stupid reason. bein' all...reasonable and shit.
Guys. Guys, there is drama going on. So much that I'm aware of it in my little corner of nowhere where I hide and write silly things about librarians and twinks who can't cook and gamblers and such. I'm not going to call people out, because I don't do that unless I am very, very sure of what I am saying and absolutely certain that the people involved deserve it (and that I am ready for the backlash/shitstorm that always follows), but I have been reading it all and wow, wow. Once again the internet has forgotten that it is run by Real People.
You know, Real People. The ones who read and review stories and who create websites and yes, who also write books. Those are all Things That Are Done By Real People. (And if I need to define Real People *sigh*, then let's say that they are living, breathing people, just like you or me, with responsibilities and jobs and tissue in their pocket for their allergies and sisters who bug them about getting out of the house more and some tasty tequila and lime in the pantry calling their name. Real People...with feelings. If you prick them, do they not bleed?).
The thing with this cray internets of ours is that though it *never forgets*, it also allows for a *lot* of anonymity. And it's a hell of a lot easier to do things we wouldn't do in real life when we aren't looking someone in the eye when we do it. That includes things on both sides of this particular fence, things from potentially plagiarizing (or at least possibly just being unoriginal) to flat out publicly accusing someone of something without knowing all the facts, legal or otherwise.
It's a lot like reviews to me. Years ago when I used to review, the rule was that you *could* go intensely negative if you truly felt the book deserved it, but you had to remember when you did that it had a lasting impact on both you and the author reviewed. I'm not talking sales. I'm taking about what putting out (sometimes unwarranted) negativity does to your name and reputation and what it does to someone who may or may not have written a shitty book (or done a shitty thing) but who might have learned and developed and gotten *better* if the review had been less about being funny and harsh and more about the book itself. Sure, you can call the main characters douchebags if they are douchebags, but what exactly are you adding to the debate, to the creative process, to the community you are a part of? Not to mention that the author's reaction should always be in the back of your mind. (And if I have to explain *that* I will, but honestly, *sigh* again? That means- Did you say that to shock them? To make others laugh? Or did you really feel that, and if so, why? Please 'xplain.)
Acts, words said, thoughts posted, these things all have repercussions. You might not feel them right away in imaginary, anonymous internet-land, but they exist. Stolen ideas (whether this is the case or not) hurt readers and cost authors their audience. They create a sense of betrayal that affects not just the accused or the guilty but everyone around them, including everyone in their field. And public accusations (baseless or not) are not things to be taken lightly and certainly aren't something to be done in the heat of the moment. They can ruin careers and lives and if not that, then at the very least they can ruin someone's joy in something that *should* be joyous.
So yeah, my thoughts, such as they are. A drop in a vast ocean. OR, tl;dr--the next time you are going to write or post something on the internet, imagine you are looking in the face of the person you are writing about, and imagine they are looking back at you.
You know, Real People. The ones who read and review stories and who create websites and yes, who also write books. Those are all Things That Are Done By Real People. (And if I need to define Real People *sigh*, then let's say that they are living, breathing people, just like you or me, with responsibilities and jobs and tissue in their pocket for their allergies and sisters who bug them about getting out of the house more and some tasty tequila and lime in the pantry calling their name. Real People...with feelings. If you prick them, do they not bleed?).
The thing with this cray internets of ours is that though it *never forgets*, it also allows for a *lot* of anonymity. And it's a hell of a lot easier to do things we wouldn't do in real life when we aren't looking someone in the eye when we do it. That includes things on both sides of this particular fence, things from potentially plagiarizing (or at least possibly just being unoriginal) to flat out publicly accusing someone of something without knowing all the facts, legal or otherwise.
It's a lot like reviews to me. Years ago when I used to review, the rule was that you *could* go intensely negative if you truly felt the book deserved it, but you had to remember when you did that it had a lasting impact on both you and the author reviewed. I'm not talking sales. I'm taking about what putting out (sometimes unwarranted) negativity does to your name and reputation and what it does to someone who may or may not have written a shitty book (or done a shitty thing) but who might have learned and developed and gotten *better* if the review had been less about being funny and harsh and more about the book itself. Sure, you can call the main characters douchebags if they are douchebags, but what exactly are you adding to the debate, to the creative process, to the community you are a part of? Not to mention that the author's reaction should always be in the back of your mind. (And if I have to explain *that* I will, but honestly, *sigh* again? That means- Did you say that to shock them? To make others laugh? Or did you really feel that, and if so, why? Please 'xplain.)
Acts, words said, thoughts posted, these things all have repercussions. You might not feel them right away in imaginary, anonymous internet-land, but they exist. Stolen ideas (whether this is the case or not) hurt readers and cost authors their audience. They create a sense of betrayal that affects not just the accused or the guilty but everyone around them, including everyone in their field. And public accusations (baseless or not) are not things to be taken lightly and certainly aren't something to be done in the heat of the moment. They can ruin careers and lives and if not that, then at the very least they can ruin someone's joy in something that *should* be joyous.
So yeah, my thoughts, such as they are. A drop in a vast ocean. OR, tl;dr--the next time you are going to write or post something on the internet, imagine you are looking in the face of the person you are writing about, and imagine they are looking back at you.
date
newest »
newest »
I have to disagree with this part: "Sure, you can call the main characters douchebags if they are douchebags, but what exactly are you adding to the debate, to the creative process, to the community you are a part of? Not to mention that the author's reaction should always be in the back of your mind." 1) Expressing one's opinion is enough, imo. I don't believe there should be more of a purpose than that.
2) Reviews are not for authors. If they are, then that's not a review that's an advertisement plain and simple.
I would like to quote Stacia Kane:
Readers have the right to say whatever the fuck they want about a book. Period. They have that right. If they hate the book because the MC says the word "delicious" and the reader believes it's the Devil's word and only evil people use it, they can shout from the rooftops "This book is shit and don't read it" if they want. If they want to write a review entirely about how much they hate the cover, they can if they want. If they want to make their review all about how their dog Foot Foot especially loved to pee on that particular book, they can.This blog-post was a reaction to month-long drama on Goodreads last month, dubbed YApocalypse. But I think it can be applied here as well, which leads to my third point.
...
The reason why I would have felt awful is because, again, you have no obligation to me at all. None. Zero. Zip. NO reader has ANY obligation to an author, whether it be to leave a review or to write a "constructive" one. I put out a product. You are consumers of that product. Since when does that mean you have to kiss my ass? Hey, I like Pop-Tarts and eat them a few times a year; since when does that mean I'm obligated to support Kellogg's in any way except legally purchasing the Pop-Tarts before I eat them? I wasn't aware that purchasing and consuming a product meant I was under some sort of fucking thrall in which I'm only allowed to either praise the Pop-Tart (which to be honest isn't hard, especially the S'mores flavor) or, if I am going to criticize a flavor, offer a specific and detailed analysis as to why, phrased in as inoffensive and gentle a manner as possible so as not to upset the gentle people at Kellogg's.
source
3) This is the internet, there's always drama. Goodreads is pretty tamed, imo, than over at Amazon or Reddit.
One good thing about the internet is that people can say anything. One bad thing about the internet is that people can say anything. However, unlike real life, you can ignore people's opinion by a simple click on the close button.
MandyM wrote: "-the next time you are going to write or post something on the internet, imagine you are looking in the face of the person you are writing about, and imagine they are looking back at you. Good ad..."
It is but will never work out well on the internet because the internet artificially place emotional distance between the receiver and the sender of message. *thinking back to my Psychology class and the Milgram experiment of long time ago*
And does not work out in real life either. See the mess in the Middle-East, American presidential campaign, Greek debt debacle, whatever the news report.
I love that Stacia Kane article. I hadn't heard of Reddit before you mentioned it but I found a great story from there that just goes to show there are plenty of nice guys on the internet too!;) "I recommend watching this short video. The story behind it is thus. A guy named kivakid went on reddit to ask for help on obtaining the next book of the Harry Turtledove series for his best friend who has terminal cancer. The book doesn’t come out until June and kivakid said his friend might not make it. The reedit community hooked kivakid up and Del Ray sent an early copy of the book to kivakid to give to his friend. Even better, Harry Turtledove agreed to talk to the terminally ill cancer patient and spoil the entire series for him. The internet may be about porn and gifs and bad behavior, but it is also about bringing people closer together and celebrating the joy of reading."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWvFDY...
MandyM wrote: "I love that Stacia Kane article. I hadn't heard of Reddit before you mentioned it but I found a great story from there that just goes to show there are plenty of nice guys on the internet too!;) "..."
That was an exceptional moment for Reddit. Most of the time Reddit are full of — to put it kindly — unpleasant man-children with all the negative stereotypes that you can think of. If you believe drama on Goodreads is bad, it's like that everyday on Reddit. With that said, there are good people over at Reddit, but you'll have to search with a hard eye for them. It's a good place to catch interesting news and argue to your heart's content.
You should read Stacia Kane's two proceeding blog-posts. She have more to say on that matter. =)
Experiment wrote: "You should read Stacia Kane's two proceeding blog-posts. She have more to say on that matter. =)..."Will do.
I don't write a lot of bad reviews, but I've written a couple that were really excoriating. Keeping aside the fact that maybe three people tops ever read them, I always keep it factual, and quote relevant parts of the book. I do try to find something positive to say. I would never give a bad review just because I don't like a character. I've 5-starred books where I loathed both the plot and the characters, because I thought they were thought-provoking and well-written.
But you know, I'm writing reviews so other people like me know exactly what they're getting. Sometimes the writers (or, often, the publishers) aren't respecting the readers, in that they dissemble and mislead about the book. Sometimes the writing simply is bad. Not bad as in, not to my taste: bad by any definition of bad.
When we moderate our bad reviews, aren't we also taking away our credibility when we rave about a book we loved? I follow a GR member who I;ve yet to see give less than 4 stars for anything. I simply don't believe a single review they write.
Any poor review I've written, I would say it to the author's face. But I would buy them a coffee first.
Emma wrote: "I follow a GR member who I;ve yet to see give less than 4 stars for anything..."I think I follow that guy too! lol
I rarely give a one star reviews but when I do they usually deserve it for really bad writing. Only once I gave a one star to a book that I hated for the content but in fact it wasn't that badly written. I would have gone back and changed it but the book's fans gave me such a serve that I left it there just to annoy them!;)
One reason that I like GR very much is its rating system. It's not 'high quality book', or even 'good book'. They're simply based on your feeling toward the book: whether you like it or not. Supposedly, what makes you like the book or don't like the book will show on your review. So, I don't censor myself in terms of saying positive or negative about a book. I simply try to be honest, telling people what I feel after reading them. That's why I have anywhere from 1* to 5* in my reviews. What I try to control, though, is my language. I try to maintain some civility in my reviews, whether they are positive or negative reviews.My concern with the practice of giving ratings or reviews when it's positive is that it leads to selectivity issue. It doesn't reflect the whole range of acceptance of the book.
A review can be negative and/or funny and still make valid points. I've written negative reviews that people have said are funny. When I write a negative review I give reasons why the book didn't work for me and I don't talk about the author as a person. My reviews are about the book as reviews should be.
I understand that authors are real people but I also feel like authors, and all artists really, should be able to separate themselves from their work.
If I say that I don't like an author's book, I am not saying that I don't like them.
...someone who may or may not have written a shitty book (or done a shitty thing) but who might have learned and developed and gotten *better* if the review had been less about being funny and harsh and more about the book itself.
I don't think it is the job of a reviewer to try and make an author a better writer. Reviewers are not there to act as creative writing instructors. If an author takes something away from negative reviews and uses those reviews to improve their craft then that's great. Reviewers, though, shouldn't have to write reviews with the thought that their opinion should help out the author in some way.
Re: The rating system
I have a whole shelf of books that I know are absolutely outrageous, have bad writing and bad characterization. These books entertain me but not many of them have gotten more than 2 stars from me. The beauty of Goodreads though is that you can rate AND review. I love that I can give 2 stars because the quality is not that great but still explain why I enjoyed a book.
People who give every book they read four or five stars...well, that's their choice BUT I tend not to trust those reviews. That's just me though. I pay more attention to people whose reviews and ratings cover a wider range.
Emma wrote: "I don't write a lot of bad reviews, but I've written a couple that were really excoriating. Keeping aside the fact that maybe three people tops ever read them, I always keep it factual, and quote..."
Oh I'm not saying don't write a review that's honest. Or to give *everything* even the shit a shiny happy positive review, I'm saying be honest with a point that's more than just trying to be funny or being mean. Be mean with a point. If you read something truly, truly awful and heinous and offensive and you want no one to read it that book ever and you also want the author to never write again, then go for it, say that. But I would rather say the truth and then help that author, if possible. *I* would. I don't speak for others.
And I am serious. No one has to write a review for me (though I do read ebooks too, and am also a part of that audience and I skip over immature, badly written reviews and the reviewers who write them). No one *has* to keep my feelings in mind, but what I'm saying about internet behavior in general, is that they *should* remember that there are real people who read what they say. You don't have to censor yourself, no one should, but you should try to say only what you would say to someone else's face. (I mean you in the general sense. Not *you*. )
There are LOTS of people who leave thoughtful, interesting, professional reviews, complete with criticism that are fun to read and which help me determine what I'd like to read a whole let better than some, sometimes seemingly random, vitriol. :)
People are always free to say what they want, on the internet or otherwise. I *could* attack people with bad grammar or spelling or typos, I *could* troll blogs of people whose opinions are different from mine and call them names. I could do all those things. I don't. Some people do. I am simply saying what *I* try to do in my daily life, which is to be honest, but in a respectful way. Because the world is shit enough, why add to it?
So if I don't like a book and I felt the need to give a really harsh review, I would (and I have). Then *I* would choose to say why I did, because I am thinking of the readers reading that review, and the industry we are all involved in, and then that there might be a confused author out there.
Is it an obligation to help an author? No. Is it nice to do so? Yup. I am sorry if my words made you feel obligated, or bad or whatever, my point was to try to treat people with respect, not to obligate you. Sure, it would be nice if all other people in the world treated each other with respect, but no one can force them to, can they?
And respect and fawning admiration are not the same thing. I suppose I didn't make that clear. Respect is more like civility and fawning admiration is I think what you think I meant. That could be my fault if I wasn't clear.
Experiment wrote: "MandyM wrote: "-the next time you are going to write or post something on the internet, imagine you are looking in the face of the person you are writing about, and imagine they are looking back at..."I think people trying to make the world a better place is what will do it. But that's where we disagree I suppose.
But you know, I'm writing reviews so other people like me know exactly what they're getting. Sometimes the writers (or, often, the publishers) aren't respecting the readers, in that they dissemble and mislead about the book. Sometimes the writing simply is bad. Not bad as in, not to my taste: bad by any definition of bad. Actually, personally, I like thoughtful criticism (though yeah, some authors, not so much). And there are definitely those groups that inflate the ratings of books that don't deserve it. Thoughtful reviews to me are exactly what I am talking about. Well thought out reviews are respectful to the potential readers and the publishing/mm romance industry and to the authors, and they can be honest and real without being...I'm going to say over the top? Over the top sounds good. Those are the reviews that make me follow reviewers or read those books.
You know, I think a lot of people thought I was attacking them when I wrote this, which is...odd, because I wasn't. I was just trying to get people to calm down a bit. Also, no one ever reads my blog. Surprise! heh
MandyM wrote: "-the next time you are going to write or post something on the internet, imagine you are looking in the face of the person you are writing about, and imagine they are looking back at you. Good ad..."
I didn't think it was that controversial to say it...but I guess it was? Oh dear. O_O
I thought you'd be surprised when you woke up and saw all these comments R!;) I must admit when I read your post I had just come off reading all the kerfuffle over at Dear Author so I was thinking about that too when I responded.
I guess I wasn't clear up there. I never meant to tell people to give books ratings they didn't deserve. My point was about the language and accusations that have been floating around lately and how they reminded me of my old days as a "professional" reviewer. It seriously got so negative on both sides of that mess that I had to get out. (That's what I think happens people actually care less about the review and more about their own reputations...but hat's a story for another time)People can be totally, starkly honest and still not let their reviews devolve to the personal and hateful. I am down for civility. Civil, well done reviews are the ones I read and base my purchases on. I take them far more seriously than I do any other kind of reviews.
Hmm I wonder if I should go up there and clarify? Also, hi, Arthur! I have kind of a crush on the name Arthur right now. So *hai, Arthur!*
MandyM wrote: "I thought you'd be surprised when you woke up and saw all these comments R!;) I must admit when I read your post I had just come off reading all the kerfuffle over at Dear Author so I was thinking ..."Oh no. What happened at Dear Author today?
Just some people getting stuck into one of our (m/m) authors plus criticism of Dreamspinner press. I wouldn't even bother reading it if I were you. Save yourself the headache.
Good advice R!