There are some writers out there who have acquired fame as tough reviewers because of their harsh, nasty, mean reviews. What, in your opinion, is behind their philosophy?

I think some reviewers want to stand out from the crowd by offering a contrasting opinion, but some are just too mean. Whenever I write a review about something that I really didn't like, I always try to say something good about it. After all, it's never all bad, and there has to be something valuable to offer the reader.

Mean reviews can be as bad as overly gushy reviews, and it can make the reviewer look ignorant, especially if their critical opinion is so off the wall that it just doesn't make sense. So maybe those who write snarky reviews are just trying to get attention, I don't really know.

If a book is terrible, do you think a reviewer should write and publish the review, or should she decline to write it?

It depends on how bad it is. I've reviewed books that I thought were terrible, but I still wrote the review and took a little extra time to explain why I thought it was terrible (it's easier to write reviews on stuff you enjoy, by the way). When I send the review to the promotional person who took the time to send me the advanced review copy, I usually get a response thanking me for the honest opinion, even if it might not be the opinion they'd like to read. Also, I've had authors write me back respectfully disagreeing, creating an intriguing and thoughtful dialogue about the book. It's opened up new insights into my approaches as a reader as well. So far, I haven't had an author write back with a nasty comment, and I always approach my negative reviews with civility and respect because I see it as the beginning of a debate, not as a chance to destroy a writer's career.

If a book was so bad that it wasn't readable, I'd send it back. But that's another issue.

In your opinion, how influential are reviews on the consumer?

I personally think back cover blurbs are more influential in terms of actual book purchasing, at least for me. I do read reviews to discover new books, but I usually read the reviews after reading the book because I like to discover someone else's opinions of the book; it helps solidify and confirm my own opinions.

What do you look for in a book review?

I look for the ability to see the book as part of a culture, not just as part of an author's bibliography or as part of a "market." The review has to go beyond plot summary, and has to have some type of critical argument that's clearly expressed throughout the whole review. I'm more interested in hearing an original, though-provoking perspective on the book than I am about finding out the plot details of the book.