Reviewers Can Be Wrong

Today I want to talk about when reviewers are downright wrong about the books they review, and accuse a book of certain tropes and plot points that simply don’t exist within the book.

I read a review accusing Lauren DeStefano’s The Glass Spare of ‘instalove’. Not only does Will not fall in love, she actively acknowledges that she’s not in love right at the end of the book.

I read a review accusing Sara Barnard’s A Quiet Kind of Thunder of instalove. The entire point of the book is that the romantic couple fall in love slowly. The main character doesn’t even like the boy, notice him, or find him particularly appealing or attractive when she first meets him. That’s NOT instalove.

Not that there’s anything wrong with instalove.

I’m banging on about instalove AGAIN because some readers think that whenever a character feels an immediate reaction, like attraction, or lust, that it’s instantly instalove. Even though it can be any number of other feelings that’s using descriptions like electricity to describe what the character is feeling. And anyway, I have the firm belief that these critics have never felt true love and are just jaded and bitter.

I was completely shocked to find that Flamecaster by Cinda Williams Chima was the absolute worst case of instalove I have ever read, yet in the reviews I checked before I read it, I didn’t see one person ever refer to it. The characters literally fell in love upon their first meeting and were willing to change everything for one another. I can’t believe people don’t beat this book down, it was terrible.

I also read a review accusing The Hundredth Queen by Emily King of containing both a love triangle and incest when there absolutely wasn’t either one anywhere in the book AT ALL.

I read a review about Reign of the Fallen by Sarah Glenn Marsh that said the main character slept with multiple love interests in the first book, which she absolutely did not, and that was made explicitly clear in the second book in the series. After I read that review, I wondered if it was just my love of platonic relationships that led me to interpret the FMC not actually having sex with a male friend, but nope: I was right, there was no sex involved, and this was confirmed later on.

I feel like I was being gaslit by these accusations.

Seriously, if you are going to accuse a book of containing a trope, DO YOUR RESEARCH.

That means investigating what the trope actually means, because if you say ‘this book contains the trope bury your gays’ I’m thinking that the only gay character was killed as a result of being gay, seen as expendable, and it’s alluding to be the natural conclusion of their storyline. NOT that ‘multiple characters were killed, some of whom happened to be gay.’

Research means reading more than one review because SURPRISE SURPRISE sometimes reviewers are downright wrong.

Saying a book contains something that it does not contain is one of my pet hates, and that’s on both authors and marketers when promoting, and on reviewers when reviewing. You need to be accurate. You can’t accuse a book of containing things that didn’t happen no matter how good you think are at English classes. It’s exactly the same as false advertising, but even worse, because we’re supposed to be able to trust independent reviewers.

I think that a lot of reviewers don’t actually understand what they’re saying, and therefore accusing Katniss from The Hunger Games of being a Mary-Sue is just their way of saying ‘I didn’t like the character.’ Same with insta-love. I think a lot of readers don’t even know what instalove is. It is certianly not simply two characters meeting eyes then later they start dating. There are actual conditions of these tropes being thrown around, and when a book doesn’t contain something that’s promised, that’s a disappointing reading experience.

As a reviewing you have a responsibility to review honestly. Otherwise how do you expect anyone to read you reviews?

Do your research and don’t be a dick.

Subscribe to Blog via Email