I never write a totally negative review about a book I've read or a DVD I've watched. If I don't enjoy the book or movie, I simply put it down and move on to something else. Time is too precious for me at this stage of my life, and I don't want to waste it by writing a review that tells you how much I disliked a particular novel. The thing is you might just love it.
It usually takes me between ninety minutes to three hours to write a review. I don't get paid for it, plus I buy my own books. I therefore want to spend that time saying something good about a book I've read or a movie I've seen. There have have been a few reviews that I've only given three out of five stars to, or had some things to say about why I didn't like it. Whenever I write a review like that, I always try to find something good to say, too. I feel as though I owe that to an author who has bled bullets to write a book and get it published.
I had a little debate the other day with an individual who thought the complete opposite of what I did with regards to The Lost Symbol by Dan Brown. I loved the book; he didn't. I've also experienced the opposite as well. So, if given a choice, I will now concentrate of the books and DVDs I really like. I'd rather turn people onto fun and entertaining books, than to turn them away. Does this make any sense to you?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I agree completely. I have reviewed (by request) only one book that I thought was absolutely horrible--but I tried to be tactful and write about the positives more than the negatives. Needless to say, it was a very short review, but at least I didn't feel like I was ripping the heart out of the poor author in question. Generally, I will not review a book that I feel is terrible.
My pet peeve is reviewers who clearly have not read the book they're reviewing. I've only fallen victim to such an atrocity once, but it seriously sucks.
Thanks, Lisa. I agree wholeheartedly with you.
Post a Comment