But if the goals aren't so lofty, that's okay too. I may not admire the way an individual uses a so-called book review site as an exercise in intellectual exhibitionism or bitchiness or as a way to boost weblog hits, but I can always walk away. Which I have done many times (a few examples: The Elegant Variation, Golden Rule Jones, and most recently Dear Author). These review sites obviously work for other readers, and they fill a need. In reviewer speak: I give those weblogs a failing grade, but I also know that others will grade them differently. Because reviewers (like authors) are putting something out in the public domain for consumption, and they who judge will also be judged.
I count myself among that number. An author is necessarily also a reader. An author is not necessarily a reviewer, but I do review books now and then, and my reviews are as open to analysis and judgment as anybody else's.
A final note on this point: sometimes reviewers have agendas which I find personally distasteful. In the worse case scenario, a person who is bitter about the rejection of his or her own work or insecure about talent and chances of publication will make it their business to cut down everything in print. The 'that should be me' approach, as I think of it.
5. A negative review can often be far more interesting than a positive one. A successful negative review will be of use to the author and the readers both, because no matter how sharply worded, it will address the work in a thoughtful way. A snarky, negative review that takes a book apart in a clever way can be useful and entertaining. The Smart Bitches do this with flair and precision.
In conclusion, here's an example of a successful negative review (in my opinion) from The Washington Post Book World:
At its heart, The Glass Books of the Dream Eaters is less a novel than it is hundreds of pages of ornament piled on a rickety piece of storytelling. It may appeal to a certain subset of Anne Rice fans: the ones who liked the ritualized kinky-boots action of her A.N. Roquelaure erotic novels and the ultra-rococo style of her Vampire series.
It's a long review and I've only pulled out the summary, but what you get from this is quite clear: the reviewer not only didn't like the novel, s/he was irritated by it, found it pretentious in approach and execution, and lacking in substance. At the same time the reviewer acknowledges that some readers will like this, and identifies them. I would guess this review cost the author some readers, but won him others.
Now, compare these negative reviews (which I just made up of a non existant novel):
This first time novelist has taken on a complex plot involving surgeons, insurance conspiracies, and an old woman stuck in an emergency room for forty eight hours. Unfortunately it's all too clear that the author doesn't know a hypodermic from a hippo.
There's some information here, but the commentary makes some assumptions and statements about the author herself. Now let's get more subtle:
This author set out to write the great American novel, but to do that, she must pretend to know more than she does, something she doesn't pull off. Only a gullible reader will be taken in.
This last example says a couple things quite clearly. Unless the author wrote or said in an interview "I set out to write the great American novel" this is projection on the part of a reviewer with an agenda. Worst of all, it doesn't tell us anything useful about the novel. It does tell us some things -- and not very complementary ones -- about the reviewer.
And that's it. My take, and nobody else's. These are not rules I'm trying to stuff down anybody's throat. They are based in my belief that a successful review needs to be honest, but at the same time can only be weakened by attacks on the author rather than discussion of the book.