Hello and happy Friday! Let’s Talk Bookish is a weekly discussion post created by Rukky @ Eternity Books and is hosted by Rukky and Dani @ A Literary Lion! This week’s topic is: Should Reviewers Go “Easier” on Self-Published Authors? suggested by Dani!
Today’s post is going to be relatively short since I don’t have a huge amount to say, but here we go!
I see why some people would, but to be honest, I really don’t think that we should. When we’re reviewing a book, it’s up to the reviewer to write their honest opinions of the book. Not all reviewers are going to rate books exactly the same way, but it’s good to be consistent with your own reviews.
If someone reads your review and sees that you rated it four stars, then they’re probably more likely to read the book because you gave it a higher rating and enjoyed it more. If you only gave it four stars because it was self published, and if it hadn’t been you would only have given it three, then you’re giving people the wrong impression on what you thought of the book.
I never used to pay attention to whether or not a book was self published, and although now that is something that I am more aware of, it still doesn’t influence whether or not I’m going to read a book.
If I’m looking for a book to read, I’m going to be looking more at the synopsis and the author. What the book itself is about is more important to me than how it was published, in terms of whether or not I want to read it.
So overall, I don’t think that reviewers should go “easier” on self-published authors, and that we should write about our honest opinions. Our reviews shouldn’t be influenced by how a book was published.
What do you think? Should Reviewers Go “Easier” on Self-Published Authors? Chat with me in the comments below!