Why Reviews Are Stupid (Sometimes)

Recently, I received two 3-star reviews on my book Cordia's Will: A Civil War Story of Love and Loss. Don't worry--this blog isn't a rant about how everyone is being mean to me and judging my writing too harshly. In fact, the second review was actually quite helpful.  I appreciated the writer's candor and his insight. You see, it is possible to write a review and do it in such a way that you are not only helping readers decide whether or not they want to read the book, you are also being helpful to the writer.  The other review, however, retold the entire book, including plot twists, and included comments that were supposed to be derogatory that were actually compliments, such as this gem:
"[The scenes that depict war] read like they were copied from the history pages..."
Uhm, thank you? It is historical fiction after all....

How many stars must a book get for you to choose to read it?

This got me thinking. What have readers had to say about other books--best sellers and the like--that, if the authors read them, would make then laugh or cringe?  After all, one little 3-star review on Stephanie Meyer's page is not that big a deal. Put it on my page amongst my other three or four reviews, well, it tends to stick out.  So, I did some research and I found some examples of ridiculous reviews for literatures heavy hitters.  See if you can identify what book each reviewer** was talking about and check your answers at the bottom.

1) "I have to give it a one star because the book in its narrative is lacking so much in basic reality that it is flat-out sloppy.  The 'unreliable narrator' style, typical in books written from the perspective of children, mentally challenged individuals, substance abusers and others of this sort is what I'm referring to."

2)"This book is quite possibly the most insipid novel I have ever read in my life. Why this book is so highly treasured by society is beyond me. It is 345 pages of nothing.  The characters are like wispy shadows of something that could have been interesting, the language that could be beautiful ends up becoming difficult to decipher and led me more than once to skip over entire paragraphs because I am tired of having to stumble through them only to emerge unsatisfied and the plot is non-existent..."

3)"If I'd enjoyed the book more, I would have found it easier to suspend my disbelief, but as it was, I was constantly irked by questions and inconsistencies."

4)"[The author] is not a bad writer. She has the ability to string words together. Unfortunately, she lacks any kind of flair. There was no original description; no truly evocative language.

5)"[The book] aimlessly stumbled about, tripped over its own feet, and then proceeded to face plant into the ground like a drunken frat boy at a keg party. I was not amused."

6) "... as the book wore on...I began to realise that I was growing more and more bored and found myself struggling to read on. "

7)" ... it's just so f--ing dumb....If you happen to be a 40-50 year old (white) man, and like reading about '6 figures,' then I'll understand you liking this book."

8)" I don't care if it is some great story about surviving in a war zone or some [bs] like that. None of these characters really expressed the complexities or debated the moral dilemmas involved in surviving the Civil War."

9) "As always, I like the author's narrative voice, but as a character sketch of a marriage, this wasn't quite sharp enough or funny enough or emotional enough for my taste."

10)"There were too many characters to keep track of. And for each character, I only knew them through their work.  There was no emotional development of characters, no seeing their feelings."

11)"This book was utter failure to me in respect of a horror novel.  Didn't scare me, nah, not at all, didn't even make me wince."

12)"I'm not going to comment on the literary shortcomings of this book, the cliches, the painfully long narrative, the fact that the characters will not think about an issue for months, but then suddenly it becomes important again. Smarter people than me have already said all this."

Okay--how many of them did you figure out? Some had some pretty obvious clues, others not.  Here are the answers: 1) Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain 2)Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen 3) The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins 4) Twilight by Stephanie Meyer 5) Divergent by Veronica Roth 6) The Fault In Our Stars by John Green 7) The Firm by John Grisham 8) Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell 9)Landline by Rainbow Rowell (Goodreads fiction book of the year) 10) The Hunt for Red October by Tom Clancy 11) The Shining by Stephen King 12) Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone by JK Rowling

So, what's my point?  Well, for writers it's this: Don't let one annoying review get you down. If you getting the same sort of comments over and over again, then it's probably something to pay attention to. If it's just one person's opinion, as another brilliant writer, Taylor Swift once said, "Shake it off, shake it off!" For readers, let me just say this, the person who wrote that book is probably going to read your review. Would you say it their face?  Would you say it in those words?  With that tone? If you are reading a book by a little known author, chance are writing is not their full time gig. They might be a firefighter or police officer, or pastor by day--or a teacher, like me--just trying to get their heart and soul out there for the world to see.  So, while I would never ask anyone to alter their opinion, if you feel it is necessary to be negative, do so in a classy way.  You'll get your opinion across in a way that both the writer and other potential readers will appreciate.  And there's nothing stupid about that!

**All of these reviews are from Goodreads.com and the opinion that they are stupid is solely my own, though you may agree. I left the names of to protect the anonymity of the poster, even though they are posted in a public domain.**