What Do Food and Reviews Have in Common?

We don't want anything spoiled.
We won't eat anything that is spoiled.
Why would we buy and read a book where the mystery inside has already been spoiled by a review?

Reviewers - spoilers are to be avoided at all costs.

I've said it before (HERE) and it needs saying again.

A spoiler is a published piece of information that divulges a surprise, such as a plot twist in a book. Sometimes it's even a bit of narrative telling a reader in greater detail what goes on in the story - something a reader should have learned BY reading the book itself, not in a review.

That being said. I'd like to illustrate my point by directing your attention to two reviews. Yes, one of them is mine, but the first one really got my attention and inspired this post.

Link #1 for The Witch and The Wolf

Have you read it? Good. Here's the thing. The site provided the blurb.
That's good. It's what came after that had my eyebrows raising into my hairline. The blurb hints at what Lillian is running from. HINTS! Obviously, the author expects a reader to buy the book and find out the specific details.

Notice how the review reveals all the components - the who of it and the why of it. I don't agree with that at all.

I'm not going to pick on the few typographical errors - that happens.
It's the spoilers that were revealed that truly annoyed me. Even the last sentence mentions a negative when a review should end on a positive tone.

Here's Link #2 for The Witch and The Wolf.

Please compare the two. Does the second give enough to entice a reader without falling into Spoilers? Do you see any retelling of the story leaving a reader with no surprises? Do you see more about how the book affected me and my thoughts versus telling a reader about the story itself?

A review is not telling or re-telling about what you read in the book. It's about sharing what you observed and how it made you feel - what worked for you, what you liked or didn't and what were the author's strong or weak points in her/his writing.

Whereas the first review was verbose in the revealing - I only inferred:

The external conflict explodes onto the scene in a flurry of pomposity and effective annoyance. By that I mean the author did a great job in giving me the willies. I really didn’t like those disgusting villainous and highly inappropriate men and Ms. Schneider did a great job of insuring my distaste.

I've had my say. I've given you two reviews of the same book. Now I'd like to know your opinion. As a reader and/or reviewer, which is more professional and/or respectful? Which is more of a draw? What are the weak points that you see in either review? What do you consider the strong points?

It doesn't matter that the second one is mine. I'm not perfect but I surely can strive for that goal. If you are reading this, then I'm guessing you want the same as me, to write well written reviews.

And please, no spoilers. They are as bad as an all synopsis review.

Spoilers - A Fine Line

An author's bane is a review that tells the story for them. Not just a synopsis but a revealing of certain key points about the characters, plot or motivation that a reader should have to discover from reading the book itself, not a review.

A review can allude to key points without actually stating what they are with specifics. It can be avoided and should be at all costs.

Take a look at these two reviews. I think one skirts into "Spoiler Land" and the other hints and teases. From an author's perspective, are they both good or is one as close as I think it is to telling too much?

Option ONE The Fire Lord’s Lover (Elven Lords, Book 1) by Kathryne Kennedy
OR

Option TWO The Fire Lord’s Lover (Elven Lords, Book 1) by Kathryne Kennedy

There actually is a lot to like in the first review. I clearly get a feel that the reviewer read the book and did enjoy herself. But at any point did she go too far?
What do you think?
If not - I think you can see where it easily could have.
And if so, by seeing this comparison it might help to illustrate what I mean about spoilers because sometimes we all learn better through example.
Show not tell.

My question: Did the reviewer skirt the spoiler line or did she cross?

The Point Behind the Mouth

Have you noticed that I like to talk? I have a lot to say.

I've gone over what should be in a review, what authors are hoping to see and what readers need to see. Now it's time to take a look at the real thing.

This is an example of a short review with no information for a reader or author.

Click on title to see review: Learning How to Bend. First, I liked the opening line. It can grab a reader's interest if they like those kinds of stories. The second paragraph is synopsis. The third doesn't even qualify as a pargraph as it is only three sentences. Short sentences. Where does it give a reader or author the information of what worked or didn't to give it the 3.5 rating? Was it the dialogue? Why was the menage only fairly good? What the heck does that mean anyway? Was an arm in the wrong place? Not enough sex? Why is the book only rated as decent? Was it the descriptions? Motivation? What worked for the reviewer? What appealed to her about the characters and their relationship? If I wanted to decide to buy a book based upon the blurb, I would have done so. Why bother to look at this when I can't find out more than what the blurb would have initially given me? This is an example of a Missing Link.(Not sure what I'm referring to? Click the previous Missing Link and it'll take you to the post)

Phantom Corps #1/Federation Chronicles #3. (same thing, Click the title to see it)
No opening line on this review. Not a big issue but there are three rather large informational paragraphs that the reviewer took time to write. My issue? SYNOPSIS.(Need to see the post? click Synopsis) It's all about telling a reader what goes on in the book, not necessarily giving spoilers but it certainly is saying, "This is this and that is that" throughout the three paragraphs.

The final paragraph ends up being the actual review and of that the only line that jumped out at me was, "I felt it didn’t live up to the depth of emotion of the first two books" Okay, that is a valid observation and she's finally talking about how the book affected her. But if the author sees it, what is she going to get out of it? What exactly did the reviewer expect? What was missing? How can the author tweak it in the next book or her writing in general if the reviewer didn't give anyone an idea of what she expected and what didn't get delivered? As for the reader of the review .... what does that mean anyway? Are they shallow characters after all or will they still be able to connect with the H/H and care about what happens to them?

The kicker for me came when I scrolled down to the bottom of the page. They posted the BLURB and yet I still had to read all about it again? And this part in the review here, "Enter Daniel Haws, operative extraordinaire of the Phantom Corps, and unbeknownst to many, the man who commands it". The actual blurb 'hints' but the review reveals. Is that a spoiler????

My final example is this one: (definitely click this title to see what I'm gushing over) Verifiable Intelligence. This review started off with a good hook. I lost count after eight paragraphs and none of them involved reciting the blurb. There was information both the reader and the author can use, great examples of what worked and even what didn't. It backed up the rating it was given and it came across that the reviewer/reader really got into the book because the words flowed and the detail was intimate - meaning that could only happen if the reviewer actually read the book. I cannot fault this review at all but instead hold it up to the light for all to see. This is what I've been talking about and all the elements are here.

What more needs to be said?