RABID REVIEWERS!
Yesterday was Thanksgiving here in the United States...a time to gather with family and friends, and to count our blessings. Among the myriad things that I and many other authors have been thankful for this year is the fact that Amazon.com is no longer permitting anonymous reviews to be posted by anybody and everybody.
Why the change---and why should all authors and readers be happy about it?
Well, earlier this year, a computer glitch caused the true names of thousands of anonymous "reviewers" to be revealed on Amazon's Canadian Web site.
What an uproar that provoked! *g* As a result of the glitch, the public at large became aware of what we authors have known for years: Many of the great reviews at online book Web sites such as Amazon.com were actually being written and posted anonymously by the books' authors themselves and all their relatives and friends, while many of the scathing reviews were actually being written and posted anonymously by the books' authors' vindictive ex-spouses and envious colleagues, bitter aspiring writers, and other such persons with axes to grind with the authors.
Why would authors anonymously post great reviews of their books? you may wonder. If you guessed ego, you'd be largely incorrect. In fact, when questioned, most of the authors who were exposed rightly saw it as a matter of business. Writing is how full-time authors earn their livings---so negative reviews affect not only book sales, but also, as a result, authors' bottom lines. Would you want your own annual income potentially drastically reduced because you had a malicious ex-spouse or a jealous colleague, or simply because a handful of disgruntled readers chose to publicly trash your work?
I and all authors I know work long, hard hours, spending weeks, months, and sometimes even years to write a novel. If, in the end, it's not your own cup of tea, most of us truly regret that. However, the realistic among us know we can't please all readers all the time, and especially in genre fiction, where book output per author is relatively high, we authors are bound to disappoint some readers at one time or another. But still, that doesn't mean that your wall-banger won't be another reader's keeper.
So what is the point of posting a tacky review? As both an author and a reader, I've never really known the answer to that question. To "warn" others? I personally wouldn't even begin to presume that my own taste was the same as everyone else's.
That's one of the reasons, in fact, why all reviews ought to be signed---so that readers can know who the reviewer is, what his/her qualifications as a reviewer are (if a "reviewer" can't even spell---much less construct a proper sentence---should we really assume that he/she is a qualified judge of literature?), and whether his/her taste is the same as yours or mine. Every single time one particular movie reviewer sneers at a film, for example, I know it's one I'm going to like---because his wall-bangers are my own keepers. So, obviously, he and I have completely different taste when it comes to the cinema, and I like knowing that. Otherwise, I might have missed seeing a lot of good movies I've thoroughly enjoyed.
The same is true for readers and reviewers of books. Amazon.com's original policy of allowing anonymous reviews did a disservice to both authors and sincere readers. Changing it was a good thing.








