What did they mean when they said...?

This weekend was not nearly as spectacular as last weekend at the Placentia Library, but I got a little work done, which is always a good thing.

1. I worked a bit on the new book. My mechanic, Allen, gave me an interesting way to tamper with the tire on Peri's car so it goes flat after about a mile, without letting Peri suspect it was sabotaged. I'm thinking of giving him a small part in the book. He's quite a character.

2. I re-did the "Where's Gayle?" page of my website, so that I have actual calendar pages with events listed and links to those events. I think it's easier to find things, although I'm now thinking I should work on it a little more so you can go directly to a month, instead of scrolling through January to get to April. Of course, I'm assuming that anyone wants to know where I am, which may be a great leap of ego on my part.

3. I added a page to my author pages to list some of the very kind reviews from folks about Freezer Burn, which brings me to my question(s) of the day…

As a book reader, how important are reviews to you? And, in keeping with that theme, how important is the source of the review?

Here's the thing: I'm getting really nice reviews from people. Some of them are from "professional" book reviewers who've posted on Amazon and other places. I have a lovely review from my friend and humor-mentor, Gordon Kirkland, and one from the delightful Mr. Dino Martin Peters on his I Love Dino Martin blog. And then I have some great reviews from regular Joes (and Janes), if you will.

Does a review only matter if it's from Publisher's Weekly or an incredibly famous person? I mean, if the debut author happens to know a reviewer on the PW staff, or the incredibly famous person, and asks for a review, they're probably going to get, at the very least, an ambiguously nice one. "A well-written thriller from a promising new novelist" doesn't sound like wild applause to me.

Then there are the reviewers (famous and not-so-much) who don't post reviews if they didn't like the book. This is fine, except there's no way to mark a book "not reviewed by X", because if there was, it would automatically be known they didn't like it. When I see 5 stars from a reviewer on all of their reviews, I start to wonder if they like everything, have no taste in reading material, or are paid for their opinion.

Or does it carry more weight if Joe Schmo says, "What a great story"? Unless I'm related to Uncle Schmo, or his best buddy, shouldn't a reader who doesn't owe me diddley-squat carry more weight than another writer? Especially another writer who may want me to return the favor.

Let's say you go into a bookstore, just looking for new reading material. You see a cover that catches your eye. You read the jacket blurb and find the plot intriguing. Maybe you read the first page, or perhaps give it the "page 99 test" - is Page 99 as fascinating as Page 1? Is there any point in there where you read any review blurbs on the book? And do the reviews actually influence you?

By contrast, maybe it's two a.m. and you can't sleep so you're shopping on Amazon for a different author in a genre you like. Without Page 99, how important are the reviews?

Tell me what draws you to a book as a reader. Then, next, I have some questions for writers.