The Chalice and the Blade: How has the book stood the test of time and why it matters

The first half of this summer was my time to work like a dog, taking care of the needs and desires of both kids and bureaucrats. Even my Tarot card for the month indicated I had best let go of my own wishes and sacrifice for “the greater good.”

Well, I can survive drudgery but not boredom, so I listened to an audiobook every chance I got, often only a few minutes a day. The book was The Chalice and the Blade by Riane Eisler.

It’s a hefty book in print, a monumental work of multidisciplinary anthropology, psychology and sociology with some biology thrown in for kicks. And no, I am not implying that this constitutes “light reading” for me. I suspect that the heavier my circumstances, the heavier the reading material required to relieve my stress. (We can analyze my nerdiness later.)

Thus, this post is first a book review and second a contemplation of the broader significance of its claims.

I don’t write about books here unless they are extraordinarily good, so you can guess at my opinion on this one. Eisler’s book is one of those few that shake my foundations and persuade me to rethink some long-held beliefs and subconscious assumptions.

Creative Commons image by Chi Bellami

To be clear, The Chalice and the Blade is often heavy going. It is an academic text and I can tell already that I will need a second listen to be able to reliably quote details from it. It doesn’t have the entrancing lyricism of Braiding Sweetgrass, though I would put the two on the same shelf under “Books that rekindle the will to live” and it is relatively readable and accessible given the academic treatment.

What it has is substantial academic and scientific backing for a thesis that challenged growing cynicism even when it was first published in 1987. Yup, it’s a pretty old book, which I have only now discovered. I had heard whispers of its concepts, usually without attribution or sufficient background to be convincing, but this was my first time reading it.

The central thesis of The Chalice and the Blade is that between 25,000 years ago and 3,000 years ago human society was structured in a fundamentally different way from what has followed in the last 3,000 years. During the Neolithic and up until the early Bronze Age, Eisler asserts, the most developed human societies were largely egalitarian with a high degree of equity between the sexes and social classes.

Those Neolithic human cultures left behind a lot of goddess figurines, which is the part I had previously vaguely heard about. But in popular culture I had also heard a lot of statements claiming, “That old theory about ancient goddess-worshiping cultures has been debunked.” These were mainly on social media and they didn’t cite any sources, but the sheer volume of such assertions led me to believe there was probably something to it.

So, the first thing I did when I finished The Chalice and the Blade was to look up academic and scientific criticism, updates and/or confirmation of the book. And I found that it has largely stood the test of time.

Eisler’s work was made possible by the advent of carbon dating. Before the 1980s, archeologists mostly dated their finds relatively (i.e. this one is older than that one because it looks more primitive). And their dating method was pretty subjective and not all that scientific. They’d look at the technology of a culture they dug up and assess its level of technological and cultural advancement and date it based on the assumption that everyone started out primitive and both gradually and linearly became more complex and technologically skilled.

Carbon dating turned the field on its head—not that most of the old-school archeologists were paying attention. As Eisler shows through a survey of archeological data from around the Mediterranean Sea, many human societies developed significant technology and culture—with more sophisticated ceramics, water systems, script and egalitarian social organization—and then they lost it all, in some cases repeatedly.

The facts Eisler cites from archeological finds—the lack of signs of great social disparities (houses all about the same size and so forth), the many goddess figurines, the scarcity or complete lack of weapons in these Neolithic Mediterranean finds and so forth—are solid. Eisler’s interpretations are both intriguing and persuasive though not yet fully investigated.

Among Eisler’s analytical claims are the following:

1. The event (or rather repeated events) that changed relatively peaceful, egalitarian, goddess-worshipping societies around the Mediterranean into war-obsessed empires inspired by heavy-handed sky gods (Ra, Zeus, Apollo, Jehovah, etc.) was successive invasions by nomads from areas with less human-friendly climates such as the Eurasian steppe and the Saharan Desert.

2. Therefore, humans are not by nature warlike, selfish, cruel and power hungry. Apparently it was harsh environments that turned some in that direction and then they infected others with the social disease of Patriarchy or what Eisler calls “the Androcratic system.”

3. It is, then, possible for humans to return to what Eisler calls “the Gylanic system” with all the benefits of technological advance, egalitarianism, peace and goddess worship if we continue the trajectory of the women’s movement and promote egalitarian, cooperative and democratic values in childhood education and society at large.

The data and scientific facts laid out in The Chalice and the Blade are impressive, and fact checking didn’t uncover any major holes or earth-shattering updates in the science since 1987. Those facts caused me to question some of my assumptions acquired through popular culture and mainstream education. But how do Eisler’s extrapolations hold up today?

It is tremendous to look at the beginnings of human civilization from the perspective of relatively advanced cultures of the Neolithic that were then degraded to a barbaric state before what our schools tell us was the infancy of civilization in ancient Egypt and Greece. Our prehistory is not a seamless progression from primitive cave people bashing each other over the head with wooden clubs and stone axes to vicious tribes whacking one another with bronze and then finally iron weapons.

How is it possible that archeologists have known all this since I was a small child, and yet our schools still continue to teach ancient history in that tired and inaccurate linear form? Eisler would say that the “Androcratic system” and those who gain inordinate power from it have always suppressed information that might undermine its supremacy.

Eisler draws a lot of big conclusions from the data. She insists that nomadic tribes brought warlike tendencies, hierarchy and angry sky gods from elsewhere. There is some evidence for this, but it is a bit sketchier simply because wandering tribes with primitive technology leave far less for archeologists to find than people with cities, aqueducts, metallurgy, stone-carved script, sculptures and advanced pottery.

Part of me wants to believe Eisler’s conclusions, based on just the data presented, but there are implications that Eisler doesn’t explore, particularly in her second thesis claiming that the archeological record proves that humans aren’t hardwired for war, hierarchy and cruelty.

It’s nice to know that some humans didn’t start out that way. It turns out that when The Chalice and the Blade was translated into Chinese (among 25 other languages), Chinese archeologists embarked on a project to duplicate Eisler’s work in their region and found strikingly similar results. So, it is likely that it wasn’t just the humans of the Mediterranean.

But what then of the warlike tribes that invaded these cultures? They were just as human and arguably, since they murdered a lot of the peaceful, goddess-worshipping people, both around the Mediterranean and in ancient China (and most likely elsewhere as well), we have a lot of their genes today. Are we still really the heirs to a peaceful world or the descendants of those who destroyed it?

Eisler does document how after the invaders took over they generally went local and took up the leisurely and peaceable ways of those they had conquered after a couple of generations—only to be conquered in their turn when the next invasion came a few centuries later. So, there is some reason to argue that the tendency to be murderous and domineering was based more on environment than on genes, but still eventually the warlike tribes took over and stamped out the developed cultures of the Neolithic almost everywhere.

Even more tenuous is Eisler’s extrapolation, arguing that because humans once lived in a cooperative, egalitarian and largely peaceful society that we can do it again in our much more technologically complex age. I definitely hope she’s right, but the last thirty-plus years since the book was published, don’t do much to bolster that hope.

So, it’s a fascinating book—intriguing, well-researched and readable for an academic work. I was sorry when I came to the end and plan on rereading it soon. That’s the book-review part of this post.

As for my changing worldview, I am still observing the reverberations of Eisler’s facts and analysis on my thought processes and life. First, I am relieved to find that the social media trolls dismissing the study of ancient goddess worship are pretty much just plain wrong. I have long had a natural tendency to look to the older goddesses in my spiritual seeking. Now I feel even more confident in that respect.

Second, I have always had difficulty with anything regarding my own European ancestry, not knowing much beyond the last several hundred years of tyranny, war and injustice. Eisler holds out hope that if we dig deeper, there may be plenty of value to find.

Finally and most importantly though, there is my battered spirit of hope. I have been pushed—kicking and screaming but eventually resigned—into cynicism over the past few years. The world and personal circumstances have conspired to show me just how broken, un-evolved and selfish humans can be and how frighteningly common that state is. Eisler’s analysis offers a societal goal that I could choose to put my shoulder into—one with at least some basis in scientific facts and reality.

I’m at a point in my life where I’m shedding a lot of things that didn’t work out—a marriage, a home, an adopted country, a line of work—and starting over in a lot of ways. I don’t know what I’m going to be doing for the next ten or twenty years and before reading Eisler’s book, it seemed like the best bet was just to hunker down with the remnants of my family, try to live well, balancing ethics and sanity, and not put much stock in the future.

Frankly, that’s what I have been doing. But for the first time in a while, I have a glimmer that maybe that isn’t all there is left, that there might be a reason to keep pushing the rocks of social justice, spirituality and passing on wisdom and skills up the hill.

No guarantees mind you. It’s all just a theory. But I’ll take a life-affirming theory with scientific backing over dead certainty of doom whenever I get the chance.

Pagan Book Review: Awen Alone

Awen Alone has a definite Celtic focus but it is not exclusionary. The book mentions at several points that people of non-Celtic background should not be afraid to explore this path and that it is natural for druids to explore other pantheons beyond the Celtic pantheon.

Awen Alone offers a straightforward description of modern druidry. The author Joanna van der Hoeven explains without obfuscation the differences between joining groups and taking on a solitary practice. She makes clear that druidry can be a practice for atheists as well as a spiritual path and she assuages common fears about doing it wrong. The book also includes a particularly helpful and non-judgmental section with straight talk about different perceptions of gods and goddesses.

Where the beginning of the book emphasizes an openness to different ways of following a druid path, later in the book the tone becomes at times heavy-handed with an insistence that daily walks are the primary way to observe changes in nature through the seasons.

There are chapters outlining basic concepts of meditation, inner path working, and prayer. The author places a significant emphasis on connecting with ancestors of blood, place and path. The focus seems to be on a very flexible druid path. If there are any rules on this path, they are about respect and care for the natural environment. The only thing that is non-negotiable to the author is that you must explore your local environment and care for it, no matter what it is, urban or rural. 

A loose version of the wheel of the year with Neopagan names for the feast days is promoted with the caveat that many people will adapt the dates to fit local climactic conditions. 

The path of druidry presented here is attractive to eclectic Pagans. It may appeal to people of various backgrounds who have felt a pull toward Native American spirituality but don't want to appropriate the beliefs of that culture if it is not their own. The solitary druid path as presented here allows the individual to adapt an earth-centered spirituality to local conditions and to choose from a range of techniques such as various types of meditation, prayer, nature observation and inner path working to gain spiritual insight.

A thriller I think Kyrennei Series readers will love - Cold River Rising

College students from an Oregon Indian reservation are kidnapped by a Shining Path splinter group in Peru. The Peruvian army is worse than unhelpful and the Indian tribe, as a sovereign nation within the United States, declares war on Peru. Other tribes join the non-traditional war along with a white police chief.

Here's a story of courage, today's wounds, history's tears, a deep friendship and the kind of heroism that the modern world thinks is gone or never was. There's a young woman with both strength and a lot of doubts. There's a lonely police chief who has to choose between laws and justice. There are real warriors and women who challenge propriety and dance rage and joy against anything that stifles. 

I love it when I find a really fabulous book by an independent author. I know there are piles of books that aren't that great, full of mistakes and floppy plot. But I've hit a nugget once again in my rather random perusal of books. All through Cold River Rising, I kept saying out loud "Home run!" because there were scenes, emotions and issues that resonated and the author handled tough stuff well. 

I have never said this before, so it isn't just that this is a book I personally like.  I love all kinds of books (historical fiction, epic fantasy, futuristic dystopia and memoirs) and many of the things I love to read are very different from what I write. But this time I can safely say that I think readers who love The Kyrennei Series would get a kick out of this book. That isn't just because I like it. It's because of these things:

• Cold River Rising deals with emotion in a real and visceral way, much like The Kyrennei Series
• It deals with violence in much the same way, brutally and without any hint of weapons porn or glorification.
• It pulls at issues of social justice without ever dipping toward preaching or dogmatism at any point.
• It is primarily about a whopping good story while also including brain fodder that keeps you thinking and caring when you aren't reading.
• There is an element of people making justice when the authorities refuse to or are actually the perpetrators of injustice. We write in the hallowed tradition of Robin Hood.
• Oh, and it's partly set in Oregon--the Cold River Indian Reservation to be exact--and it gives an Oregonian the same rush of reality, knowing the landscape that The Soul and the Seed does.

This book has a truckload of great reviews (4.5 stars out of 5 on Amazon). It also has a few negative reviews and I almost didn't read it because I always read negative reviews first. That usually pays off but this time it was a bit misleading. Some of the reviews say there are a lot of errors in this book. Maybe there were back in 2011 when it was first published and maybe it has been edited since, but I didn't notice any mistakes as I read briskly through it. I could have missed a few minor things, but the point is that there aren't distracting mistakes for anyone who is more interested in story than ego. 

There were a few negative reviews about graphic violence. And in some ways that's fair enough. There is graphic violence, but it is real and honest, not glorified and meant to titillate. It is there because it's the truth about the world and it's true to the story.  That makes the violence worth reading. However, there are people who for reasons of youth or past-trauma might find it too much. 

Then there is the fact that the book is about Indians. Mostly Native American reviewers seem to love this, even though the book was written by a white guy. He did reasonably well, according to the reviews, and I expect it took a mountain of research. But a few of the negative reviews mentioned an Indian leader giving an endangered eagle feather to the friendly white police chief, which is apparently wildly unrealistic culturally and highly illegal. The book I read didn't include anything like that. I suspect that this is a symptom of modern publishing in which a mistake can be caught and rectified after publication. So, it may be that the author did put in such a scene initially and then changed it based on legitimate complaints. I personally don't see anything dishonorable in this approach. It is very difficult to write about a culture other than your own (even difficult to please everyone when writing about your own culture). It requires massive research and making a change based on good feedback seems like a wise choice.

All in all, I have to say, author Enes Smith, that's a home run. It was a very fun read, not too heavy for me but then I can't stand things that are too light. I have to feel the thrum of passion, the echoes of social justice issues and some intense emotion for a book to hold my interest at all these days. Too much life going on otherwise. 

Book Review: I found one of the hidden jewels! Circle of Ceridwen

I am a reasonably easy reader to please... and a very hard reader to enthrall. I like  a lot of books, but I passionately love only a few. My favorite authors can be counted on one hand. And if Octavia Randolph keeps it up I may need another finger.

The world of digital books is like a great mountain of ash. You step into it and you're instantly up to your waist in dust. You know there are jewels of incredible power hidden in the grime and fluff, but finding them is a mammoth task. After more than a year of searching, I have finally found one of the jewels in The Circle of Ceridwen, the first book in Randolf's historical series.

Oddly enough, I never would have bought this book in a million years based on the cover and the description. I like a good historical novel and I'm not adverse to violent stories but I have never found a book with big swords on the front to be very emotionally powerful and a description that immediately touts the presence of "vikings with tatoos" is unlikely to have the emotional caliber I'm looking for. But I downloaded the book because of one of those free deals and I was very pleasantly surprised. I'd be willing to pay plenty for books like this.

Here's the real deal on this book:

• Its style is accessible and conversational, yet historically evocative. All the semi-literate reviewers confused about the grammar are simply wrong. There are few if any errors in this book. There is a refreshing absence of flamboyance and pompous writing. The prose is easy, flowing and without distraction, a rare treat and the very first necessity for me to love a book.
• The book has the emotional impact that so few have these days. That's hard to prove without reading it. It's a mix of good characters and realism. 
• The story is told in first person. Always a plus in my opinion. You experience ninth century England through the eyes of a young woman named Ceridwin.
• The characters are likable, believable and relatable, including the supposed "bad guys." I am one of those readers who demands a likable main characters. I simply won't suffer through a book, no matter how good the story is, if the heroine or hero bores me or ticks me off. Here is a young heroine who is so different from the modern vision of a "strong female heroine." She is strong and courageous without being divorced from real women. She is emotionally real and does not try to be "everywoman" so that all readers can see themselves in her. She is a distinct character but one you can love with her flaws. The other characters are also well developed and fascinating.
• The plot is riveting from the first few pages. It takes some very unexpected turns and yet it is never confusing. The tension is held throughout with a fierce desire to see Ceridwen survive and thrive.
• There is warfare, suspense, incredible tension and yet there is no classic villain. It is the real world. The invaders and those who threaten the heroine are people, in fact at least moderately understandable people. You may not agree with all of their decisions or motivations but they are understandable and even honorable in many instances. It is the sheer believability of the characters and world that make the story so emotionally gripping. 
• The details of the historical world are breathtaking. I've read enough historical fiction and nonfiction to know extensive research when I see it. While it's hard to say exactly what life was like in the ninth century, this feels both true and consistent. The level of detail is wonderful with none of the vagueness that results from historical uncertainty and no facts clearly manipulated to suit the needs of fiction. It fulfills that thirst for something beautifully historical and effortless to read at the same time. 
• The pace is just right. This is a subjective matter as far as I can tell. Some people may call this pace "slow." I call many books that have little emotion and character-develop to them "chaotic and rushed."  It isn't constant action. It is instead ever-present story, plot and emotional tension. At no point does the story slow down in order to show off the author's excellent grasp of the history. There are no wasted words or long descriptive scenes for the sake of showing off.
• The book's only flaws may be its cover and description, which hint at a rollicking ride of battle, "weapons porn" and macho atmosphere. The reader only gets to see one "fight" in real time in this first book of the series and that one doesn't even result in anyone dying and is a minor incident in the overall plot. There is plenty of battle going on around but the main character is a girl, who isn't unrealistically placed in the middle of battles. Some readers I know who are into constant battle might be taken in by the cover and description and may be very disappointed. While other readers, who are interested in more character-based stories with flavor and conversational tone, may miss out on this one due to the cover and description. 
• It is fashionable today to comment on the ending in a review. This is the first book in a series and while the ending appears to wrap up the major plot lines, it is clear that peace is unlikely to last long. There is plenty of room for more story and yet the ending doesn't feel contrived or episodic. I appreciate this. The fact that much of the plot is sort of wrapped up makes it easier to resist spending my kids' lunch money on the next book right away but I am eager to get my hands on the next book. 

The Self Publisher's Ultimate Resource Guide is less than ultimate

I received a review copy of The Self-Publisher’s Ultimate Resource Guide in an exchange for an honest review.

This is essentially a master list of some of the top service providers and resources for authors. Some of them are relevant for new traditionally published authors as well. The lists are good and helpful as a very basic starting place for research. The sections are reasonably chosen and organized.

There are two reasons that this book doesn’t get an enthusiastic review from me. First, the descriptions of the services are vague and uninformative. Often the listing simply states the claims of the provider without giving any independent confirmation of quality and bang-for-buck.  As a self-publisher who has already published several books, I can see how the early sections of the book sum up information that I already know. I had to learn all this on my own through simple research but what I know from my research is far more than is contained in this book. But when I picture a newbie coming to these lists, I don’t see how the lists would save more than a little time.  

Because the listings are vague, the newbie will still have to do exhaustive hours of research to determine which of the providers is makes sense for their circumstances. I found the information on these lists within an hour or two as a newbie. I spent months researching which providers to use. If the experienced authors of this book had provided some more detailed information about the various providers, including things that many of us know simply because we have enough experience to have learned the difference between Smashwords and Draft2Digital, the guide would be much more useful to the newbie.

 That alone would have knocked this book down a bit in my rating. It gets knocked down further because of the price. I’m sorry but with the going prices of ebooks these days, charging $7.99 for a “book” of lists that is only 180 pages borders on exploitation of the new and inexperienced. I gave the book three stars on Amazon. give three stars to books I buy that I don’t find entirely useless but wish I hadn’t spent that amount of money on. Had I paid $7.99 for this book I would have been disappointed and disgruntled.  

That said, if you have the money this book would save a little time if you are still in the very early stages of research. It is a handy summary for those who are more experienced and simply want easy links to everything all in one place. 

The literature revolution: How book reviews give power to the people

Hey people who love to read! I have awesome news for you. You have some real power. The world of publishing is changing and you personally have some significant ability to steer what will be available to read and what kinds of authors get to write books.

I'm serious. And I did not used to know this. I used to think that leaving a review on an item or a book on Amazon was like voting. It mattered a little tiny bit. It was a drop in the ocean type of thing. I did it occasionally because it was like a civic duty or a way to say a special "thank you" if the book was really outstanding.

I've learned. Given recent changes in the publishing industry, reviewing books - particularly on Amazon - has become serious business. And particularly if you DON'T like something, you can deliver a fairly large blow and deny an author the ability to make a living writing with a click and about 20 words. Be careful of this because you can also accidentally do this without meaning to and seriously hurt an author you like, thus denying yourself that author's books in the future. It is real power.

(If you give a negative review because of shipping service, the harm goes to the author not the shipper.)

How to read Amazon star rankings

Here is a quick rundown of the five-star book review system:

5-stars - 5-stars means the reviewer really likes the book. It really entertained them and they will probably recommend it to their friends and read more books by that author. This is pretty much the same on most sites. Some sites consider 5-star reviews more exclusive than others, but on Amazon, 5-stars are just for books you really liked. You don't have to ration them and only use them for your favorite top-ten books of all time. But they do mean you really liked the book. An author usually needs several books with at least a hundred or two hundred five star reviews before they are considered an established author and before they can make a living writing.

4-stars - 4-stars means the book was pretty good, the reviewer enjoyed it. There was maybe one or two minor issues with the book but they didn't really get in the way of a good read. Most readers, when looking at books on Amazon will consider a book if it has between a four and five-star average. If see that a book has close to a five-star average and you give it four stars, you will actually make the book look worse to future readers than it does to you at that moment. So, give four stars if you think it should not be as highly recommended as it appears but it was still reasonably good. If the book has an average below four stars, your 4-star review will make the book look better than it currently does. So, again, give it four-stars if you liked it and think it should be recommended more, even though it wasn't perfect. Four stars is basically the baseline for saying that the book was worth buying and that is how most readers interpret a 4-star average. If a book has less than a 4-star average, there will be very few sales of that book and unless the author has a lot more books or is independently wealthy, that author probably won't be writing much more. I do consider this when posting a review that will pull the book above or below the 4-star average line because that is the power of reader reviews. You have the ability to make an impact on what gets written and published.

3-stars -  Some sites, like Goodreads, still consider 3-star reviews to be a positive review and describe it as "I liked it." But on Amazon a 3-star review is a mildly negative review. It means, "This book wasn't terrible. I don't really want my money back but I wouldn't recommend it. It was just okay." Let's face it. The world is too full of great things to do, read, watch, learn and write to spend our time reading books that are "just okay." So, most readers don't consider buying books with a 3-star average. I don't buy 3-star books unless it is non-fiction about something I really want to know and there aren't any other choices. (And on the few occasions I have bought 3-star books for that sort of reason, I was usually sorry I did.) Amazon also does not recommend books with a 3-star average and if you give a book a 3-star average you are saying you don't recommend it. Use this rating for books that didn't offend you in any way but that weren't really that great. The kind of book that you could read if you really had nothing else to read on a long flight but not the type of book you would actually choose to read. 

2-stars - Two stars means the reviewer didn't like it. There is no passion in this kind of review. It is a way of saying that the book had major flaws, rampant typos, a bad or non-existent plot, nothing interesting. There is no book review site i know of where a two-star review has any positive connotations, so if you liked the book a little bit, you might consider giving it more than two stars. However, by all means, if you really were bored and wished you hadn't spent your time, let alone your money on it, give it two stars. A two-star review is low enough to seriously exert a downward pull on a book's rating and hurt an author's earnings and ability to write books in the future.

1-star - 1-star reviews can be pretty unpredictable on Amazon. Amazon means them to be for books a reviewer strongly disliked. But when I read reviews, I always start with the one-star reviews because they can tell you if there is something seriously offensive in the book or if the negative reviews come from some political group that simply dislikes the author. (I have very occasionally bought a book based on who DIDN'T like it because it was a group I disagree with and anything they disagreed with that vehemently was at least intriguing.) All too often people post one-star reviews because a book arrived late or was damaged in the mail. Others post one-star reviews because they want another book in the same genre to look better. Still others post one-star reviews because they found the book truly objectionable in some way or couldn't get past the first few chapters due to sheer boredom and horrendous prose. I personally reserve 1-star reviews for books that I really think Amazon should withdraw, books with racist, homophobic or otherwise bigoted content, books that promote stereotypes or that I think do harm. I would also give a one-star review to a book that was so badly written as to be unreadable, but I have never personally ordered or read such a book from Amazon because I carefully read reviews and descriptions before I order books, so I haven't actually used a one-star review for that.

Now, here's the reason I am saying all this. 1-star reviews can seriously hurt an author. If a book only has a few reviews, even one 1-star review will bring down the book's rating by a significant degree. This is a good thing in reality. I have rated a certain children's book that had racist content in it (not of the Mark Twain educational variety but seriously racist) with one star and it significantly changed the position of the book on Amazon. That's power. You can flag things that are problematic with this kind of review and it will really matter. On the other hand, be mindful that writers are people. They often support families. Giving a 1-star review can seriously impact the financial life of a family. Unless the writer is personally shipping you the book, you should think twice about giving a one-star review for a damaged book. Any writer worth their salt will help you get recompense from the shipping company if you write to the author personally (see their Amazon author page). It is very rarely the writer's fault if there is a problem with delivery and if the writer is independent and has options they will change their delivery system if a few people contact them with problems. But if an independent writer gets a few one-star reviews on Amazon, that person will probably no longer be a writer. This system is unforgiving and bad reviews last forever. The fact that you write in your review that the problem is with the delivery and not with the book itself does not really matter because the Amazon system runs mostly on the numbers.

Today is a world where consumers have real power. Use it consciously because it is YOUR power. 

This description of ratings was necessary because there are a lot of people who aren't as used to the online world as others. And different sites have different feelings about different ratings. On Goodreads a three-star review is mildly positive or neutral. On Amazon it is at least mildly negative and will hurt the author in the pocketbook. This isn't just my view. Read Anne R. Allen's blog entry on this if you want to know more about ratings. 

Why you should write reviews for any author you hope will write more

The first part of this post gives you the real dirt on the power of negative reviews. But what about the power of positive reviews? 

Unfortunately for authors, while it only takes a few negative reviews to seriously hurt an author, it takes a lot more positive reviews to give a writer a good chance on Amazon. It takes at least 50 good reviews (mostly 5-stars and a few 4-stars) before the Amazon system will start recommending a book to other readers who have enjoyed similar books. Because that recommendation system is one of the primary ways that unknown authors become known, sell books and thus can afford to continue to write, it is also serious beeswax.

New writers start with no reviews and being the first reviewer is a bit intimidating. I've done it. I know. So a lot of books go a long time with no reviews, even when some people are buying them and enjoying them. Even though statistics say that only about 1 percent of readers leave reviews, moderately successful books usually have at least a couple hundred reviews. The media and the better book promoters won't look at a book until it has a few hundred good reviews, no matter how good the book is. I've heard readers say, "Oh, I just loved that book. It's a new author. I hope he writes more but everything has already been said in the reviews." Reviewing isn't about saying something new. It is like voting and it really does influence what kinds of books will be available in the future. 

New authors simply have to pay their dues and slog in the trenches, trying to hand sell their first few thousand books and asking very sweetly for reviews from readers who want to see more of their work. Unless an author is picked up by one of the big publishing companies that essentially buy reviews or commission them from their media subsidiaries (and that is increasingly rare with new authors), it is a long hard struggle to get those requisite few-hundred positive reviews and a handful of bad reviews can derail the whole process and put the book at the bottom of the Amazon pile of a million-odd books. 

That is why reviews are important. I used to feel like reviews were sort of a civic duty, like voting. That still stands, except much more so. It would be like voting in a system where I felt like my vote really counted. I now know that if I read a book and like it, I can have a real impact on the chances the author has to write more. I recently ran across a little book by an unknown author. I read it and liked the story okay. But more than that the style was fresh and there was real heart and emotion in it. There were a couple technical issues. The author was independent and not wealthy at all and obviously didn't have a lot of support or the ability to hire expensive editors. (EVERY author needs editors. Please don't believe that a "good writer" ought to write without typos. All writers commit typos and they are much easier for readers to see than for the writer. It is virtually impossible to polish 80,000 words or more to technical perfection even with several editors working on it.) Anyway, I saw that the book had only a few reviews and an 3-something average. I really wanted to see more work by this author because I liked the voice, even with the technical issues. I gave the book a five-star review and it made a big difference. That's power! The author went from having very little chance of getting more readers to being in a category with a fighting chance, due to my review. 

Since then, I have seen that there are a lot of new independent writers climbing the long hill toward being established authors. And if I read them, I get to choose which ones I help to the top. And it doesn't take much. Those long rambling reviews that rehash the plot may be fun to write (and they may seriously help the author's self-esteem if they are nice). But what really matters in terms of an author's career are numbers, how many reviews with how many stars. You don't have to write more than 20 words to make a real difference.

I personally like to see good, thought-provoking books. I like books with great adventure that don't use gratuitous violence for cheap thrills, that reflect real emotions and show characters as real people. I want to see more books about minority cultures that we don't know enough about. I want to see more books that go beyond formulaic fiction. And we are going to see all those things much more in the future than we do now because "I am not the only one"  as John Lennon said. We the people may not have all the power in today's world, but I am seriously excited about the fact that we do have the power when it comes to book publishing at the moment. It is possible that some monolithic corporations will be able to get things back under their control eventually, but for now this is a place where alternatives actually get to take off.

So, think about what kinds of books you like and join this quiet, beautiful, literary revolution. Write reviews and you just wait and see. You will get more of what you like and less of the stuff you have always been annoyed by in the media and mass-market books. 

Why all the controversy then?

Now I'm getting to a part of this issue that most readers don't see. Underneath all the talk about the power of reviews there is a raging controversy going on among authors - about whether authors should request reviews and who should and shouldn't write books. Weighing in on a controversial topic that has the potential to destroy one's chances of being able to write for a living is a dangerous game. But I like to live dangerously... and this issue is really bugging me. 

It is currently fashionable among more established authors to make a lot of noise about how new authors shouldn't review other new authors. I have run across several prominent blogs accusing authors who review fellow authors of running "review cartels." The idea is that a theoretical group of authors gets together and agrees to give each other all five-star reviews, regardless of how bad their books are. Hey, it could happen. I certainly haven't met any authors who seem like they'd participate in such a thing but you can always find crooked people. And yet, this is only likely to generate a handful of reviews. And remember, a book needs a few hundred good reviews and very few bad reviews to really allow an author to make a living at writing. 

The reason there is a controversy is that reviews are supposed to be for readers. This is how readers get to find out if they should spend their hard-earned money and often even-harder-earned time on a particular book. It is also, as I described above, part of a very real democratic process that can help people shape our culture in wonderful ways. If someone hijacks this in an attempt to get an unfair advantage and trick readers into buying something that isn't well-written, that undermines a system that has a lot of potential for good. 

But here's the rub. It is extremely difficult for a new and unknown author to get those crucial first 50 reviews that launch an author career. The authors who are most vocal about deriding other authors for reviewing each other are often fairly well established, don't particularly want all the new-author competition and say they got their first reviews from friends and family. How nice for them. I'm glad they have supportive friends and family willing to give them a chance to make a career of writing. I will be grateful to the first readers who posted reviews of my books forever. No matter how many reviews I get in the years to come, those first ones will always carry the most weight because, frankly, none of the other readers ever would have come without those first reviews. 

But let's be honest, I'm not a socialite. I don't have 50 friends who both have Amazon accounts or have the time to read my books soon. Half of my friends don't speak English because I live in the Czech Republic but I write in English. And many of my friends are swamped and have been meaning to read my books but seriously work 12-hour days and simply never get to read for pleasure. We're working-class mostly.  So, if I could only rely on my friends to get those initial reviews (so that other readers could have a chance to see that my books exist) then I wouldn't stand a chance.

Perhaps some new and unknown authors do have that many friends. Maybe they write well and all their friends review their books honestly and glowingly. Perhaps they don't write so well and all their friends review their books glowingly anyway. But this goes back to the purpose of the review system. I want to read books that are well-written, interesting, thought-provoking and entertaining. I do not want to ONLY read books by people who are socially popular, even if those books are good. I also want to read GOOD books by people who are introverts and only have three good close friends (and one of them is a grandmother who barely has electricity let alone an Amazon account). How does an author like that get 50 reviews?

Well, one way authors do it today is by signing up for what is called Read-for-Review programs. You can find these programs on sites like Goodreads and LibraryThing. They are basically places where authors offer to let random people read their book for free in exchange for an honest review. There is a sort of honor code. If you get a free copy, you are supposed to try to review the book within about two weeks. Authors are really really really not allowed to pressure reviewers to give good reviews just because they received a free copy. (And authors are banned from such sites if people report that they pressure reviewers.) Many people on these sites refuse to give one- and two-star reviews and simply refrain from reviewing if they really don't like the book because they don't want to actively hurt an author who is simply struggling to make something coherent and still developing as a writer. But that isn't necessary. It's just the policy of some reviewers. 

Read-for-Review programs are a good way to get free books but you have to choose carefully because anyone can put their book in the program and some of them really are from writers who still need a lot of practice. The reviewers on these sites are generally not there for the freebies. They are there because they care about books and writers and the future of literature. These are mostly people who are there generously offering their time to review books by unknown authors so that the rest of the world can have a better chance of getting to read only the good stuff. About half of the reviewers on these places (in my experience, not a statistical survey) are also authors.

Now, the controversy arises when there are claims that there is pressure from authors for reviewers on these Read-for-Review sites to give only good reviews. And specifically for authors to give other authors only good reviews (or else someone might give them a bad review, whether they deserve it or not). This then makes those reviews less valuable in helping other readers figure out which books are worth investing time and money in. And that is why some authors have taken to vehemently demanding that authors stop reviewing other authors. 

I understand the concern. It isn't non-existent but it is far smaller than it is made out to be. I have so far gained a few reviews on my books from Read-for-Review sites. As far as I know the only reviews on Amazon that I have that are not five-star reviews come from fellow authors from Read-for-Review sites. All my reviews from general readers are 5-star reviews. (Readers apparently like my books and, of course, I'm glad and very grateful.) My experience is not that authors are more generous with their good reviews. My experience is the opposite. I have so far been lucky enough to avoid those certain poisonous individuals who actually go around giving bad reviews to books that seem to be in competition with theirs. But I have received some critical reviews from other authors. Whereas my few general readers have been wildly enthusiastic about The Soul and the Seed and The Fear and the Solace, the first and second books in my series, my fellow authors have picky professional things to say. And that is only natural. They really know something about writing.

Sometimes a fellow author reviewed my book even though it wasn't their favorite genre and even though they say it was a great read, they give it fewer stars because I wrote in the wrong genre for them. Or some of them say they like series that end each book with a nice wrapped up conclusion rather than a continuing story. This is an issue of taste. Some readers like "episodic" series like Harry Potter and The Hunger Games, that make it appear that the protagonist has achieved their goals at the end of each book, only to throw more problems at them in the very beginning of the next book. Other readers prefer "classic" series like The Lord of the Rings or The Outlander Series that keep a cohesive story going over multiple books. I happen to be the latter type of reader. (Harry Potter was really good but I just really loved Rowling's writing. I didn't love the episodic nature of the series. The Hunger Games seriously tanked for me after the first book, largely for this reason.)  

And so I'm also a classic series type of writer. General readers mostly review based on "feeling." If they loved the book and didn't want to put it down to go work, bed or something else, then they give it 5-stars, period. No quibbling. But writers... Well, it's our profession. We know all mechanics, the other things the author could have done but didn't and so forth. As a result, authors are usually tough reviewers.

I have tried to wean myself off of being so ultra critical, since I found out just how many 5-star reviews it takes before an author can make enough money to get time to write more books. Part of my personal review policy is that I try to review books based on how I think they would appeal to readers of their genre. If I'm reading out of my primary genres that means that I will sometimes be more generous with the stars than my own personal inclination suggests because I don't want to deprive readers of, say, hard science fiction of a read they'll love, even if I may not love it. If the book is well-written and as technically good as any other well-known hard science fiction I've read (and I have read a few), then I'll even give it five stars, based on its technical qualities rather than my enjoyment of the book. That's just my policy.

But many authors have a harsher policy than mine. They are very critical of other authors and demand impossibly high standards when compared with what the star rankings actually mean to average readers. I often read three-star reviews by authors on other books that are essentially positive reviews. They liked the book. It had no technical problems. It is good enough to be traditionally published but they weren't amazed by it. It didn't personally change their life, so it only gets three stars. That is their choice, but I feel that makes authors a particularly critical bunch of reviewers on average. 

Lets face it. A book on Amazon needs hundreds of 5-star reviews to allow the author to make a living writing. I read comments by authors all the time saying they reserve 5-star reviews for books that "change their life" or books they "will read many times over again." If all or most Amazon reviewers had that policy, what would happen? How many books truly changed your life? How many do you read over and over again? And do you think those are the only authors who should be able to make a living writing? 

I personally want to see greater variety than just Julia Scheeres, Ann Pettitt, Dianna Gabaldon, Barbara Kingsolver and the estates of J.R.R. Tolkien and Robert Jordan (to name the handful of authors I tend to read over and over again). I love the authors I love but even they get old after awhile. I do want to see more good work by good authors and I even think that authors that don't write in my genre should be able to make a living, if their work is of professional quality and appeals to readers of their genre. So, I am going to give lots of authors who I like 5-star reviews because I know that that is the ONLY way that they will ever be able to write more books. And I have the power to influence that.

I have to conclude that the idea that authors are rampantly reviewing other authors with undeserved 5-star reviews in order to get 5-star reviews in return is somewhat of an urban legend. It probably happens with small groups of close friends but it doesn't seem to happen nearly as often as those who like to fret about it make out. And even when it does happen, it isn't likely to matter enough to make or break the review system. One 1-star review effectively negates five 5-star reviews from a financial perspective because it brings the average down to 4-stars which is the bare minimum for most buyers. So, if an author somehow gets ten other authors to review their book with five stars (good luck trying to find ten who will really do it) and the book is really awful, how many angry readers is it really going to take to make those ten fake reviews irrelevant? Not very many.

And given my experience, I would discourage any new author from trying such a strategy for strategic as well as moral reasons. In my experience seeking out other authors to give you reviews is a good way to get MORE critical reviews of your books than you will get from general readers, not less critical. If you desperately need to get a reasonable number of reviews, which you do in the beginning, then I do recommend going to Goodreads and LibraryThing and other Read-for-Review sites and entering the fray there with a lot of other authors. But don't expect a bunch of 5-star reviews because that isn't what happens in those places.

New Release: The Fear and the Solace (The Kyrennei Series Book Two)

The second book in The Kyrennei Series is being released today in honor of my mother's birthday and the lunar eclipse. Happy birthday, Mama!

What if you had to fight a war you knew you could never win?

Aranka Miko, the girl who carried the hope of resistance against Addin mind control, is lost and assumed to be dead. Despair has always dogged at the heels of those in the desperate fight against the Addin, but now that they've tasted hope, the return of darkness is all the more bitter. 

Twenty-two-year-old Cho is the temporary commander of the J. Company compound in Montana when disaster strikes. The scouting team in Portland, Oregon has been ambushed on the 205 bridge. If they're captured, their souls will be usurped by Addin control. Then Cho will be on her own in this secret world war that can never be won. At least two of her closest friends are dead, the man she loves is at the epicenter of the danger and the one who carries the first hope in a thousand years is lost, almost certainly killed in a rain of bullets. 

Hope is a fragile thing and fear is constant companion. It's the twenty-first century, right now, in America and everything looks just fine on the surface. But a clandestine force controls the highest seats of power and will stop at nothing to stamp out resistance. The ancient Meikan people, like Cho, have lived in terror of the Addin for generations, and those who dare to stand up to its power are shunned as outlaws by their own people. Then a mere girl fulfilled an almost forgotten prophecy and hope briefly flowered in unlikely places. But does a giant even notice the crushing of a single flower? One girl is easy enough to kill.