I guess it had to happen eventually.
As you may or may not know, I am currently trying my hand as an author. I've currently got two works published, which you can look at through my sig, if you so desire.
While my books were available exclusively through Amazon (for the first three months after being published) I offered them for free over several weekends. One of the reasons that I did this was in the hopes of getting more reviews on my books, with the thought that books that have more ratings should, hopefully, get more people looking and (maybe even) buying them.
Well, it looks like I finally got a review from someone (who isn't a member of either this or another forum I'm a regular at) who picked up the book:
"I read the first story. It was terrible, with absolutely no point to it... When the paragraph stopped in the middle of the page, I thought that perhaps it was only the first chapter... It wasn't.
The book was free though, so I guess I can't really complain. I also didn't bother the read anything after the first story."
Harsh.
Personally, I think the guy didn't give me enough of a chance - there's 16 stories in my collection, and he just read the one?
Maybe it's partially my own fault - "Fire", the first story, is also what I would call the most 'artsy' or perhaps 'experimental', and I've gotten mixed reviews even within my own family and friends. They generally either love it, or say "what's the point?" (much like this guy.) Perhaps I should've picked something more mainstream as my first story.
I don’t know, just so this topic isn't just me rambling - what do you think is required for a review? If someone reads just the one story, but hates it enough to take the time and actually write a review of it, is that valid? Does he have any obligation to slog through more of the book?