I receive a lot of review books, but I have never once told lies about the book just because I got a free copy of it. However, some authors seem to feel that if they send you a copy of their book for free, you should give it a positive review.
Do you think reviewers are obligated to put up a good review of a book, even if they don’t like it? Have we come to a point where reviewers *need* to put up disclaimers to (hopefully) save themselves from being harassed by unhappy authors who get negative reviews?
I have always been the type of person that avoids confrontation and worries about hurting people's feelings and it's no different with reviewing books. Just because I'm a wuss, that doesn't mean that I would ever lie or say I loved a book that I did not. I just try and choose the kindest words to say what I mean.
Like many of you, if a book is really horrid I just won't finish it, luckily that's not usually the case. So that means if I do finish a book there was something I liked about it and that's what I will try and focus on in the review. If things bug me about a book I will also talk about them, but try and say it in the most respectful way. I've recently added a rating to my reviews to kind of help put them on a scale a bit more. I obviously felt more connected to a book that was a 5 than a book that was a 4 but that doesn't always mean there was something specifically wrong with the 4. Books that are 3 I still liked but had some problems with and so on and so forth.
I don't have a disclaimer (or even any sort of note saying i accept review copies- even though i do sometimes) but with all these stories recently of people having troubles with authors I'm getting sort of paranoid. The bright side of all of this is I think these types of situations are bringing the blogging community together and can only make use stronger.
What's your take on this question?