I've been reflecting on how the common argument against paying book reviewers is that book reviews would no longer be "objective" or would be "biased" if we're paid.

... do y'all realise that there's no such thing as a "purely" "objective" and "bias-free" book review.

The thing that gets me about these arguments for 'objective' book reviews is we still get reviews that say,

"didn't get the worldbuilding"
"couldn't connect with the characters"
"not educational enough"

How are these "objective"? How is objectivity relevant in these reviews?

I want people to understand that book reviews aren't objective vs subjective evaluations of a book.

Any book review you write is intertwined with your own personal lens; shaped by your experiences, identities, which then shapes how you understand and engage with a book.

I'm tired of this weird conflation that negative book reviews are usually more objective and that positive book reviews are more subjective.

What if we valued reviews because they helped us understand a book better,
and less of whether the reviewer thought the book was good/bad?