What Fangs for the Fantasy Expects from Authors We Review

So, looking round Twitter and following the links of the long suffering keeper of certain drunken, piratical Australians, we’ve seen something else looming on the horizon - namely a post on what one book blogger expects - or would like - from authors.

Well, everyone wants different things and the glory of the internet is we can all do things differently - but we have a rather different approach ourselves.

So in light of this, what do we, at Fangs, expect from authors who pass books to us for review? Let me write you a list:

...

..

.

That would be nothing. Actually we expect patience because there’s no way we’re going to get to it any time soon, but GENERALLY nothing

You don’t have to tweet the review, share it, like it, upvote it or even read it. We’re very much in the camp of “reviews are for readers, not authors.” In fact, if you submit a book for review, we probably won’t even email you to let you know the review has been written (admittedly from laziness as much as anything).

If authors wish to share our reviews, fair enough. But we won’t encourage that, praise that or even express public happiness about that - in fact, there’s a good chance we won’t even notice. In fact, I’ll even go further than that - despite our fanpoodling of authors we love, author opinion/support/attention is something we deliberately try to be indifferent about.

Whether you love us or loathe us, ignore us or pay attention to our every innocuous word, share our views or denounce us to hell and back - it doesn’t matter. Here is what matters:

You give us a book

We give you an honest review (eventually).

End of. Whether you love us, loathe us, worship us or denounce us, ignore us or stalk us are all irrelevant to that fact and we try to keep it that way; because the honesty of our reviews are paramount.

That doesn’t mean we don’t love our authors. We do - we can fanpoodle with the best of them: but that fanpoodling comes after the reviews - and we at least like to think that even with authors we’ve loved and interviewed (and we, in general, are not in the habit of interviewing authors we don’t adore) that we can still be critical in reviews and even the interviews.

By not expecting - or caring - whether authors share/like/promote our reviews this means we don’t expect or hope for anything from authors. Which means they  can’t offer us anything that would sway us and we don’t WANT to be in a position where they COULD offer us something - even something as innocuous as a facebook like or goodreads recommend.

We never want the perception that a review can be “bought”, even if it were for something as innocuous as a like, a link or a reblog. Even the perception of selling reviews can compromise your integrity

Authors, we expect nothing from you expect books - sometimes awesome, fanpoodly books (and to start the Prinny punk genre, with chickens. And to continue to be awesome. And to not mind us stalking outside your window crying that the next book isn’t out yet.) In turn, you can expect nothing from us except honest reviews - sometimes snarky, highly critical reviews.

Just to be abundantly clear here - we do NOT work on a quid pro quo system and we are not in the business of promoting authors, ever. We’re reviewers, not advertisers or a publisher’s marketing department

As for reviewers who want to be noticed and drive traffic to their site - well, I can’t say we’re any kind of experts but I think the most successful way to promote your site isn’t requiring people to spam on your behalf (or tweeting the same stuff daily). It’s always about a) producing decent content and b) getting involved in the community - go to other book blogs, comment, offer guest posts, interact - become known; it’s the only sure method. You become known in the community by joining and being active in that community

The difference between a Negative and a Bad Review.

The thorny debate of reviewing - and negative reviews - has raised its ugly head again. Many an author has spoken forcefully on the subject with the most recent being this blog post on reviews and amazon reviews in particular

While the post has been edited repeatedly showing the author has listened to some objections, the original problematic nature remains (albeit watered down) and we feel, as reviewers, that we need to address the suggestion that reviews should provide positive reviews - and the very idea that 20 words constitutes a review

Firstly, we want to challenge the idea that a negative review is a bad review. These terms should not be confused. A review that says “ZOMG SO AWESOME YAAAY BUY IT!” is a bad review. It’s awful. Why is this book awesome? Why should I buy it? This tells me as a reader absolutely nothing. I don’t know if my tastes match the reviewers, I don’t know what parts they like and why and for all I know it could be written by the author’s mother.

Similarly a negative review that explains in detail the many reasons why the reviewer didn’t like the book and all the problems within it? That is a good review. It’s a great review - and it can even recommend the book. If I read a review that says “there wasn’t nearly enough focus on the relationship development and far too much distraction when X, Y and Z happen in the plot” then to me that is a recommendation to me - because plot focus rather than relationship focus is what II prefer. Similarly if you read our review of a paranormal romance and see that we didn’t like it because there’s too much focus on the sex and relationship angst - or we didn’t like a YA because there was too much highschool drama and you want to read that - then our review recommends it.

A good review isn’t a positive review, it’s a detailed review. It’s a review that truly gives the reader an insight into the book and what problems it may have - and whether they are enough to put the reader off - or recommend it to them.

There is a lot of concern here for the impact of a negative review on an author - but what about the impact of a false positive review on authors who have written genuinely great work? To take Amazon reviews as an example - if the mediocre (or outright awful!) books are given 4 or 5 stars (especially with short, scrappy “reviews” accompanying them) then how do we find the actual gems that are worth the 4 or 5 stars? If we, on Fangs, decide to give trope laden, boring, outright offensive or just plain awful books 4 fangs or more then how can you find which books we truly fanpoodle?

There are no more book clerks to give you recommendations on books - but what value would even their recommendations have been if they were lying? If anything this creates a greater onus on the reviewer to be honest - even brutally so when called for.

Let us be clear here - we are reviewers. We give honest opinions on the books (and films and tv series) we’ve read. We are not the author’s marketing or advertisers. That is not the role of reviewers nor what we should be considering when we write reviews - our reviews are not based on what will make the book sell; our reviews are based on the quality of the book. Why does this have to be said? Any other critic is expected to be honest - harsh in fact. We don’t expect the Michelin Star judge to considera restaurants sales; we expect him to consider the food quality

Also, while authors are concerned about their reputation their good name and whether people think they can produce a good product, what about reviewers? What about our reputation and name? What about the trust of our readers? If we sugarcoat reviews - or write outright deceptive reviews, then no-one will trust us. It is our name, our product, our reputation that is flushed down the tubes. And just as a bad (or, should I say UNFLATTERING) review remains on the Internet to haunt the author forever, so does a bad (as in INACCURATE) review remain for the reviewer.

Which brings us to the all important role of integrity. As reviewers (and bloggers in general) we build a relationship with our readers - and in doing so we encourage them to trust our opinions and analysis. We violate that trust when we lie - and destroy that relationship and that trust.

From our specific point of view, sugarcoating a review is problematic. Fangs for the Fantasy is a site that analyses the genre (and occasionally outside of it) from a social justice point of view and we do this because we think it is important. We can’t ignore or downplay prejudice/stereotype/erasure without defeating our purpose. And every book we read, every series we watch, will contain criticism. No matter how much we love it or how tempted we are to fanpoodle, nothing is perfect, there’s always something wrong. And everything is a product of our prejudiced and generally problematic society – and will be stained by that. It’s a matter of “how much” more than “whether it is or not.”

And most online reviewers have comment sections. If you think we’ve not given a book justice then come, comment, debate (try not to fanpoodle mindlessly though, we will mock you rather cruelly and do recall that, as a social justice space if you come in carrying a load of prejudice foolery we will treat it accordingly) tell us what you thought or what we missed or even if we made a mistake or you have an entirely new perspective – let your comments add to the review. That is the joy of the Internet - you don’t have statements, you have discussions