All three of you who follow this blog are aware I occasionally review books.
What I haven't done is reviewed books I don't care for. If I post about a title, you can rest assured I thought it was pretty horking good, or I wouldn't bother posting anything at all about it.
However, this troubles me. Is not the "I didn't finish this" or "I finished it under the author's threat to have my children fed to sharks but I hated the book" review as valid as the one that explains why I loved it? Where is the line to walk between Momma's admonition to say something nice or nothing at all, and the truth?
Now, I don't expect anyone to like the same books I do. And I don't always like what other folks do. What a dull world it would be, if only one set of preferences were all that sells! In fact, I expect others to differ with me regarding my take on any given book.
I call that constructive dialogue. Unlike a few other places, I want to encourage such dialogue. If we do this, we may run the risk of disagreeing with one another or something equally terrifying.
I submit that we're all big grown-ups and we can take it.
That said, along the lines of "what's in it for you" -- where do you stand? Would you like to see all reviews on this blog, for books I loved and books I read muttering, "You have got to be kidding!"?
Do you value honest comment (which may lead to controversy) over being nice?
Weigh in, please.