I thought, well I can do that. I couldn't be bothered writing a book review, because I'd have to read the book, I haven't got time to read a whole book for a fifty dollar write-up.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Most books reviews aren't very well-written. They tend to be more about the reviewer than the book.
I rarely read or buy a book because of a review.
After each book, I get panicky. I don't love the reviews. I don't like going through all that, and you would think that, after almost 40 years of writing, I'd have got the hang of it.
I don't read reviews because by then it's too late - whatever anyone says, the book won't change. It is written.
Sometimes literary critics review the book they wanted you to write, not the book you wrote, and that's very irksome.
I'm very troubled when editors oblige their film critics to read the novel before they see the film. Reading the book right before you see the film will almost certainly ruin the film for you.
The first function of a book review should be, I believe, to give some idea of the contents and character of the book.
Writing is exhilarating, but reading reviews is not. I've been really devastated by 'good' reviews because they misunderstand the project of the book. It can be strangely galvanising to get a 'bad' one.
I didn't want the headache of having a publisher reviewing everything I wrote in advance.
As an author, I realise, you're on your own. You have to do everything you can to help The Book. If I make sure people know it's out there, they can make up their own minds whether they want to read it.
No opposing quotes found.