Before I started blogging, I wrote some appalling reviews, something along the lines of “nice easy read, enjoyable”. Some were a little better, but still not great. When setting up this blog I trawled through the book reviews I had elsewhere, and was embarrassed by what I’d written. I’d look at the book and then wonder what it was about, when I’d read it etc. Enjoyable? probably. Unmemorable? Clearly!
Since I’ve started blogging, long before I started getting books from publishers, I decided I Must Do Better when writing reviews. I now write reviews for the majority of books I read, but not all. I also know parts of my audience, and there are somethings I wont share with them, so a tiny percentage of the books I read dont get a review written.
These reviews are primarily for me – so I can remember what went on in the story, and roughly what I thought about the book. It’s enjoyable to see a review pop up several months after I’ve read the book, and quite often I’ll go “ooh, that sounds a good book, would like to read that” only to realise I already have!
The reviews are for the authors and publishers, especially for the lesser well known authors, in order for the word to get out there and a little bit of chatter for them.
The reviews are finally for the people who follow this blog – they might just find the one book that can set them down another route and find another author or genre for them to follow
Do you write a review for every book you read or only review copies from publishers?