Authors Unwelcome
It goes without saying that one should not pester a reviewer to change a bad review but recently I've been made more aware of an increasingly vocal subset of readers who would prefer that author never make themselves known. Period.
This group believes that an author sharing insights or joining in on a conversation is harrassing and that even thanking someone for.a review or (god forbid) giving a review a thumbs up is harrassment. There is, it seems, no line between a like and showing up at someone's house to threaten them until they give you 5 stars. Simply expressing the hope that readers leave a review can be seen by some as crossing the line. They do not, so they'll scream relentlessly, owe you a review...which is apparently what "it'd be nice if more readers left reviews" says to them.
This may seem hyperbolic but it extends beyond an author's own works. Anne Rice showing up at a Lestat book club may be a nightmare to this group but what if Anne happened to like Margaret Atwood's work and wanted to join a FB group discisussing The Handmaid's Tale? Well, these people would have her use a pen name and would kick her the second she makes reference to her work or to being a writer. I have been kicked from groups myself simply for saying that I've trusted GR groups enough to list my own books on them.
To me this practice is bizarre and extremely toxic. One expects a writer to be a fan and to want to discuss books, or at least I would. If I went to a Star Wars book club and heard Drew Karpacyn was in attendance I'd be elated...not on the phone with the cops. Yet I am frequently being told that my opinion, my voice is unwelcome. That readers don't want to know what I think...even about my own work. This has gone to the point of saying that they'd never read/review my books and would discourage others from doing so because I *gasp* commented on reviews and showed an interest in conversation.
The snark in this blog post will, hopefully, be clear. I find this attitude to be dehumanizing. Authors shut themselves up alone and work for months or years on end to craft their stories only to emerge and be told that your hard work is appreciated only if you shut up and go the hell away? Time was authors would put their mailing address in the back of books so fans could write them with questions and comments. Now, when we are more connected than ever, authors are expected to isolate themselves so readers can have a "safe space" to discuss the books they love.
A wall is being built between "writer" and "reader" and I can't see how that could possibly be a good thing for either.
This group believes that an author sharing insights or joining in on a conversation is harrassing and that even thanking someone for.a review or (god forbid) giving a review a thumbs up is harrassment. There is, it seems, no line between a like and showing up at someone's house to threaten them until they give you 5 stars. Simply expressing the hope that readers leave a review can be seen by some as crossing the line. They do not, so they'll scream relentlessly, owe you a review...which is apparently what "it'd be nice if more readers left reviews" says to them.
This may seem hyperbolic but it extends beyond an author's own works. Anne Rice showing up at a Lestat book club may be a nightmare to this group but what if Anne happened to like Margaret Atwood's work and wanted to join a FB group discisussing The Handmaid's Tale? Well, these people would have her use a pen name and would kick her the second she makes reference to her work or to being a writer. I have been kicked from groups myself simply for saying that I've trusted GR groups enough to list my own books on them.
To me this practice is bizarre and extremely toxic. One expects a writer to be a fan and to want to discuss books, or at least I would. If I went to a Star Wars book club and heard Drew Karpacyn was in attendance I'd be elated...not on the phone with the cops. Yet I am frequently being told that my opinion, my voice is unwelcome. That readers don't want to know what I think...even about my own work. This has gone to the point of saying that they'd never read/review my books and would discourage others from doing so because I *gasp* commented on reviews and showed an interest in conversation.
The snark in this blog post will, hopefully, be clear. I find this attitude to be dehumanizing. Authors shut themselves up alone and work for months or years on end to craft their stories only to emerge and be told that your hard work is appreciated only if you shut up and go the hell away? Time was authors would put their mailing address in the back of books so fans could write them with questions and comments. Now, when we are more connected than ever, authors are expected to isolate themselves so readers can have a "safe space" to discuss the books they love.
A wall is being built between "writer" and "reader" and I can't see how that could possibly be a good thing for either.
date
newest »
newest »
Brittain *Needs a Nap and a Drink* wrote: "Shawna wrote: "Brittain *Needs a Nap and a Drink* wrote: "Shawna wrote: "Brittain *Needs a Nap and a Drink* wrote: "For me, authors need to stay away from reviews in general. Saying "thank you" or ..."...I'm a little confused. Those comments are the only ones I'm talking about.
"The concern is when you get messages saying "let's talk about this review so we can take it from a 1 star to a 3 star" which implies that your opinion is somehow incorrect. Or when an author says that you "read a book wrong" or "are just not getting the point"."
The first sentence was meant to address exactly this sort of behavior. I don't disagree at all that that's wrong.
I get being wary but to try and say an author should never comment seems like an extreme over correction.
Shawna wrote: "Brittain *Needs a Nap and a Drink* wrote: "Shawna wrote: "Brittain *Needs a Nap and a Drink* wrote: "Shawna wrote: "Brittain *Needs a Nap and a Drink* wrote: "For me, authors need to stay away from..."We are generally in agreement. I just wanted to make a point about professionalism in authors. Saying thank you or something similar should always be okay.
Shawna wrote: ".You cannot effect the honesty of a review after it has been posted. Commenting with a "thank you" or other such good pr message is something which ."You can edit a review on good reads at any time, people do it often do so.
Emily wrote: "Shawna wrote: ".You cannot effect the honesty of a review after it has been posted. Commenting with a "thank you" or other such good pr message is something which ."You can edit a review on good ..."
And reviewers have been harassed into deleting reviews as well.
Brittain *Needs a Nap and a Drink* wrote: "Shawna wrote: "Brittain *Needs a Nap and a Drink* wrote: "Shawna wrote: "Brittain *Needs a Nap and a Drink* wrote: "Shawna wrote: "Brittain *Needs a Nap and a Drink* wrote: "For me, authors need to..."I wouldn’t say always as some take offense at even that, so I’d say do it at your own risk.
It wouldn’t bother me, but others do feel differently.
Emily wrote: "Shawna wrote: ".You cannot effect the honesty of a review after it has been posted. Commenting with a "thank you" or other such good pr message is something which ."You can edit a review on good ..."
It doesn't change what it originally said and the people who've read it. I mean, you could theoretically get a review changed fast enough for it to matter but you'd have to read it, contact the reviewer, convince them to change it, etc It'd be one hell of a hassle and its something that's pretty easy to identify with archiving.
Shawna wrote: "It doesn't change what it originally said and the people who've read it. I mean, you could theoretically get a review changed fast enough for it to matter..."Okay, that's a serious stretch. Frankly, the only people who are waiting breathlessly for reviews are authors. The rest of us will get to it when we get to it, and for a variety of reasons. (Maybe I'm following someone's reviews, for example.) I didn't read any of the reviews for your books until yesterday. An "edited" review, or the absence of a poor review, would have impacted that experience. So, yes, the presence of an author in the process is a sticky business in that it risks altering the authenticity of the environment she enters. If you're willing to mess with that? It's really up to you.
Emily wrote: "Is the librarians probably going to do anything? More likely not, but if you get reported a bunch maybe."Librarians definitely won't do anything - we are volunteers not staff.
While I personally don't mind if the author likes my review, I don't want to enter into any discussions with them.
Carol She's So Novel꧁꧂ wrote: "Emily wrote: "Is the librarians probably going to do anything? More likely not, but if you get reported a bunch maybe."Librarians definitely won't do anything - we are volunteers not staff.
Whi..."
I’ll also add that if something is a TOS violation one report is enough, if it’s not then numerous reports will do nothing.
And yeah, Librarians don’t handle TOS violations.
Antigone wrote: "Shawna wrote: "It doesn't change what it originally said and the people who've read it. I mean, you could theoretically get a review changed fast enough for it to matter..."Okay, that's a serious..."
Um, my point was that its a stretch to think an author would go that far to get a review changed. Some may try but I don't think its a worthwhile enough endeavor for it to be a serious concern.
Shawna wrote: "Um, my point was that its a stretch to think an author would go that far to get a review changed..."And my point is that it's interesting you imagine an author has to do anything other than be present to get a review changed, for better or for worse. No matter how many people try to tell you this, it just doesn't seem to be a prospect you're willing to entertain. It's not about triggers, Shawna. It's about human behavior. And as someone who specializes in the literary genre you do, it's sort of a surprise this is meeting with such resistance.
Shawna wrote: "Um, my point was that its a stretch to think an author would go that far to get a review changed.Not at all, it happens all the time. Has been a problem for years. Just a few weeks ago an author targeted and harassed multiple reviewers, succeeding in getting one to delete her negative review on Amazon, and removing her rating here. PMd several others, trying to intimidate them into removing theirs, then when they refused spotlighted a review on her blog, complete with user name, calling them out for further harassment.
But, this has already been repeatedly explained to you before, you simply do not care.
Some may try but I don't think its a worthwhile enough endeavor for it to be a serious concern. "
What you think doesn't alter reality. Nor are you the arbitrator of what is, and is not a "serious concern" regarding consumer rights and honest reader reviews.
It's successful enough that many readers now won't post a review anymore unless it's positive, at least 4 stars. Others won't review self-pubbed or indie books anymore. Many, many others.
There are multiple forms of influence and intimidation. Some of it subtle, some of it not. None of it is good.
The consumer review system has already been polluted, and it's getting worse.
But, bottom line, you're gonna do whatever you please, none of these things matter in the least to you. And you think you can just hand-wave away what long time, habitual, GR and Amazon users are telling you has been and is going on.
Fine, do what you want.
Antigone wrote: "And my point is that it's interesting you imagine an author has to do anything other than be present to get a review changed, for better or for worse."It's even worse than that. Just knowing an author has a habit of reading their reviews is often enough to motivate people to modify what they would have said. It naturally consciously or unconsciously skews reviews to the positive, because most people are uncomfortable skewering a book if they know the author is likely to be reading what they say.
It's really just common sense, for those who can put themselves in someone else's shoes and give it a little thought.
Therefore, ensuring readers are aware an author does read their reviews is a subtle form of review manipulation. For some it is unintentional, without realizing the impact, Shawna however is not unaware. Therefore I have to conclude she either doesn't care about the impact, or it's in actuality what she wants.
Nikki "The Crazie Betty" V. wrote: "I actually have to agree with Kara here. I don't personally take any issue whatsoever with authors commenting on reviews I've posted. Once they are out there, they are free to the public which mean..."I agree. It really depends on the genre. Fantasy readers usually like having the authors interact with them. Could it be on Goodreads reviews, groups or Reddit groups.
Mark Lawrence is very active on Goodreads. He reads books, reviews them and discusses them on groups but he also promotes his work and speaks about them with courious readers. He is a good example of an authors that knows how to be an author and a reader at the same time.
Another one is Robin Hobb. She is less active thant M.L but I think she juggles her two hats well ;)
Antigone wrote: "Shawna wrote: "Um, my point was that its a stretch to think an author would go that far to get a review changed..."And my point is that it's interesting you imagine an author has to do anything o..."
I don't understand your thinking here. It seems like in your mind someone would dislike a book, give it (for example) a 2 star and write out their criticisms, post it, then see that the author commented "thank you" on another review, get scared, and go back through upping it to 5 stars and claiming the book was perfect?
Reviews are *public* anyone who thinks an author can't see them has seriously misinderstood what that means.
Alexandra wrote: "Shawna wrote: "Um, my point was that its a stretch to think an author would go that far to get a review changed.Not at all, it happens all the time. Has been a problem for years. Just a few weeks..."
How many times do I have to say that that is not the behavior I'm talking about before the message gets through?
I am talking about saying thank you not PMing and threatening reviewers. Please get that through your head. If thank you intimidates you then you need to get your hang ups figured out.
Shawna wrote: "...I am talking about saying thank you not PMing and threatening reviewers."That's not all you've been talking about. Quick recap from your statements in this thread:
"An author sharing insights or joining in on a conversation..."
"Expressing hope that readers leave a response..."
"One expects a writer to be a fan and to want to discuss books..."
"The readers don't want to know what I think...even about my own work."
"I'm just talking about joining in on a conversation as an equal..."
"In order to overcome the lack of desire to review the author must build a dialogue with readers."
Well, you've got a dialogue going now. A dialogue in which you have made it abundantly clear that you don't understand or appreciate perspectives that differ from your own and are sincerely frustrated with how long it's taking for your "message to get through." You've accused several of us of having triggers, hang ups, and just generally misunderstanding public forums as a whole. Will this influence the number of people who read your books, or the manner in which they review them? I don't know. It might.
Antigone wrote: "In order to overcome the lack of desire to review the author must build a dialogue with readers.".Wow, talk about Shawna completely ignoring what readers say on that topic. SMH.
"A dialogue in which you have made it abundantly clear that you don't understand or appreciate perspectives that differ from your own and are sincerely frustrated with how long it's taking for your "message to get through."'
Yeah, I'm getting the distinct impression this is just another attempt to try to get readers to capitulate to her point of view regarding reader reviews.
Another who needs to learn: Consumer reviews are NOT for the author.
She certainly has no respect or regard for readers who do not agree with her perspective, which isn't a wise PR move to display publicly where readers gather.
Antigone wrote: "Shawna wrote: "...I am talking about saying thank you not PMing and threatening reviewers."That's not all you've been talking about. Quick recap from your statements in this thread:
"An author s..."
It seems you've (intentionally or not) misunderstood everything I've said. Let me see if I can straighten these out.
"Sharing insights or joining in on a conversation..."
Yes, like "oh, funny you mention the title. I'm seeing that a lot. I was thinking more in terms of the 90's gay best friend's stereotypical usage." Something that adds to the conversation without arguing with the review. A fun fact as a thank you.
"Expressing hope that the reader leave a response..."
This refers to ad tweets or FB posts saying things like "hey, check out my book and maybe leave a review" as well as emails sent when someone wins a giveaway contest that include "please leave a review if you can." That's it. No PMs, no pestering, not even following up.
"One expects a writer to be a fan..."
This was an explanation of why a writer would want to comment and why those who enjoy hearing from authors enjoy it. I don't see what this one has to do with how you are interpreting me.
"The readers don't want to know what i think...even about my own words."
This was an attempt to paraphrase responses to me. To understand the other side.
"I'm just talking about joining in on a conversation as an equal..."
Yes and then I go on to explain that a work, once its put out, belongs equally to the reader and writer. The author is not the be all and end all of its interpretation.
"In order to overcome the lack of motivation to review..."
This is in reference to my views on the effects of demonstrating that a writer welcomes the readers' thoughts and will not be hostile towards them if they don't like a work.
You have stated, openly and repeatedly, that you have triggers and hang ups. You have posted over and over about how seeing a "thank you" comment evokes thoughts about stories where authors (who are not me) have stalked and harassed readers. You have stated that this fear makes you not want to review . All the while you've equated my views on saying "thank you" or sharing insights as an equal with those writers who harass and pester as if the two acts are even remotely similar.
I can only respond to what you type...but I, at least, consider the whole context.
Aniketa wrote: "Mark Lawrence is very active on Goodreads. He reads books, reviews them and discusses them on groups but he also promotes his work and speaks about them with courious readers. He is a good example of an authors that knows how to be an author and a reader at the same time.Another one is Robin Hobb. She is less active thant M.L but I think she juggles her two hats well ;) "
Good examples of author interaction here :D I certainly could be wrong, but as far as I've seen neither has made a habit of commenting on reviews of their own books.
Rather, they do pretty much what I've advised Shawna to do, engage as a reader with other readers regarding the books of other authors, and be inviting about readers who would like to talk to them about their books in groups and on their author page.
Shawna would do well to emulate their examples.
This feels like a "not all men" argument. Sure, not all authors do this. But enough have to the point where reviewers have now become cautious.
Brittain *Needs a Nap and a Drink* wrote: "This feels like a "not all men" argument. Sure, not all authors do this. But enough have to the point where reviewers have now become cautious."We've hit the author-splaining part of the program ;)
Shawna wrote: "You have stated, openly and repeatedly, that you have triggers and hang ups. You have posted over and over about how seeing a "thank you" comment evokes thoughts about stories where authors (who are not me) have stalked and harassed readers. You have stated that this fear makes you not want to review. All the while you've equated my views on saying "thank you" or sharing insights as an equal with those writers who harass and pester as if the two acts are even remotely similar.I can only respond to what you type...but I, at least, consider the whole context"
Who are you talking to? This is Antigone. I stated none of this. I posted none of this. I have, not once, equated you with a writer who harasses or pesters. I have, not once, claimed to be fearful to review under any circumstance. And I don't know what exchange you're reading, but I haven't seen anyone other than you dismiss a legitimate concern over undue influence as some form of trigger or hang up.
You know, you keep saying this is a public forum and what's written here can be read by anyone. Perhaps it's time to go back and do a little reading?
Alexandra wrote: "Aniketa wrote: "Mark Lawrence is very active on Goodreads. He reads books, reviews them and discusses them on groups but he also promotes his work and speaks about them with courious readers. He is..."That is unfortunately true, the cautious part, and I want to see that changed by engaging in positive practices. Silence will only grow the paranoia.
Antigone wrote: ""You have stated, openly and repeatedly, that you have triggers and hang ups. You have posted over and over about how seeing a "thank you" comment evokes thoughts about stories where authors (who are not me) have stalked and harassed readers. You have stated that this fear makes you not want to review. All the while you've equated my views on saying "thank you" or sharing insights as an equal with those writers who harass and pester as if the two acts are even remotely similar."I haven't said that, either. Never once have I said I had "triggers and hang ups", haven't seen anyone here say it, but have seen Shawna accuse others of it. That is her narrow-minded judgement regarding people who have a different perspective they've attempted to explain.
Never once have I stated I had "fear" that "makes" me "not want to review". My profile is private, but this is visible: "1272 reviews" which attests to how scared I am to post a review ;)
I am also one who is still willing to read and post a review for self-pubbed and indie books, unlike many, many other readers who no longer will. And I understand why.
What I have said is twisted around or shrugged off. Explanations ignored. What we have said Shawna clearly is either incapable or unwilling to understand.
Antigone wrote: "Shawna wrote: "You have stated, openly and repeatedly, that you have triggers and hang ups. You have posted over and over about how seeing a "thank you" comment evokes thoughts about stories where ...""And my point is that it's interesting you imagine an author has to do anything other than be present to get a review changed, for better or for worse. No matter how many people try to tell you this, it just doesn't seem to be a prospect you're willing to entertain. It's not about triggers, Shawna. It's about human behavior. And as someone who specializes in the literary genre you do, it's sort of a surprise this is meeting with such resistance." - Message 71 by Antigone (that's you right?)
Your point, as I understand it, is that knowing an author reads their reviews may intimidate reviewers who have had bad experiences in the past. The problem is that this treats all comments as the same and ignores instances where it provides a positive experience that counteracts those negatives and encourages reviewers to review more.
All I'm talking about is authors being sociable. All you seem to be talking about is authors being harassing. The difference is that I've heard your point and you have ignored mine.
Alexandra wrote: "Antigone wrote: ""You have stated, openly and repeatedly, that you have triggers and hang ups. You have posted over and over about how seeing a "thank you" comment evokes thoughts about stories whe..."I use the terms "triggers" and "hang ups" to paraphrase my understanding of your argument. I don't much like the terms either given their baggage but they do sum up the behavior you seem to be describing.
I am also not disregarding your position. I simply don't agree with it. Agreement is not a prerequisite for understanding.
Shawna wrote: "Your point, as I understand it, is that knowing and author reads their reviews may intimidate readers who have had bad experiences in the past."Not my point at all. First off, you're not going to know an author is present unless she posts something. A like, a thank you, a clarification, whatever. What I'm saying is that an author's involvement brings with it the risk of influence. Not intimidation. Influence. That's it. That's all. That's my entire point. I don't think you're making the distinction between intimidation and influence. And I think it's causing you all sorts of problems here...at least with me. Because I do make that distinction.
Antigone wrote: "Shawna wrote: "Your point, as I understand it, is that knowing and author reads their reviews may intimidate readers who have had bad experiences in the past."Not my point at all. First off, you'..."
Influence based on what? You seem to argue that the influence comes from a fear of offending the author.
Shawna wrote: "Influence based on what? You seem to argue that the influence comes from a fear of offending the author."Nope. A positive interaction with an author can be as influential as a negative one. It is a rare reviewer who can maintain his objectivity under such circumstances, and the long-standing school of thought on the matter is that he should not be put into that position in the first place. This is not simply my opinion. I'm not pulling this concern out of thin air. Books have been written on the subject. Customs established. Distances retained.
In my opinion? Do whatever you want. You want to be sociable? Be sociable. You want to like reviews and thank people? Go ahead and like reviews and thank people. Just be aware that there are legions of readers who will steer clear of such situations, and someday you might find it frustrating that they just won't give your novels a shot.
And it won't be because they're afraid. It's simply not going to work for them, so they'll move on to the next author.
Antigone wrote: "Shawna wrote: "Influence based on what? You seem to argue that the influence comes from a fear of offending the author."Nope. A positive interaction with an author can be as influential as a nega..."
Are you thinking of the professional review industry established back in the days before the internet was a common avenue for social interaction?
You are aware that it has been common practice for almost a century now to include questions about reviewer criticisms in author interviews right? The author isn't supposed to have a personal relationship with the reviewer in the sense of lunch dates and personal interactions (without the reviewer noting such biases) but there's never been anything to say that an author should not be aware of their reviews and what critics have said about their work.
What you are saying sounds exactly like fear to me and if someone can't stand having people be aware of their opinions then I would encourage them not to make those opinions public. That's really just common sense.
Okay so you are saying that you don't want people to review your books. Cool.
Shawna wrote: "What you are saying sounds exactly like fear to me and if someone can't stand having people be aware of their opinions then I would encourage them not to make those opinions public. That's really just common sense."Again, no. Reviewers expect to be read. Popular reviewers expect to be read by authors. I know you're having a problem with this, but it doesn't change the fact that many, many reviewers have absolutely no interest in hearing from an author. None. Not afraid of it. Just not interested. At all. As far as those reviewers are concerned, the author spoke when she wrote the book. The reviewer responded when he read it. Conversation over. It's not about fear. And yes, the fanfiction universe has muddied these waters for those attempting to make the transition to literary publication. Yet a transition must be made.
If that doesn't make sense to you? Then it just doesn't make sense to you, and we're both going to have to be okay with that.
Antigone wrote: "Shawna wrote: "What you are saying sounds exactly like fear to me and if someone can't stand having people be aware of their opinions then I would encourage them not to make those opinions public. ..."The reviewer doesn't expect a comment, even a thank you. Ok, well if you post things on a public forum without specifying that then it can happen. *shrug*
The problem I have is with the claim that this somehow changes the review. Wouldn't a reviewer who posts a negative review, gets a thank you, and then changes it to a positive review lose all credibility with their....I'm going to say followers just to not confuse the reviewer's readers with the author's readers.
Antigone wrote: "Reviewers expect to be read. Popular reviewers expect to be read by authors. I know you're having a problem with this, but it doesn't change the fact that many, many reviewers have absolutely no interest in hearing from an author. None. Not afraid of it. Just not interested. At all. As far as those reviewers are concerned, the author spoke when she wrote the book. The reviewer responded when he read it. Conversation over. It's not about fear. "^THIS
And whatever she chooses she can’t claim ignorance on this topic.
Antigone wrote: "And yes, the fanfiction universe has muddied these waters for those attempting to make the transition to literary publication. Yet a transition must be made."She’s comparing retail publishing to fan fiction? LOL
I'm just going to make one more comment & then leave this discussion.I have an author friend on GR who is very forthright with a lot of opinions. She also posts about her issues as a SPA, the publishing industry & as far as I know has never complained about a review. She definitely engages as a reader in a group we are both members of & warns fellow SPas not to just join reader groups for the purpose of getting reviews.I like her a lot.
But I would be very wary about reading one of her books (she has asked me) just because of a throwaway comment she made about how 3⍟ reviews hurt authors. That comment would be in the back of my head if I reviewed one of her works.
Over & out! 😉
Alexandra wrote: "She's comparing retail publishing to fan fiction? LOL"I don't think she's aware of it, but yes, this is the barbed wire she's caught on. A lot of these self-published and indie authors came up the ranks through fan fiction and are used to a very interactive relationship with their readership. Publishers and PR departments don't help the matter by pushing an author's Internet presence without providing specifics in terms of the tenor, the substance, and the boundaries of these reader relationships, especially with regard to potential reviews. Those are money-makers and, as such, carry a weight they simply don't possess in the fanfiction universe. I'll bet no one in the publishing arena who happened across this thread would be very pleased with it. But that's what you get when you throw authors to the wind like this.
Antigone wrote: "Alexandra wrote: "She's comparing retail publishing to fan fiction? LOL"I don't think she's aware of it, but yes, this is the barbed wire she's caught on. A lot of these self-published and indie ..."
The amateur writing community can be great, but there’s a world of difference between that and publishing as a professional product for retail sale as a professional.
Someone should familiarize themselves with the business before entering into it
The Just-About-Cocky Ms M wrote: "Exactly. None of the authors--real ones who are professionals in every sense of the word, and published by real publishing companies, not indies, not pay to publish, not hybrids--interact with read..."This sort of entitled, superior, “I’ll tell readers how it is supposed to be” attitude is promoted in some author groups where they serve as echo chambers. Unsurprisingly, they nearly always simply fade back in obscurity.
It’s those that focus on learning the craft, producing a professional quality product and behave as professionals, properly understanding the relationship between product sellers and product buyers that have a chance at a successful business.
When an author behaves like an amateur most often their book is amateurish.
I don't think saying "thank you" or noting corrections is a bad thing at all. I never said that was something to be discouraged. Those are non-threatening and a easy way to acknowledge the fact that reviewers are doing all this for free.
The concern is when you get messages saying "let's talk about this review so we can take it from a 1 star to a 3 star" which implies that your opinion is somehow incorrect. Or when an author says that you "read a book wrong" or "are just not getting the point".
I am not scared of authors in general but rather wary when I see that one is engaging with a reader over their own book. I have seen it slide downhill quickly and it just makes me sad.