I rather scratched my head for a moment on when I stopped reading reviews. I did stop Googling myself though. And I stopped visiting amazon pages for my books. But I still go to review sites–just stumbled across yours a couple of days ago for example–and if and when I come across a review of my book in the course of my usual blog surfing, then I generally read it, or at least skim it.
Anyway, loved your examples of non-snark to full snark. And I still laugh my head off at SB Sarah and Mrs. Giggles’s reviews, even though Mrs. Giggles has by now harshed on one of my books.

Amazon reviews give ME the shakes, so I find it incredible that any author can take them for any amount of time. I did my own parody of an Amazon review with the title “Naked In Death: the Worst romance Ever Written”.

I think this question of snarky reviews will keep coming back to me the longer I blog. The only really snarky review I have written was for Beyond the Highland Mist, and in that review I actually stole a snippet you had written for your winning Purple Prose Parody contest a few years back. I still feel like the tone of that review was the best way to reflect how I felt about that book.

Thanks for your visit and comments!

Anyway, loved your examples of non-snark to full snark. And I still laugh my head off at SB Sarah and Mrs. Giggles’s reviews, even though Mrs. Giggles has by now harshed on one of my books.

For example if I was as an art reviewer, mentioned a piece displayed in a show ( I’m just gonna make this up):

“Lacks the passion expected as his trademark due to the children’s catatonic expressions; that I can only assume were meant to be soul stirring.”

Even though the above quote does not get “personal”, there are no: assumptions about the artist’s intelligence, questioning if the artist deserves to have a well received showing, or insult made to the taste of the viewers who like the piece. Still no amount of triple score scrabble words or elegant phrasing, changes the fact that I’m saying this piece is out of touch/ lacking in comparison to previous works… in essence that the artist him/herself is out of touch to create a work this pretentious. And all the latter “personal” aspects are brought to mind as lurking afterthoughts all the same.

Snark isn’t disrespectful, it’s just a opinion phrased in a recognizable style, often perceived as entertaining. When you release your brain child upon the masses seeking some combination of income and praise, dems the breaks. Will everyone love your creation, as you do? No. Does your creation deserve to be loved, at all? Maybe, but there are a lot of bad books out there, there’s always a chance yours…yes yours, is one of them. Receiving and processing criticism is all part of the game.

When we review a novel unfavorably there’s no avoiding wounding an author feelings, regardless of the tone. As long as we explain dislikes clearly, make our best effort to read the novel in entirety before voicing our opinions, and avoid personal slurs (education, race, sexual preference, family, pets); respect is inherent. If a reviewer takes has verbal fun with aspects of the book; it’s indicative of his/her perspective and sense of humor; nothing more, nothing less. While it’s always possible to edit those aspects out later, I think the resulting piece would be inauthentic. What can I say, I believe in making lemonade

I thought all your non-snarky examples were actually snarky. Some were just less pointedly/mean snarky than others.

I wasn’t sure either, about some of those examples. But even if my examples weren’t the best, I’m still ok with my proposed definition of snark. It’s my method to define a practice before I decide if it’s morally ok — that way I am not arguing past other people.

I like your point about honesty in reviewing, and I agree: sometimes, I feel snarky when I even think about a book. I’m not sure how it happens … but it is like a switch is turned, and I start smirking the whole rest of the way through the thing. Not to write a snarky review would be dishonest in that sense. Although honesty is not always the best policy.

As someone who’s been feeling guilty about the last two snarky reviews I wrote, I state my views as such:
1. I would feel really badly if an author of a book I snarked read the review and was upset by it.
2. I did not go out of my way to be snarky; I wrote what I actually truly felt about the books.
3. I am entitled to my opinion, and just because the author might happen upon it does not mean I have to keep it to myself.
4. If you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all, which pretty much results in a major conundrum.
5. Books are expensive, and a lot of what gets published should not be. I kinda feel it my duty to warn people, and snark makes the point better than does this book is bad because it’s shallow and makes poor use of grammar.

*sigh*

Professionally, I’m a lawyer. Sometimes, I’ve noticed, judges tend to make their decisions and then work out how to get the evidence they’ve heard and the law that’s been cited to them to fit with the decision.

I think reviewing books is a bit like that. I just give opinions on my own blog. But when I do a review on Bam’s site, I make an effort to address the various elements of the book and give a ‘proper review’. Never changes what I think though. I’ve internally graded the book already. I’m just making the evidence fit my decision.

Thanks for weighing in. I was wondering myself if it was possible to write a positive snarky review.

I found the BAM review you mention of the Napier book here.

And you’re right — it’s a “B” review of a book she snarks from here to Mars.

I felt a little like that about Karen Marie Moning’s first book, which I reviewed here.

I wonder though… what does the “B” reflect? Is it BAM’s enjoyment of the book, or the quality of the book itself. What;s the difference between an opinion and a review? I plan to post on that later this week.

That said, I’ve had an author comment on a pretty snarky review I did (believe me, that kills a comments thread right there) and that does make you question what you’ve written: would I have said this to that person’s face? And I’ve concluded, well, no. But the fact is that the act of reviewing is not a personal act in the sense of being about the person, the author. It’s about the book, which is the creation and responsibility of the author. That’s not to say that reviewers should regard themselves as having carte blanche to say anything but if they’re justified in what they say and back it up with supporting examples, I haven’t got a problem with that.

It’s a fine line though, I agree.

It also has to be said that some – the best – snarky reviews can be hilarious and vehement and vicious and adoring all at once. The best example I can think of here is Bam’s review of Mistress of the Groom** by Susan Napier (a book so alarming that it sent me to the internet in search of someone else who had read it and inadvertently introduced me to the online romance community). I can’t imagine anyone could read that review and not want to read the book that Bam both pillories and reports she thoroughly enjoyed. And for me, that is why snark does have a place in romance. Because there are many many absurd things in the romance genre – and you’ve pointed a few of them in your blog.

** and that’s an interesting book from the forced sex persepctive as well.

I want to add that I think it is just as wrong to censor snarking reviews as it is to censor other forms of writing. IMO it is up to each writer (whether of reviews or whether of other writing forms) to decide where to stand on that continuum.