Critiques Vs. Reviews

Critiques are to better the producer or the community.

Reviews are to inform the consumer.


I will crap all over a book like it's a badly-cut lawn if it's shitty. ...guess that would make it even shittier? Keeps people off of it.

I should also mention: Many writers abstain from reviewing or use alternative accounts when reviewing to avoid what you're going through. Keeps them honest.

I don't tend to give horrific reviews, because I don't generally finish books unless they're at least three-star worthy, and I rarely review books I didn't finish. The only exception might be a book I got most of the way into but tossed down because of something really awful, or something that had something I found really horrifying (like rape or domestic abuse portrayed as sympathetic).

But I'll mention things I think are issues, or mention things that aren't issues for me but could be for other readers, even with 4 and 5 star level reviews. No book is perfect. But on the other hand, few books (at least not ones I read all or most of) are with no redeeming features either.

But I rarely review now that I've gotten to know so many of the authors I read (on social media at least) and read authors I've gotten to know. You're not allowed to review writers you have any association with on Amazon at all, and I assume this means interacting with them here on AW, or on FB, or on twitter, let alone having met them at a workshop or been a critting partner..

I do occasionally discuss a fantasy novel or writer I like on my blog, but I'm not really formatting those as reviews. Rather, I'm discussing the effect these books and writers have had on me as a fantasy fan and as a writer.

Osulagh said:

Critiques are to better the producer or the community.

Reviews are to inform the consumer.


I will crap all over a book like it's a badly-cut lawn if it's shitty. ...guess that would make it even shittier? Keeps people off of it.

I should also mention: Many writers abstain from reviewing or use alternative accounts when reviewing to avoid what you're going through. Keeps them honest.

Click to expand...

That's a very clear and useful distinction (bolded). I'd like to know if others agree, or not?

I think probably more is up for dissection in a critique, because the assumption is its not ready yet. Once it goes out, though, I assume the writer intends for it to be the way it is. So there's a lot of stuff I probably wouldn't even mention.

Kylabelle said:

That's a very clear and useful distinction (bolded). I'd like to know if others agree, or not?

Click to expand...

Definitely agree. Which is why I disagree with people who only write "nice" reviews. A review is not for sparing the author's feelings, or helping the author - it's for the readers. And if a book is so bad one can't finish it, I'd like to know that before I spend my hard-earned cash for it. Others elsewhere have also said that what the reviewer dislikes in a book, they might actually like.

I honestly don't understand why people think "brutally honest" is a necessity for critiques, but distasteful in reviews.

Agree with Kylabelle. I consider a critique something given to the author to better the book, so it's pre-publication. Reviews are post-publication, meant for readers--not the author.

I tend to be a lot more gentle in my critiques than I am in my reviews.

I agree with the "critiques are for the author, reviews are for the readers" distinction, and if I'm writing something for the author's benefit, I tend to couch my words more carefully. In a critique, I might say, "This part didn't work for me because it didn't really make sense for the character to do Y, at least to me; I wonder if you could try something like X?" In a review, I'd be more likely to say, "This part didn't work for me; I'm really sick of reading about characters doing Y when it would make so much more sense for them to do X".

I'm also more thorough in critiques, generally. I don't do formal reviews for review sites or anything, just Goodreads, and mostly I review on Goodreads just for myself, so I can remember what I've read and decide if I want to try anything else by the same author. So some of my reviews there are quite brief, since if the book is either extremely good or extremely bad I don't feel like I need to explain why. It's mostly the ones in the middle that I need to think through a bit more.

I think I never trust a published writer to be unbiased with reviews, and I think anyone who listens to a beta reader is probably going to fail.

I'm not rude in a review in terms of wording unless the book was godawful. But the opinions I'm trying to communicate can be pretty brutal if the book had a lot of flaws. Reviews are definitely for the reader and not the author in my mind. Now, I don't care if I know the author or hate them or love them. I'm reviewing a book, not an author. Although if I've liked their other books I might mention that and elaborate on what the difference is that makes me dislike the current book.


For critiques, I try to be nice if I think the author needs that, but I'm still gonna say exactly the same things about what's wrong with the book--in my mind. Whether the author listens to me or not is up to them, and I've definitely had writers do the opposite of what I suggested and not only be happy but have the book work better than it did before.

Kylabelle said:

That's a very clear and useful distinction (bolded). I'd like to know if others agree, or not?

Click to expand...

I agree. I don't shy away from giving one star reviews. I'm honest about what didn't work for me, and let the buyer beware. Matters of personal taste are different than overdone ideas whichnare different than unconvincing characters which are different than a poorly edited book, and I get to that level of detail in my reviews. Some of my low reviews get the most "yesses" on the "was this helpful for you?" input.

As for crits, I try to give them in as instructional a spirit as I can. Of course about why it didn't work for instead of how it should be done unless it's grammar.

Another +1 for reviews being for consumers, not writers, and therefore thinking the reviews should be clear (blunt) and honest.

Think of it this way: If you were reviewing a toaster oven, would you sugar-coat your review in order to be kinder to the feelings of company that makes it? Potentially at the financial expense of the people who are thinking of buying it?

I try to be constructive with critiques, hoping writers want the same kind of honesty I want when I ask someone to critique my work. This is not the time to hold back and soft pedal. We need to know the truth, even if it's disappointing or distasteful. Better now, than after publication.
I tend not to review books unless I enjoy them as a reader. That is not the time for me to put on my writerly hat and point out plot holes and inconsistencies etc. That's the time to tell my fellow readers what I liked about the story and what I didn't like about the story, it's characters, its setting, how it made me feel.

I'm... kinda embarrassed by the reviews I used to write. Very nitpicky, rude, and not helpful to anyone at all, really.

I write more critiques than reviews, now, 'cause they're more likely to be useful. My reviews of published books are more likely to be positive because I want to draw attention to good books. The bad books usually have several negative reviews already -- anyone who wants to read them anyway might as well.

Jamesaritchie said:

I think I never trust a published writer to be unbiased with reviews, and I think anyone who listens to a beta reader is probably going to fail.

Click to expand...

I really don't understand your aversion to betas. Some are bad, some are good. If you think anyone who listens to a beta reader is going to fail, then you're basically saying people should never listen to any feedback. That makes no sense.

Kylabelle said:

That's a very clear and useful distinction (bolded). I'd like to know if others agree, or not?

Click to expand...

Definitely agree.

I don't write book reviews very often (I mainly review movies and TV shows, when I write reviews), but I'm not really more inclined to be harsh with reviews than I am with critiques. I'm not opposed to being honest, but I'm very aware of how subjective entertainment can be, and I don't want to discourage anyone from reading or watching something based on a biased or unclear impression that I gave. So I try to be honest but fair, and I'm also careful about reviewing things that I reacted strongly to, because while strong reactions can definitely be a valid measure of how effective (or ineffective) a book or movie is, I know that, personally, I can't always be unbiased enough about something that I strongly loved or hated to write a fair review, and I can't always look past highly subjective things that influenced my feelings. I'm not saying I won't review these things, but I'm careful.

Fruitbat said:

Perhaps he's just seen more of the ones that have come out of it worse rather than better?

Click to expand...

Perhaps. Bearing in mind, of course, that he has not seen every single ms, and therefore doesn't know which bestsellers had betas, or which abysmal failures did not. My understanding is that he's speaking of his own experience, and while valid, it is not universal.

RightHoJeeves said:

I really don't understand your aversion to betas. Some are bad, some are good. If you think anyone who listens to a beta reader is going to fail, then you're basically saying people should never listen to any feedback. That makes no sense.

Click to expand...

I don't get this either, but he makes the same point any time betas come up. I doubt he'll come back to clarify what he means or to defend his claim with any data, because he's big on dropping bombs like this and scooting.

"Probably going to fail" is sort of non falsifiable, because I suspect the overwhelming majority of aspiring novelists are probably going to fail, beta readers or no, if their goal is to get trade published and to experience some degree of economic success as writers. I assume what he's saying is that seeking input from beta readers makes you statistically more likely to fail at publication and economic success than if you just polish your work as best you can yourself and sub it.

I know some published novelists personally who say (at least) that they have always used beta readers and that they felt writing groups were helpful early in their careers. So it's not a strategy that guarantees failure. I personally don't think I'd ever have gotten to the point where I even had the guts to sub something (a necessary first step to publishing success, though certainly not sufficient) without feedback from critting partners and attending a few writers workshops, but I'm just one person, and of course my observation of the other writers I know personally might be selection bias.

But if JAR is right, then a significantly higher percentage of successful novelists haven't employed beta readers, or they only found success once they gave up beta readers. I assume he's basing his assertion on actual statistics he has via his own experience in the publishing industry (I think he's said he works for some house as an editor).

To test the hypothesis from outside, we must define success in some measurable way and randomly poll a large group of writers (maybe at a con like worldcon), then:

A. Count up the number who employ beta readers and critting partners.

B. Count up the number who labor in isolation and sub their own work without any other eyes seeing it first.

C. Compare the success rate for each group.

This may not yield perfect data, though, since even a large conference like worldcon selects for more "gregarious" writers and might exclude the successful majority who work completely on their own. Also, of course, such a poll could miss nuanced differences in beta readers between the two groups. What if beta readers turn out to be nearly ubiquitous in both published and non published writers? Does that mean they make no difference at all, or does it simply mean the published writers were better at finding good betas, or have a skill or personality trait that makes them good at separating the wheat from the chaff re feedback?

RightHoJeeves said:

I really don't understand your aversion to betas. Some are bad, some are good. If you think anyone who listens to a beta reader is going to fail, then you're basically saying people should never listen to any feedback. That makes no sense.

Click to expand...

I can only speak for me, but I get into a cycle of trying to please the beta I'm working with, only to work with another and undo all the changes I made with the first one.

But that's not a shortcoming of the beta process, but of my tendency (lack of confidence?) to not know what input works for the story and what doesn't. For me to grow as a writer, I need to get past this. It takes a balance between accepting valid feedback and going with my gut. Having seen JAR make similar comments in the time I've been here, I take his advice to be the far end of the "trust your gut" spectrum.

In my recollection, JAR has made similar grandiose proclamations about pretty much every aspect of writing and publishing; recently he's been saying a lot about betas, but on pretty much every topic there's only the JAR way and the wrong way.

I don't challenge his knowledge about what works for him, but I absolutely challenge his apparent omniscience. I sometimes use betas, and I get lots of stuff published. I know other authors who always use betas and get lots of stuff published. I agree with Chris that the author still has to take responsibility for their own work and not be ruled by betas, but there's no reason to believe that balance is impossible to achieve.

I think we've pretty much covered all the possibilities of why JAR may have said that about betas, so let's leave that fascinating subject on the side of the road and stick with substantive content here, please.

Thank you.

I feel bad if an author's work is getting generally panned, but I think that usually reflects a weakness in the work, and the author needs to accept that maybe they'll just have to try harder next time. As discussed in P&CE, you can't open channels for feedback and then limit the number of people who respond. Responding is up to other other people, not the one asking for feedback. Dogpiles can be unfortunate but are just part of the game, and usually less intentional, and more about each individual wanting to feel heard.

RightHoJeeves said:

I really don't understand your aversion to betas. Some are bad, some are good. If you think anyone who listens to a beta reader is going to fail, then you're basically saying people should never listen to any feedback. That makes no sense.

Click to expand...

I think I get it. It's the 'too many cooks spoil the broth' idea and I've seen it happen. I'll read someone's stuff up for critique, read the critiques and the writer's attempts to change things to please them and think, nooo, leave it alone. Your voice is gone! One needs to have a certain amount of confidence in what you're writing and be able to distinguish sound advice from mere preference. That isn't always easy to do.

Oops, sorry Kylabelle. Didn't read your post until I wrote mine. Just delete it if you wish.

I no longer critique because when I did the author(s) in question always flipped out. And I'm not one for feeding egos just for the sake of doing so.