[request/rant] To all reviewers, amateur and pro...

[Mouseferatu]

If you're going to review a book in a public venue, could you do both the writers and the fans the simple courtesy of READING THE BLOODY BOOK FIRST?!

And by "reading," I mean, oddly enough, "reading." Not glancing through. Not skimming. Not perusing. Reading. If you haven't read a book--and I mean cover-to-cover, every word--you've no business reviewing it, whether positive or negative.

And before anyone asks, no, this is not directed at any specific person, or any of the ENWorld regular reviewers. Just a combination of a few things I've seen on various forums online recently, relating both to books I'm interested in and to books I've worked on. Everyone who's known me online for a while knows that I'm happy to discuss opinions of my work, even bad ones, so long as they're both polite and contructive. But when people start spouting off about stuff that is clearly factually wrong, and making judgments based on it, I start to get irritated. Same holds true for me as a fan. I read reviews for informed opinions, not guesswork.

Bleah.

 

[trancejeremy]

Well, even if you read a book several times, you can make a mistake while writing the review. Especially names.

For instance, in my review of Blackmoor (which I believe you worked on) posted today at RPG.net, I called a group of people by the name of the place "Hak" they lived rather than their proper name "Peshwah", even though I got it right earlier in the review.

I have no idea why I used the wrong name, other than I am generally bad with names, and Peshwah doesn't exactly roll off the tongue (or keyboard) while Hak does. But I assure you, I read the book, several times.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Well, even if you read a book several times, you can make a mistake while writing the review. Especially names.

For instance, in my review of Blackmoor (which I believe you worked on) posted today at RPG.net, I called a group of people by the name of the place "Hak" they lived rather than their proper name "Peshwah", even though I got it right earlier in the review.

I have no idea why I used the wrong name, other than I am generally bad with names, and Peshwah doesn't exactly roll off the tongue (or keyboard) while Hak does. But I assure you, I read the book, several times.

No worries. I'm not talking about little mistakes like mixing up names. I'm talking about glaring, factual errors that cannot be chalked up to mere human error.

 

[Sammael]

If you haven't read a book--and I mean cover-to-cover, every word--you've no business reviewing it, whether positive or negative.

This is amusing. I haven't reviewed any RPG books in a long while, but if I pick up a book and find that its Chapter 1 is unbearable to read, I am sure as hell not going to force myself to read the rest of it. I may skim the other chapters, just to make sure I'm not missing out on some good stuff, but I fail to see why I shouldn't write a review and state that the book X is so horrible, I couldn't get further than chapter 1, and skimming the rest of it didn't reveal any redeeming features. Amateur reviewers (those who, you know, DON'T get free copies of the product) have spent their $$$ on it and have the right to bash it as much as they want, as long as they don't use slander. If the book is really good, then there will be more positive than innane reviews of it and it will all even out in the end.

Of course, I agree with you 100% when it comes to professional reviewers. They should be held up to a higher standard.

 

[Mouseferatu]

but I fail to see why I shouldn't write a review and state that the book X is so horrible, I couldn't get further than chapter 1, and skimming the rest of it didn't reveal any redeeming features.

And if you say up-front "I only read Chapter One," that might be acceptable*. But none of the reviews I'm ranting about did that.

* Even then, though, I'd think twice, especially if it's on a forum where you assign "stars" or other ratings, since many people look at those and don't read the reviews. Comments in a forum are one thing, but I'm not convinced I'd agree in terms of posting an "actual" review anywhere.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I read the cover, does that count?

 

[MerricB]

I read the cover, does that count?

"When I said read, I meant 'glanced', but it was a cover to us!"

(Mouse, I hope I'm not included in your rant...)

Cheers!

 

[diaglo]

i don't place my reviews online. but i'm more than happy to tell you what i think.

 

[Mouseferatu]

"When I said read, I meant 'glanced', but it was a cover to us!"

(Mouse, I hope I'm not included in your rant...)

Cheers!

While I just don't have the energy to call out everyone I'm not talking about, let me assure you all that I'm talking about a very small group of people, none of whom are regular/frequent ENWorld reviewers.

And honestly, if you have the self-awareness to ask if it's you, it probably isn't.

 

[diaglo]

And honestly, if you have the self-awareness to ask if it's you, it probably isn't.

my reviews were axed from the system a while ago.

and it is part of the reason i don't place them online.

i had put a lot of effort. page numbers. other references, bibliography.... into those reviews.


edit: believe it or not some of us actually play games we hat. but that is b/c of the other stuff (social aspects) involved in spite of the game system.