I’ve always been somewhat of a “pleaser”, it’s a survival instinct really. If you please those around you, you keep the peace, meaning you won’t get abused in any shape or form. And so it’s not particularly a healthy trait. It’s not bad to want to be able to compromise with everyone, but it’s only in the past couple of years that I’ve worked hard towards being able to “keep the peace” without sacrificing my own opinion of things. If others think my tastes of different things is terrible, that’s for them to bear. I just need to enjoy myself.

When it comes to writing reviews about books, however, I’m still on the fence. This is because of a mix-match of sharing the same passion and imposter syndrome. Who am I—who has not ever published a book—to judge this person who has. In my work, I am definitely getting better at this, and because of that desire to console or please, I am quite good at finding a way to balance what I don’t and do like—even if I don’t enjoy it at all—about the piece. Constructive criticism is the key, and this is how I’ve always conducted myself, perhaps due to the desire not to upset others. I’m also a firm believer in that non-constructive criticism doesn’t help anyone. Not only does it cause a blight between the two, but it doesn’t help anyone improve and just makes them hate what they’ve made.

Sometimes, I’ll read something and I’ll know that the person has either not been building their skill or just doesn’t have any, and as much as that sounds terrible to say, that’s how it is. I can sing—I can’t carry a tune. Writing that is juvenile, however, doesn’t need to be torn down. I don’t need to critique it as “this sucks” “don’t write” or “the whole thing is garbage”, it’s about looking for what their strength is, commending them on that and then offering ways they can improve the rest. I don’t quite think it’s the job of people who write reviews to be able to tell someone to “stop”, but rather to help them try to improve. If they prove time and time again that they cannot improve, it’s the audience that will then notice, and they’ll tell them to stop. Scathing reviews don’t really help anyone.

BUT! But it’s also important not to fluff reviews. It’s all about being constructive. You can’t help anyone if you’re too afraid to comment on what doesn’t work. And if you’re writing reviews leisurely and not for your work, still try to keep that balance. Just because you don’t like a piece of writing, doesn’t mean that no one else will. I’m not saying to not cover what you don’t like, but there’s no need to completely tear apart what is there. The exception to this rule is if you’re marking something as honestly racist, homophobic, sexist, paedophilia-based etc. Those are the things that people will likely appreciate a heads-up on. And I’m not talking about something that covers these issues with honesty, but rather are inherently one of those things. There is a big difference between writing a book about racism and writing a racist book.

I try to rate work I read honestly, but can always be tempted to fluff it up when the rating is quite low. When that happens, I review what’s wrong with the book and the potential, particularly if it’s not a published piece but preparing to be published. If I believe that the piece has potential with a lot of work, I might bump up the rating, so as to not make the writer feel that I completely despised the work (because I rarely do). But, I will also make sure that I cover as much as I can on what does and doesn’t work, and how it impacts reading the manuscript, as well as offering suggestions for how to fix this.

What I’m trying to say is, if you’re going to write a review, be honest, but be constructive. Though no one is obligated to write a fair review, it’s that thought in itself that causes problems. Review the work, don’t trash it. Constructive criticism—in any field—helps build better relationships, better communication and better makers.