This week's question is: If you don't like a book that you said you would review, do you graciously turn it down and explain why or do you struggle through it and hopefully come up with a half decent review?
Once upon a time, I'd struggle through books I didn't like and then in the review I'd talk about how pretty the cover was or how I really wanted to go where the book was set, just about anything other than how awful the book was; though I'd never say it was good if it wasn't. I don't do that any more. Now, I decide whether or not to write a negative review (as opposed to writing nothing at all) based on a variety of factors:
- If it just isn't my cup of tea, if I can't really point out any problems with the book other than the fact that I didn't like it, then I'll probably either pass (in the case of a NetGalley or Edelweiss ARC) or ask the person who sent it to me if s/he REALLY wants me to review a book I didn't like.
- If it is a lousy book that no one has ever heard of and probably won't ever hear of, then I'll probably do the same as above.
- I review for a couple of companies that specifically require reviews. Well, they get them.
- If it is a book that "everyone" loves and I don't, I'm apt to write a negative review, but I'll also point out that there are those who love it. This is especially likely to happen if I'm reviewing Catholic books.
- If the author rattles my chain about something that is important to me, I'm likely to write a negative review. Anti-Catholic statements or misrepresenting Catholicism will almost guarantee you a negative review.
- If I regularly read/review an author's books, and I don't like one of them, I'll probably tell you why.
What do you think? Do you like to read less than positive reviews of books? Do you write less than positive reviews?
Hop on over to Coffee Addicted Writer to join this hop.