Ethics of rating books on goodreads and amazon?

[Side Real Press]

Dear all,


I do put up 'observations' (I am not sure I write 'reviews' proper, read Reggie Olivers reviews in Wormwood to see how it 'should' be done!) on 90% of the books I read and hopefully they are for vaguely 'objective' albeit filtered by whatever might pass as my mind.

It is done primarily for fun and as a way of remembering what I actually read as I have a shocking memory. It is also an ego/shameless self publicity thing. If you agree with my thoughts on books I read you might possibly buy one of the 'great' the books I publish. I think this cunning plan has resulted, oooh, a sale, maybe two.

I do put a 'full disclosure' line where appropriate because I worry that my own personal relationship with an author might (must?) skew my 'judgement' and, assuming that anyone might actually use my comments as a basis on which to buy anything (Gawd 'elp 'em!), at least they know that I know author 'x' or 'y' in some way and judge appropriately.

I cannot agree with Justin that "I would rather get my friends to build hype for me and build hype for them back". Having your mates big you up is surely better that paying a publicist to do so (it's cheaper!) but if (I think) I see that in a review then its "game over" respect wise. I just cannot be arsed with it. I see enough as it is.

That said, much of everything else he says I entirely agree with. Its good to see (sadly very few) authors being pulled up on Amazon etc for plagiarisation/####ty values etc even though its a drop in a mighty big ocean.

However, Goodreads is owned by Amazon who just want to sell you stuff. They are not publishers so you're not sticking it to them by posting on their site. It might be a wild west but they own a vast land on which a myriad tiny tribal squabbles are fought. If the Amazonian God thought you were really screwing with their creation (or perhaps a big tribal elder) they would smite you.


J