Why I Review Books I Don't Like

I hate that certain websites refuse to post negative book reviews. If all you're seeing is an echo chamber of singing a book's praises, how are you supposed to accurately determine if a novel is worth the read?

This is ultimately why I review books I don't like: for honesty's sake. I'm not actively looking to disparage, I'm simply writing what I feel strongly about. You're not gonna enjoy every book you read. And my negative reviews reflect that.

Disliked book are part of the reading experience.

I don't simply shit all over the books I don't like

Poor plot pacing. Insufficient character motivation. Stories fail to impress me for a myriad of reasons. But if I can't express those reasons, what's the point of a review?Stating that I don't like a book forces me to articulate why I didn't like it instead of simply griping.

I try not to point out problems without offering up solutions (I'm not a politician, after all). For example, my review of Beasts of No Nation provides a pertinent alternative. It's obvious that criticism without constructive feedback is simply complaining. When I argue that a book isn't great, I'm constantly asking myself a few questions:

• What did the book promise, and how did it fail to meet that promise?

• What would've made the book better?

• Even though I didn't like this book, who might?

This last point is critical. Just because I don't like a book doesn't mean no one else will. I suggest an audience so that those who fall into it can pick up the book and form their own opinions. I need to acknowledge the legitimacy of perspectives that differ from my own. If the book didn't have any merit, why was it published in the first place?

Perspectives change over time

Standing your ground is one thing, stubbornness is another. Any critic who refuses to change their opinion is no better than a whining relative on Facebook who won't look facts in the eye.

Several factors can influence a change in opinion over time. With age comes new life experience, which alters how we perceive certain narratives. The Catcher in the Rye (Salinger) is a perfect example. Teenagers empathize with Holden Caulfield's desire to preserve his youth, while adults complain that Holden is simply another petulant teen. I loved The Catcher in the Rye when I first read it at seventeen years old. But nine years later, I might have a change of heart.

Some books age poorly over time. The Indian in the Cupboard (Banks) was a groundbreaking children's book when it first came out. But in the last ten years, its portrayals of Native Americans and the logic of a friendship between a cowboy and an indigenous American have come under the microscope. Reviewers who originally lauded the book might do well to admit that new information has changed their opinion over time. There's no shame in admitting that you've changed your opinion. But it's flat-out disgraceful to cling to old convictions.

However, some perspectives don't change over time (and that's okay)

I've read the abridged and unabridged versions of The Count of Monte Cristo (Dumas) ten years apart, and I loved both of them. A hypothetical review would recount gripping plot in both, while admitting that the unabridged version sometimes dragged out the story. But this isn't me holding on to my opinion from ten years ago. I'm reinforcing my original take with new information while providing additional commentary.

Unfortunately, several critics stick with the praise that thrust them into the spotlight, even if no longer relevant. Rest assured that you'll hear nothing but honesty in my reviews.

Books don't change over time. Opinions do.

Criticism legitimizes praise

We all know the person who laughs at everything. You don't take them seriously when they tell you something is funny.

Book reviews work the same way. If a reviewer only writes positive reviews, they diminish the value of their praise since it's ubiquitous. Sure, they might simply be holding back their negative opinions. But to the general public, perception is reality.

As readers, we don't have real-time visibility into what reviewers are reading (with the exception of my reading list), so we perceive that they're only reading what they review. And if all their reviews discuss how every novel is beautiful, gripping, and worth it, are you really gonna take them seriously?

Since my reviews alternate between positive and negative, you're much more likely to genuinely consider my perspective. Not every read is "good" or "worth it" in my eyes. My top ten books are there for specific reasons, and the ones that didn't make the cut weren't left off arbitrarily. In fact, my top ten changes frequently based on new perspectives or facts. This ties into my earlier point: perspectives change over time.

Why I will keep writing negative reviews

I already have a reputation for bluntness, so there's no reason to stop. My reviews will continue their unique, insightful commentary on what I'm reading – positive or negative. This isn't a kindergarten classroom where if I don't have something nice to say, I shouldn't say it at all. I'm happy to laud the books that deserve it. But for the ones that don't, the negative reviews are here to stay.

Want to check out my negative reviews? Read my review of The Land in Winter and my take on A Tale of Two Cities.