The comment that cracked me up most was that Mrs. Giggles's reviews were harsh but never personal, in contrast to the rest of us evil bloggers.

When I first discovered Mrs Giggles I was shocked at how harsh she was to writers–at least, that was my perception, because of how she phrased her reviews.

(…) I suspect it was her sympathetic post on Cassie Edwards that led some authors to champion her as a moderate reviewing voice.

Definitely.

If this is true, Robin, then I wonder what the reason is for that perception, because I suspect that in terms of our grading, DA is not any tougher than Mrs. Giggles or AAR.

I honestly think part of it is a general distrust of the increase in blogging, the perception that we bloggers have some kind of power, and that we’re wielding it against authors. The comment that cracked me up most was that Mrs. Giggles’s reviews were harsh but never personal, in contrast to the rest of us evil bloggers. Now I find many of Mrs. G’s reviews vastly entertaining, but I don’t in any way see her as kinder or gentler than the SBs or DA or most other decently trafficked Romance blogs. Although I suspect it was her sympathetic post on Cassie Edwards that led some authors to champion her as a moderate reviewing voice.

Thoughtful, definitely. That's where I'm coming from. One of the definitions of “professional” in M-W is: “characterized by or conforming to the technical or ethical standards of a profession” and another is: “exhibiting a courteous, conscientious, and generally businesslike manner in the workplace.” This is what I meant.

And I agree entirely. When I say professional, I’m not just talking business-type aspects. While I know DA is a hobby for the ladies that run it, IMO, it’s one of the more professional review sites out there, and I’m including blogs and reviews sites and magazines in my evaluation. The fact that this site IS run as a hobby/labor of love only adds weight to my opinion.

That they get no compensation for it, yet still work to advocate romance, authors, epublishing, etc, and provide honest, thoughtful reviews, and they do a good job of it.

They maintain standards, the site is professional, they approach books with an open mind even if they love one author or haven’t been impressed with another in the past. They don’t gush unless they feel something is gush-worthy, and that’s something I hold in high regard. Glowing reviews mean nothing if ‘glowing’ is all one sees. The blog stands by what they say, if they screw up, they offer an apology. Even when they don’t particularly care for one author’s behavior and call said author out, I don’t see them bashing/trashing the way I’ve seen on others.

That, to me, is part of why I consider the DA blog a professional site. But professional is a heck of a lot easier to say than all of the above.

Am I maybe holding DA to a high standard? Possibly. But it’s a bar I established in my mind over the past couple years of reading their blog. Their actions have shaped my opinion of them.

;-) So ya see…it’s all their fault *G* I’m not always very easy to impress.

I think that I ascribe alot more to the word “professional” than you are which is, of course, my own problem, but what underlies why I shy away from saying that we are professionals.

Edited to add: yes, as azteclady said, those are excerpts from reviews in professional publications and an example of how it can be a) consistent with the reviewer’s past and b) all about the subject matter but still be offensive.

Would it work if the word professional were substituted for thoughtful, or measured, or something like that?

Because while I understand how you are using it, Jackie, I also see that it's not the general usage, and it seems to encourage some people to try and hold what is, essentially, a hobby, to the standards of a job (professional responsibility). And I find that unfair.

Thoughtful, definitely. That’s where I’m coming from. One of the definitions of “professional” in M-W is: “characterized by or conforming to the technical or ethical standards of a profession” and another is: “exhibiting a courteous, conscientious, and generally businesslike manner in the workplace.” This is what I meant.

I do hold review sites, such as DA, to high standards. That has nothing to do with whether the reviewers are being paid, and everything to do with how the reviewers conduct themselves. I have high expectations.

If the review is all about the book, and not about the author, then what respect is owed?

The respect owed is to the writer of the book currently being talked about at that moment. Nothing more, nothing less. You know why? Because every other author is just another reader.

But in that specific moment in time when I’m either reading that book or talking about that book, then that individual is the creator of something special that I’m priviledged to share. Now granted, in the end, I may come away not quite as enthused as they might wish but that’s really is life. They have to learn to live with that and respect that too. They are still in that moment the individual that created the work I’m sharing and hopefully enjoying.

I can respect that.

And then I can walk away from it and they’re just another reader again.

Because while I understand how you are using it, Jackie, I also see that it’s not the general usage, and it seems to encourage some people to try and hold what is, essentially, a hobby, to the standards of a job (professional responsibility). And I find that unfair.

I submit that if any DA reviewer wrote in the vein of the above quoted work it would be viewed as unprofessional, discourteous, or disrespectful.

Again, depending upon the standard. What if the standard is artistic critique in the exact same style those were wrote?

Which is where the problem lies. One can’t compare apples and oranges and claim they are the same thing.

And I’m not talking about the products being judged, either. The apples and oranges I’m talking about here are the reviews and the reviewers, themselves.

[Personally, I don't like the use of the term 'professional' for review sites which are not being run as business: i.e., being paid to review. 'Cause, I'm sorry, it's not the same.]

First of all,l I reviewed for several years for different sites, never for a blog, though. However, the ethics issue is one that has both interested me and concerned me for years, both as a reviewer and later on as owner of a reviews newsletter. The way in which the newsletter presents its product (reviews and some features in the form of interviews, articles and website reviews) is important to both myself and my co-owner.

Addressing each specific point:

1. Bloggers who request an ARC should review it.
If it is requested, my personal POV is that it should be reviewed or at least a serious good faith effort should be made to review it. Otherwise it may look as if the blogger/reviewer is simply using the tag “reviewer” to get freebies. It is understandable if the occasional requested ARC is not reviewed, reviewers have real lives, sometimes the book is so godawful that we simply have to set it aside, however, unless there is something major going on, those books requested for review should be reviewed.

2. Bloggers who request participation from an author should refrain from bashing/trashing the author around that same time.
To clarify, you mean that if a blogger requests a book from an author, the blogger should refrain from bashing/trashing the author?
Well, imho, if the book sucks the reviewer needs to say so. Everything is in the wording though. Personally, I don't think that bashing/trashing an author is at all necessary when writing a review for a book we haven't liked. Of course, others may disagree.

3. Bloggers should not read/review an author's book whose writing they dislike or alternatively, should not read/review an author's book who they personally dislike.
I disagree on part A of this statement. I have read books for review from authors whose work I had not particularly cared about in the past because they left me unimpressed, and found myself pleasantly surprised. I do say so in the review, though. Additionally, even if someone else warns me “you are not going to like it” I'd rather judge for myself.

As to part B, if I have a personal animosity against an author (there are at least two whose books I will never ever touch again for reading or reviewing) I stay away from them. I am a human being and as much as I may try to be impartial, there will always be a risk that my personal feelings will color the review. I don't want to be second-guessing myself in those cases. It is hard enough to write a thoughtful review without the added baggage.

4. Should there be differing standards for reviews depending on whether the blogger bought the book or received it for free?
No. Impartiality and objectivity for both, irrespective of the source. This also applies to the wording, both are deserving of the same respect from the reviewer even if the book turns out to be the dud of the century in the opinion of the blogger/reviewer.

5. Should a blogger refrain from being entertaining in penning a negative review.
It depends on what you call “entertaining”. If you mean snark, it is not my style and I do not read those reviews as I don't give them any credibility. The reviewer is too busy being “wity” so I don't care about that. I believe in respect and I've read very insulting snarky reviews that made me cringe. Of course, this is a personal choice. Everyone can write their reviews however they want. I just don't like that style. Regarding the “as long as the book is being mocked and not the author”, I have to say this: what some reviewers don't seem to grasp is the simple fact that a lot of authors see their book as a reflection of themselves, and of course, they are going to take the comments personally. Even the thickest skinned author out there is bound to get a bit hurt by a bad review, why turn the review into an even worse experience… for the entertainment of your friends, for your own amusement? Well, to each their own I guess. I am not criticizing humor if you want to be humorous, but there are many ways to be humorous, at least be mindful of how that humor is used. I've read some stuff that really made me wonder as to the real intent of the review, and of course, the reviewer alleged that she was not being insulting. To that I say: whatever. There are ten million ways in which you can say a book sucks. Again, it is a matter of style. It is just not my thing to mock a book that I haven't liked.

6. Should a blogger make fun of or mock an author's response to a review?
Honestly, depends on how the author responds. If the author goes either ballistic or puts war paint on and brings a mob in, well, then the author had it coming. I think that authors should be professional at all times, though, even if they felt a review was undeserving. Restraint is necessary. The author has more to lose than the reviewer, as unfair as it may be, that is how the game plays. Image is much more important for an author than it is for a reviewer/blogger.

7. Do bloggers treat some authors preferentially, both in reviews or in parsing out their online statements?
I don't review via blogs, but based on what I've observed from blogs, I would say yes. But I think that is to be expected. An author that visits a blog and presents him or herself as reasonable, likeable and fits well with the blogger’s style will definitely earn respect and probably a bit of preferential treatment, than one that, say, goes ballistic or logs on as “anonymous” to post insults :P

8. Should bloggers police other bloggers?
No. You can disagree with other bloggers and even talk about it, but “police” them? Not in a million years.

9. Should bloggers be more respectful of authors? And if so, how is this respect shown?
Well, not all blogs are equal, and respect is a two way street. Don't come around demanding respect, if you, yourself, are not willing to be respectful of others. This means both authors AND readers/reviewers/bloggers. I've read some author blogs out there that … well … no further comment.

Again, sorry for the long post.

If the review is all about the book, and not about the author, then what respect is owed?

What respect is owed?

Is it really asking so much that reviewers are considerate? That reviewers are thoughtful of the influence they have with readers? That they choose their words with care?

That doesn’t mean reviewers shouldn’t be negative when it’s deserved. If reviewers don’t like a book, their review should make that clear.

There’s a fine line between being snarky and being flat-out rude. Snark by its nature is irreverent, and can be very entertaining. Rudeness is not irreverent; it is simply mean and hurtful.

I am pretty sure that if DA reviewed novels in the manner used in the cooking and dancing reviews you quoted from, there would be a different readership here.

See, it's the very notion that there is a “call for respect” out there that's mindboggling. This should be a no-brainer.

It's the Golden Rule we learned as kids: treat others how you wish to be treated yourself. The grownup version to my mind is this: be professional (i.e., be respectful). It's the same thing.

What if a reviewer said the following about a book:

‘Effie is an old jade of 50 summers, Jessie a frisky filly of 40, and Addie, the flower of the family, a capering monstrosity of 35. Their long, skinny arms, equipped with talons at the extremities, swung mechanically, and soon were waved frantically at the suffering audience. The mouths of their rancid features opened like caverns and sounds like the wailings of damned souls issued therefrom. They pranced around the stage with a motion that suggested a cross between the danse du ventre [belly dancing] and a fox trot,–strange creatures with painted faces and hideous mien. Effie is spavined, Addie is stringhalt, and Jessie, the only one who showed her stockings, has legs without calves, as classic in their outlines as the curves of a broom handle.’

or

“T’aint Creole, t’aint Cajun, t’aint French, t’aint country American, t’aint good. There’s been a lot of fuss about this handsome new restaurant on the Covington-Hammond Rd. and more than the usual amount of letters telling me to try it. Mashburn’s is an impressively set-out restaurant located on a large and beautiful estate, in a fine 1907 house, with all of the amenities of a good European country inn.

“I don’t know how much real talent in cooking is hidden under the melange of hideous sauces which make this food and the menu a travesty of pretentious amateurism but I find it all quite depressing. The line between genius and eccentricity is sometimes a thin one but at Mashburn’s it is not really in doubt for very long.

or

“This is where the breaking point comes between marvelous originality and bizarre improvisation to know where to stop, which effect to make and simply what tastes good and what doesn’t.

“The fussiness with classic snails reflect this restaurant’s strange image of itself, perhaps that of the only world purveyor of Hammond French food, although having eaten in some good places in Hammond I cannot honestly blame the taste shown by Mashburn’s on this little town. . . . This is not an improvement it is a travesty of taste.

“I don’t know if all of this is Mr. Mashburn’s taste or if he is somehow convinced that opening an elaborate restaurant means that one has to cover everything with a GOURMET sauce. Most of the food tastes as if the conceptions were wrong to begin with as if someone flipped through pages of bad cookbooks looking for unusual sauces to make an ordinary dish impressive. Some of the basic cooking is good as with the duck or the simple and excellent French-fried potatoes. Or with the poached trout under a crawfish sauce that I would have named trout a la green plague.

—-

I submit that if any DA reviewer wrote in the vein of the above quoted work it would be viewed as unprofessional, discourteous, or disrespectful.

If the review is all about the book, and not about the author, then what respect is owed?