Dude, I Ain't Got No Writing Talent

I hope the subject line made you cringe.

My brain hurt having to write it. It's a wonderful example of poor English. However, it might be considered real dialogue. It might even give flavor to a character in a scene, for good or ill, in a book.

Current vernacular is appropriate for dialogue in novels, screenplays or in verbal exchanges. Mangled English can give hints as to a protagonist's or antagonist's background, history or culture, or intent. Nothing like injecting a little relatable reality to a story to capture a reader's interest.

Writing as you speak or converse should not be the method used for writing a thesis for college, or a cover letter to go with a resume. There's a certain expectation for correct grammar, punctuation and spelling aptitude that a professor or hiring HR director looks for. No professional report, grant or article, or anything that strives to be professional, will be taken seriously if it is riddled with sloppy grammar/spelling and pop culture colloquialisms.

Readers have the same expectations of a novel - good grammar/spelling but with realistic dialogue. Grammar mash-ups aren't out of place in that venue.

The same cannot be said of a review.

Reviewers need to avoid sloppy writing, especially if you want to be taken seriously.

Please avoid:

Should of (should have)
Could of (could have)
Sayin' (saying)
Nothin' (nothing)
Gotta (got to)
Sista or Sistah (sister)
supposably (supposedly)
definately or defiantely (definitely)
Text-Speak

Issues with:

Your vs. You're
Its vs. It's
Too vs To vs Two (it's happened)
Peek vs. Peak vs. Pique (a common, too common, issue)
Alot - no no no - A. Lot. It's two words. Two separate words. A lot

Be alert for:

Pluralizing words with apostrophe S (throwing pies is load's of fun, his chicken's are breakdancing)
Being too familiar - (Dude, this book knocked my socks off, Sista, you gotta read this! )
Using profanity (This book scared the shit out of me!)

Don’t make nouns into verbs.
Starting a sentence with and/but/or - those go in the middle of a sentence connecting two related sentences, because they are conjunctions.

Forgetting to capitalize the proper nouns in a book title.
Forgetting to capitalize the beginning letters of a sentence.
Forgetting to check the spelling of an author's name, character's name or book title.

I know there are more examples. In fact, I'd appreciate it if visitors contribute their own examples of "sloppy writing" pet peeves. Highlighting them might make mistakes quicker to spot and easier to avoid.

What a Three Rating Means to Me

Poor Three.
Three is looked at askance.
Three carries a burden of shame.
Three is the loneliest number out there.

Why?

Because a rating of three tends to cause a myriad of emotions - none of them seem to be good.

Why is that?

I have no idea. Books that are rated a three can be quite entertaining. I call them many things: summer reads, a good time, a great way to pass an evening on a snowy or rainy evening.

For a book to be rated a three, there HAS to be some good qualities. I KNOW I've covered a Three Rating before. In fact, I wrote a post that had quite a few links within it pointing the way to those other posts. Here .. I'll make it easy. Go HERE for the back story on THREE.

In the post, Revisit Me, Screams Number Three, I was covering the writing of a review that screams HIGH SCORE, but the reviewer gives it a three rating. The words in the review did not match what the reviewer ultimately rated it and that's what that particular blog post was addressing. It's the links within that post that I want to draw your attention to.

I guess the question that should be asked then is, "HOW do I write a real three rated review?"

It's a very good question.
Some questions need to be answered not so much with words but with examples. Have I got a treat for you.

First, more words.
Just because a review of a book isn't rated high on a scale does not mean the review has no value. It does not mean that the book should be ignored. Far from it.

A well written three rated review is incredibly helpful to a future reader.

It translates to this: Yes, this book has issues. Yes, a reader is going to find some things that aren't smooth or perfect or logical.

But a well written three rated review is going to give you what makes it good. It will cover what makes it fun, interesting, entertaining, WORTH the time to read and worth checking out.

Why?

Because the story will grab you back; it CAN make you laugh, or gasp, or squirm with delight or ::facepalm:: from a bad or corny pun. That despite and in spite of all that might be wrong with the technical side of the book, the STORY is worth it.
The characters might be worth it.
The Romance might worth it.
The world building might be worth it.

The book might have SO much going for it that it seems a shame to rate it a three, but some things like: plot holes, overdone head hopping or changes of a hero's name within the book, all conspire to undermine what truly would have been a great book.

It ends up being, a GOOD book.

There is nothing wrong with a good book.

The following are links I invite you to check out.
Investigate why these reviews are considered solid examples of three rated books.

http://www.longandshortreviews.com/book-reviews/seeking-shelter-by-morgan-k-wyatt/

http://www.longandshortreviews.com/book-reviews/the-mortality-of-nathan-quinn-by-w-j-mccabe/

http://www.longandshortreviews.com/book-reviews/the-house-by-sebastiana-randone/

http://www.longandshortreviews.com/book-reviews/unexpectedly-you-by-lily-santana/

http://www.longandshortreviews.com/book-reviews/a-beautiful-disaster-by-willa-okati/

Here's a challenge for a reviewer. What happens when a book has even MORE things wrong with it that it is impossible to even reach a three rating. HOW in the world does a reviewer write a review without sounding snarky? Without insulting the author's baby? Or even, and this is a major no-no, insulting the author his/her self? Seriously? Some books with issues inspire people with no professional minded filters between brain and fingers to spout off in self-righteous indignation which in turn comes across as being mean and nasty. Can a review be written for even lower than a three and still be respectful, honest and informative yet positive?

Glad you asked that. YES. Yes, it can be done.

Voila. More examples.

http://www.longandshortreviews.com/book-reviews/my-three-dads-by-zane-silva/

http://www.longandshortreviews.com/book-reviews/haven-of-obedience-by-marina-anderson/

http://www.longandshortreviews.com/book-reviews/marked-by-grief-by-caitlin-ricci/

Now, since no reviewer is the same. I'm not going to say another word.

It's your turn.
After going through the examples, I would enjoy hearing your questions or comments. No one is going to find the same example as the one that "speaks" to someone else, but I hope one of them does. I'd like to hear which one you found helpful and why. It would be awesome if an actual formal "HOW-TO" format could be developed from this and I think feedback from you is key.

So, what do you say?
Do you now see why I say that a three rating is a good rating?
Because it is. Even if you end up going to the library and checking the book out. It's worth it.

Fanning the Flames and When to Douse Them

Actors have fans.
Movies have fans.
Games of sport have fans.
Sometimes, fans of sports are rather rabid in their enthusiasm. Same goes for bands and other music groups. Fans at concerts can be so wild as to rival sports buffs.

Authors and books have fans too, although I'm not aware of riots being caused by a favorite author speaking at a Barnes and Noble.
That would be something to see.

Then again, I guess fans of movies made from books do tend to exhibit things a bit ... different than most.

Fans of a book or book series have taken it a step further and it's more in an intellectual vein.

Fan Fiction

Fan Fiction has its place. It is one of the highest of praises for an author. It means that the world the author has built has made such an impact on its readers that they want to stay immersed in that world. And they go so far as to write stories within that imaginary place with all its rules and wonders, and share it with others. That can be a very good thing.

It does not, however, have a place in writing a review.

What do I mean?

It means that a reviewer should not ever ever do any of these things:

Rewrite parts of the book by offering examples of how it "should" have been done.
Rate the book down because the author didn't write it the way you felt she/he should have.

That is not, has not nor ever should be part of writing a review. Period.
A review is an opinion of what is written. Anything else falls into the realm of Fan Fiction.

I realize that it may be hard to resist.

I also realize that a reviewer who does so on their own personal blog, Facebook journal, Live Journal or Word Press account has the right to do anything they want.

This blog is dedicated to the reviewer that contributes to professional review sites. Those sites usually have a reputation, style and format that does not accept shades of Fan Fiction. Remember what I wrote in my past post, Be Good To Me,

"My advice? Before you review for a site, check with the site owners or, if they have it, the list of criteria or FAQs that might provide information about the tone or style of their reviews and what they look for.
Read some of their published reviews and get a feel for what they typically accept."

If the review site lends itself to adventures in mixed reviewing - mashing opinion with fan fiction- then you've found a home for your review. However, most sites I'm aware of do not accept that style.

I realize it's human nature to want to correct a percieved wrong, and that includes the wording or direction in a story. But the only person that can re-write a story is the person who wrote it in the first place - the author.

Please keep that in mind the next time you are tempted to think, "I can do it better."
You can't in your review.
But you can if you wrote your own fan fiction.
Or, better yet, your OWN book, complete with your own rules, wonders and characters.

Play the Match Game

Remember Match Game back in the 1970s? Ah, that Gene Rayburn was a kick.
And I just dated myself. LOL

However, it's not a game that I'm referring to with that post title. Nor is it very humorous. In my archives, I did a post called The Rapunzel Effect. One of the comments inspired a reply from me that truly created a spark of emotion.

I was talking about reviews rated a three on the LASR or Whipped Cream review sites. That rating isn't necessarily a bad thing at all. It's what I term a summer read: something fun, it helps to pass the time in an enjoyable manner. Sometimes a reader doesn't want a heavy hitter, just an infusion of romance. Short stories do that but they also tend to see more three ratings than not.

Why do I think 3 has a bad rap? Easy - it's because of how the review is written. The Rapunzel Effect addresses that so I'm not going to repeat myself.

What I am trying to point out is this: The rating has to match the review.

A review simply cannot have the words: excellent, perfect, great, in the conclusion of the review where previously, the writer was blasting negatives throughout. The review will not be taken seriously--especially if the reviewer decided to give a four or better rating.
The reader is going to come away scratching their head, "I thought the reviewer hated the book.(?)"

Here's a review of one of my favorite stories. It's a four book rating but the writer mentions something that justifies it being a four. I also think if it hadn't been included, I would have expected a higher rating, but that could be my personal prejudice.
GOING OVERBOARD

A reviewer cannot give a gushing and glowing report and use those same positive words yet give a three rating. That makes no sense! There has be something that prevented it from getting a higher score. The reviewer has to say so. Has to. Otherwise, how can a reader trust the rating?
Here's an example: DON'T FENCE ME IN

Don't even get me started on how the review doesn't even give a potential reader any insight. That's a different post. But, see what I mean?
She claimed it was 'well researched' and 'solid'. So, why didn't it rate higher?

A better example of a three rating is this: BEHIND THE BENCH

Sure, something wasn't quite perfect for her, but the fact that the reviewer enjoyed the reading experience was not lost on me.

Now in this example, the reviewer hated the book. The tone of the review and the rating totally matched. I don't advocate this type of harsh and in depth microscopic carnage but the writer certainly was eloquent in her distaste. LOVE IN THE TIME OF DRAGONS.

By the same token, whenever a reviewer gives a reason for a three book or cherry, they need to do it with respect and civility. Reviews are not supposed to make an author bleed.

If authors are seeing a lot of negative and scathing comments regarding their work, and the majority of those are rated threes, it's not a wonder that poor little number 3 has had a bad rep. It's not fair. It's a generic paint brush tactic that is tarnishing everything.

A three rating can be a good thing, TEXT ME
- when the review is written right. Need a Refresher? REVIEWS CLASS #2

Make the rating match the review. Make sense. And play nice.

Yes, Furry Cuffs Are Toys Too!

I've been a bad reviewer. 
It was a shock to realize that I dropped the ball.
It was more of an embarrassment to realize that it wasn't even on my radar ... and it should have been.

And this post is why I have that 18+ age restriction on my blog because sooner or later it was going to apply.


Furred Handcuffs!
Feathers!
Ropes (asanawa,kinbaku, shibari)

**waggles brows** Got your attention, didn't I.

Reviews aren't relegated to only sharing an opinion.  Information is shared as well to inform a reader of possible topics that might trip over their red line in the sand. (read - gross them out or upset them)

Some review sites don't have a list of tags that highlight features within a book that some readers might find objectionable. It's left up to the reviewer to include it in the body of their review.

Some publishers will list warnings with the blurbs on their sites and that's great.  But for those readers who don't actually visit the publisher but instead base their purchase on their favorite and/or a respected review website, the responsibility of the reviewer is hefty.

It's not just toys that need to be mentioned, what about rape?  How sensitive will a reader be if it's inferred or actual?  Retelling or active?  How close can a reader get to shifter love and not throw up?  Where do they draw the line?  Reviewers might mention it if it affected them and made them squeamish but what about those reviewers who weren't bothered by it and consider it no big deal?  Will they think of  writing about it?  To make mention of  something that didn't  faze them?  Human nature being what it is, possibly not.

So, this post is geared toward raising your awareness of what kind of information would benefit a reader.

Whipped Cream Reviews has a list for its reviewers to choose from, but it's by no means all inclusive. The reviewers for that site have the additional task of adding more descriptive tags because bedroom play has gotten so inventive and creative.  The more the doors open up, and readers get a eyeful of alternate lifestyles as well as other kinds of genre that push the steamy envelope, the more aware reviewers have to be about mentioning the toys that go along for the ride that may trigger a reader.  

Not all toys are benign.