I don't really see how that's different than "here's what one person who came up with a made-up name thought about this book."

See previous posts. A, the review can damage my income stream, or possibly affect it positively. It isn't theoretical to me, bebe. It's my life.

And B, because I'm neither an idiot nor arrogant enough to think I write perfection ever? I want to be able to look at crit in reviews, and link them to patterns that will make me better at what I do.

So what beth said, about how so-and-so from Knoxville loving Weaver and then giving Famous Flower a bad review? Is totally it. It's useful to me as a writer. I want continuity; I want less random.

So your real name, or the real name of any reviewer who isn't paid to do it, is irrelevant. I want the continuity. I can use it.

There are also interesting reviewers on Amazon, whose reviewing careers you can follow, and sometimes those lead to interesting books you hadn't come across otherwise. If someone goes to the trouble of writing a review, if it is intelligent, pro or con, I'm likely to have a look at other reviews they've done to get a sense of how they look at things and how that applies to my interest in the book they have reviewed. If they are totally anonymous, they go to ignore, for me.

I respect people's right to privacy on the freak show that is the internet, but I need something to attach their opnion to. A consistent pseud is plenty.

I respect people's right to privacy on the freak show that is the internet, but I need something to attach their opnion to. A consistent pseud is plenty.

Our hearts beat as one. I don't give a damn about their real name or their street address. Continuity is vital to me.

I might...I like playing around with my identity It's the Anabella Wilgis in me..But I wouldn't do it to Deb...she knows my tricks. Just like I knew Weaver was Deb's book in thirty seconds, not having read any before.

t walks in and sits down on fence

On the one hand, I understand where Deb is coming from, especially because I intend to be a published person from whom this is more than theoretical myself, in due time.

OTOH, I've never paid close attention to Amazon reader reviews precisely because it's such a big random place. I get better recommendations here, or on the All About Romance site, because I can better judge the context and relevance to my tastes. I've never written an Amazon review, but if I did I'd probably do it as "a reader from Seattle," unless there's some way to avoid it being linked to my profile and wish list, which deliberately use my real name to allow friends and family to know for sure it's me.

What I do use Amazon ratings for is for non-media products like kitchen and baby gear, because then they're actually useful--things are more likely to get one star because they're crap that breaks easily than because someone is carrying out a personal vendetta.

Then why post reviews? Answer: you don't. So we aren't talking about you, even hypothetically, right?

No, no, no -- you're positing causality where there is none. Fact A: I don't want a rep. Fact B: I don't write reviews.

What does not wanting a rep imply? That I'll maintain my anonymity.

What is the reason I don't write reviews? Because I don't think I have anything to say that anyone wants to hear.

However, if I read and had an epiphany (I'd say I might say something about Mojo: Conjure, like "about time!"), especially if it was one that ran counter to most of the other reviews, I would say something.

Anonymously.

Susan, since you're going to need to do it from the published writer's POV at sometime in the near future, here's a horrifying heads up:

Editors read the Amazon reviews. So do agents. About the only person they discount entirely is Harriet Klausner.

Here's a little example. My friend Lauren (we share an agency) has a nicely-selling thing out called The Thin Pink Line. Someone wrote a review up at Amazon, saying they wouldn't recommend it because the protagonist wasn't sympathetic enough. Lauren, who had heard it before and didn't particularly want the lead to be too sympathetic, made a mental note and moved on.

Literally later that day, Lauren got a call from her editor, who had the MS for the second book on her desk. Had Lauren considered making the lead more sympathetic? When taxed with it, she admitted she'd been reading the Amazon reviews and got worried.

Not theoretical for the writer. Not a game. Not a passing amusement. To us, this stuff matters. And I don't mind a bad review (ok, I do, but you know what I mean, right?), but I do want to be able to link who is saying what, so that I can use the info, or not, when I'm working and editing.

However, if I read and had an epiphany (I'd say I might say something about Mojo: Conjure, like "about time!"), especially if it was one that ran counter to most of the other reviews, I would say something.

Anonymously.

Cool. Any irritation and/or jubilation caused thereby would be between you and the creator.

Seriously - an editor will pay attention to one review on Amazon? I guess in some cases it makes sense... because there are only a few reviews...

beth, Ruth tells me they read all the reviews at Amazon, to "get a feel for how the public is taking the work."

If Lauren had ten reviews, all loving the book, and one review with a specific reason for disliking it attached - guess which one sticks in their head?