To be honest I find that writers are the best reviewer's. Realizing that I may precipitate a flame war I have found that Bocca and Lex are among the best reviewers that I have read (I always read the other reviews when writing mine) and they are also reasonably active writers. Woodsman's game is an excellent writer (sometimes even better than Lex or Bocca) and her reviews are preceptive but she just doesn't review enough. Ah Hah! That should keep things going for a while.

In academia writing and reviewing go hand and hand because whether or not you get published depends on the results of screening by anonymous reviewers. If the two or three reviewers your paper is sent off to don't like your work, it doesn't get published! And there are usually at least four categories: Accept without revision; Accept with revision (editorial review only); Revise and resubmitt for re-review; and DON'T EVER DARKEN MY DOOR WITH THIS DOG AGAIN. In my whole career I have only had about half a dozen manuscripts get the accept as is. Most get the middle two grades.

In my fiction I love a cogent review with a mediocre rating more than a high rating with an illiterate review.


Well, that should spark some controversy