The Machiavellist's Guide to Reviewing

Greetings and salutations, fellow writers and reviewers!

I'm writing to alert you to one simple fact: every writer is your competition! I have compiled this treatise to instruct you on the most effective method for reviewing a writer's piece of literature in order to maintain your competitive edge.

I have perused the pages of reviews here at WDC, as I am wont to do, and I have noted expressions of general goodwill from reviewer to writer. I have seen many examples of "This is great work!", "Keep writing!", and the ever popular "Holy crap, this is fantastic!" These shameful lies must come to an end if you are ever going to break away from this pack of bottom-feeders we call "colleagues."

In order to become a skilled reviewer, one must be practiced in the art of sabotage. This being an online forum, and us separated by great distances, physical sabotage like stealing the writer's computer or breaking his hands is somewhat out of the question. The ambitious reviewer may certainly take these methods into consideration. The rest of us, too intimidated to step out from behind the thick veil of anonymity we call the Internet, will need more practical tactics.

The most efficient weapon in a reviewer's arsenal is the writer's own insecurity. Let's face facts, us writers are a pathetic lot. We are incredibly apprehensive, and we overcompensate by pretending to be intellectuals and artists. Outwardly, we are guarded, distant, and pretentious. Inwardly, we are scared, lonely folk with no real purpose. We write for no other reason than to attain recognition in order to build our confidence so we may one day be productive members of society. The skilled reviewer can utilize these shortcomings to his or her own advantage.

Contrary to popular belief, the reviewer's purpose is to break down the writer's confidence by writing misleading reviews and comments. Any line of text that is written poorly, contains grammatical errors, and/or spelling mistakes should be praised, or at the very least, overlooked. Conversely, each line of text that flows beautifully and appears to trump even your best work must be derided.

For instance, given the line "I was at the store and my foots falled off," the reviewer will write, "Beautifully stated! The imagery of both of your foots falling off simultaneously moved me to tears. Pure Shakespeare!" On the other hand, if the reviewer was to read "Before she could protest, I pressed my lips to hers, enveloping her perfect, supple body within my arms." The reviewer must ignore the inherent beauty, meanwhile focusing on any cliches. It might help the reviewer to state that this passage comes off as pretentious and wordy. Do not be afraid to emphasize your extreme displeasure. The point here is to discourage the writer from trusting his God-given talent.

As for ratings, there is only one rule. The skilled reviewer knows that anything above a 1.5 is a scandalous lie and should be avoided. There are no exceptions to this rule.

If you follow the preceding guidelines as you are reviewing your fellow writers' works of mediocrity, remember that you are infinitely better than them. Do not let their inferiority stand in the way of your success. Instead, simply debase their works, thus eroding their tenacity to carry themselves forward.