Hrm...
Sometimes I feel guilty because I don't get over here as often as I feel like I should. And then I show up and see vague allusions to Writer -vs- Reviewer 'wars' and it makes me kinda glad I suck at the Internet.
I read a pretty decent commentary on reviews the other day. It’s worth a look. Points about both reviewers and writers, so something for everyone.
I read a pretty decent commentary on reviews the other day. It’s worth a look. Points about both reviewers and writers, so something for everyone.
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Kaje
(new)
Apr 10, 2012 05:51PM
Interesting link - thanks. I think that's something Goodreads teaches me as an author, given the number and vehemence of the reviews here - not to take any single review too much to heart, good or bad. But I think reports of "wars" may be overstated. Other than a small number of constitutionally grumpy folks, reviewers here have been articulate when disappointed, and more often very kind.
reply
|
flag
Kaje wrote: "Interesting link - thanks. I think that's something Goodreads teaches me as an author, given the number and vehemence of the reviews here - not to take any single review too much to heart, good or..."Well, that's the thing--everyone is an individual with different experiences and expectations that they bring into a story with them. What thrills one person is going to disgust another, so how can you take them to heart?--even the really great ones, tempting as it may be.
And like I said, I've only seen chattery allusions to disagreements, and I wouldn't know what they were talking about even if I followed the occassional link. I don't know how serious any of it is, but it couldn't hurt for the parties to have at least a vague idea of where the other is coming from.
Kaje wrote: "But I think reports of "wars" may be overstated."Unless you read both M/M Romance and Young Adult, then you get double the drama like I do. Well, kinda. The skirmishes in the YA community happens way more frequent and with way more people the than skirmishes in the M/M Romance community. So ten times worse. Imagine the fight among adults in the M/M Romance community, now imagine it with teenage girls. Lots and lots of teenage girls.
Carole wrote: "so how can you take them to heart?"
Some people cannot tell the difference between an attack on a book (an object with no feelings) and an attack on a person (someone with feelings). Carole, I think it's good thing to be oblivious of such skirmishes. The fights are always serious and no one ever truly win. Readers get less joy out of reading, authors get less joy out of writing. That's why I preach if a person can't agree with a review, the best thing to do would be to remove oneself from that review. Attacking reviews is a lesson in futility.
My friend wrote an article I think y'all would be interested: http://www.goodreads.com/story/show/2...
Some people cannot tell the difference between an attack on a book (an object with no feelings) and an attack on a person (someone with feelings). Well, I can't argue with that entirely, because obviously I don't know everyone and haven't read every review ever. ;) And I don't know how you word your reviews, or even if you do reviews. But in my limited, personal experience, yeah, reader reviews are often phrased rather personally.
Someone just recently reviewed one of my books on Amazon, in which she said, and I quote: The author uses words she does not bother to define or give context to. Now, that's pointed directly at me, and there's nothing I can do about it, which is especially frustrating, because it's not true. Every word I invented and used in that book was explained in context, and for those who still couldn't understand, there was a handy-dandy glossary. But I can't go and tell that to that reviewer. Admittedly, as that article you linked said, yeah, sure I can--if I want to look like a complete prat and leave myself open to retribution. I really, really don't want to, so I can't.
Another Amazon reviewer of another book complained that he couldn't understand what I was talking about, and that all of the other ten reviewers who'd rated the book highly were obviously idiots, and then proceeded to drag his big old Women Should Not Write M/M agenda in with him. Now, everything I write passes through five beta readers, and two semi-pro content editors before it's even submitted to a publisher. And then it goes through my 15-yr-old daughter (who was actually 13 when she read this particular book). If she doesn't understand something, I know I need to explain it more. If she gets it, I assume my target audience should too.
So I could run around telling reviewers like this that apparently my 15-yr-old daughter is smarter than they are, but again--can't. Could, but can't.
I think this is an irreparable disconnect between writers and reader-reviewers, because the reviewers to whom I referred above probably had no idea how 'this author did this awful thing I didn't like' actually sounds to the author. And no, it's not that reviewer's job to care, but that doesn't mean the author doesn't get to. The difference is that the reader-reviewer gets to talk about it--and sometimes provide bullet lists--and the author doesn't.
And the thing I don't think any reader who has never written and put their writing up for public scrutiny really truly understands is this: it's all personal. For a lot of writers, writing is the most personal and intimate thing they do. That's not to say that gives them a right to go whacking sticks at anyone who doesn't like their stuff, don't get me wrong. It's not an excuse. It's just how it is. And I sincerely doubt that's going to change.
You're right, the best thing is to just stay away and do a lot of whistling. I understand both sides because I'm a reader as well as an author. I've been disappointed and frustrated and made angry by a book before. But I also happen to be a reader who won't rate anything lower than a 3, because I know exactly what those 1 and 2 star ratings do to someone who's offered something so very personal. (God, I hate the star rating system, but that's a whole other... thing.) And I also know that my opinion can actually be wrong, and that just because I didn't like something doesn't make it 'bad', which is what those ratings imply.
Holy hell, aren't you desperately sorry you stopped in? Yikes! Sorry. Didn't mean to opine all over you. *wipes off your lapels and straightens your collar* I don't do this all the time, I swear. I was just having a discussion about this very thing with a friend yesterday, and I think you happened along just when all the things I was pondering came to a point. Lucky you. *pets* Feel free to stop in again anytime! (she said while trying not to look completely insane)
Hey, opinions are always appreciated... as long they're respectful and sane which yours are. ;) I think the biggest reason why authors can't complain about reviewers but reviewers can about authors is because one group is being paid and one group is not. One group needs the money to make a living, the other don't and is paying for that group's living cost. It's a not a good idea to bite the hand that feeds you even if that hand sometime slap you for a perceived unfair judgement. Authors like Paris Hilton or Snooki can afford to bitch at readers who hate their books, while authors like Plain Jane or Average Joe can't...not unless they hit the lottery and writing is just a hobby.
Because when we get down to the core of the problem, money is what we get. People don't say money is the root of all evil for nothing, ya know.
Oh, I think you also might be interest reading this review and its resulting comments (of which I participated in): http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/... It too is about the relationship of authors and reviewers but at another angle.
Sane. Hee. *pinches your cheeks*I think the biggest reason why authors can't complain about reviewers but reviewers can about authors is because one group is being paid and one group is not.
Well, okay, but if that's the standard we're going to use, why can't an author go and 'defend' their work against a review that's causing readers to decide not to buy it, and thus losing them money? (Again, let's just use 'can't' as 'could if they wanted to look like a prat'.)
Going back to one of the Amazon reviews I was referring to before: the reviewer described things in his review that weren't actually in my book. And I'm not talking about 'eh, he just didn't get it'--no, I mean, he was railing against specific things that weren't actually in the book. And according to three commenters on that review, they had decided not to buy based on what he'd said. So basically, this guy cost me three sales by either mixing my book up with someone else's or not being truthful. And yet, if I were to go in there and comment and explain that he was either mistaken or being less than honest to make his own point... well, I don't even really want to know what might happen, which is why I never did it.
Plus, there are the stories that authors give away for free. I've seen free stories rated with 1 star, with comments like 'what a piece of crap', which, okay, once someone puts something up in public, they can't expect for it not to be judged. But really? To me, that's like someone handing over a candy cane and having it thrown back at them with a sneer because the recipient wanted butterscotch. (Mm, butterscotch...)
Here's a link from something I just read today: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/soci...
I'm not actually arguing your points, because you're right in some ways. And I don't expect you--or anyone--to have all the answers. Like I said, I don't think there are any answers. I think this is just the way things are, and they're probably not going to change.
I definitely see where the person in that link you posted is coming from. (I didn't read all the comments, because yikes! there were a lot of them.) The thing is, it's basically a list of what readers want from authors, and I think (or at least it seems to me in my limited experience) the problems crop up when an author doesn't follow those 'rules'. Which, you know, is a situation that's a bit stacked on one side. That list assumes all of those items are 'for the author's own good' and some of them really aren't. I will definitely concede, however, that if everyone--readers and authors--followed those 'rules', things would be a lot quieter in Troll Land. ;)
Are you having fun? I'm having fun!
Plus, there are the stories that authors give away for free. I've seen free stories rated with 1 star, with comments like 'what a piece of crap', which, okay, once someone puts something up in public, they can't expect for it not to be judged. But really? To me, that's like someone handing over a candy cane and having it thrown back at them with a sneer because the recipient wanted butterscotch. (Mm, butterscotch...) This is a difficult one for me. I love free stories, I love how they are free to go places many published stories aren't. Some of my very favorite books are free books. I have had no problem shouting about their awesomeness here. Nobody has ever said I shouldn't. But many people (esp authors) have lately been saying I shouldn't do the same with the books I didn't like.
So what do I do if a free story really sucks? Because some of them do. Not 'I did not care for the flavor' kind of sucking, but plain badly written kind of sucking. Should I not rate these books? Should I not feel free to warn the friends I hang out with on goodreads to not bother with this one? That is what goodreads is for, imo. It's for readers. The fact that the authors hang out here too is a bonus, but if their presence stops me from being able to share freely what I think about a book, I'd rather they go play somewhere else.
If I can't rate the bad books then what point is there in the rating system? I've read some complete clunkers that had an average rating of more than four stars. Obviously lots of overly nice people are already skewing the rating system the other way. I think my one star reviews are just as valid as my 5 star ones. And their 5 star ones. I can't give them all 3 stars just to avoid pissing anybody off.
If those three readers choose to believe that reviewer, perhaps they're not the kind of readers you would want to buy your book. The best solution would be to blog about what is in your book and what is not in your book without mentioning or putting down said reviewer. You can wrap the blog-post up as a promotional effort. I believe a product offered for free doesn't make it exempt from judgement.
They're not rules per se, they're guidelines. No one has to follow them but if they're any good of a businessperson they would listen. There's a big reason why higher education offer business classes beside just making us poor students poorer. One do not need a degree to a start business, anyone can. However, it's a different matter altogether of maintaining said business.
Here's the thing. The relationship between authors and readers is that of a business to consumer one. There is a double standard. Authors — the business — have to act professional, readers — the customer — don't. Just because a few customers act unpleasantly does not excuse a business to act unprofessionally.
Let's do an example. Imagine a few customers being upset at Wal-Mart for supporting child labor in China. Wal-Mart said that's not true and let us assume that the accusation is completely baseless. Now imagine Wal-Mart paying for commercials on TV bashing those few unruly customers? How would that look? Even if what Wal-Mart says is true and everyone except those few unruly customers believe in Wal-Mart, would people see Wal-Mart in a good light? After those attack commercials? There is an effective way and an ineffective way to go about telling the truth. Bashing those unruly customers in an attack commercial is ineffective and would probably make Wal-Mart look worse in spite of the child labor accusation.
Businesses cannot control their customers, but they can control how they do business with their customers.
I believe the biggest thing that trip author is that they often forget they're a business, that their name is their brand. How they act, what they say, who they support, why they do the things they do — it's reflective upon their business and affect their reputation. For an example, businesses don't pull out their sponsorship out of certain TV shows just for kicks.
When an author attack a reviewer, no matter right the author is, people don't see the author as another private citizen. They see the author as a business, specifically a business that is attacking a customer. Is it ever professional to attack a customer? Even when that customer is a complete asswipe? No.
I am not saying you cannot confront a reviewer, but you risk besmirching your reputation when you do. No one ever said adhering to professionalism was an easy thing to do.
Carole wrote: "Someone just recently reviewed one of my books on Amazon, in which she said, and I quote: The author uses words she does not bother to define or give context to. Now, that's pointed directly at me, and there's nothing I can do about it"
Hi Carole, just jumping in uninvited.
I was interested that you considered this a personal comment, because to me it isn't. It is an objective statement about a problem the reader found in the book (from her perspective, whether you agree with her assertion or not, I mean). It could have been worded like this: "There were words used in this book which weren't defined or given context to" and it would have been exactly the same tone and meant the same thing. To me a personal remark involves some level of subjectivity and some personal statement about the author herself. Frex, "this author is obviously a sensitive and thoughtful person because...." Now that's nice, but still personal. Or "the author can't write her way out of a paper bag and should go back to her day job". Nasty and personal. But the comment is about the author, not about the book she wrote. I can't reword those into any kind of objective statement.
Hi Carole, just jumping in uninvited.
I was interested that you considered this a personal comment, because to me it isn't. It is an objective statement about a problem the reader found in the book (from her perspective, whether you agree with her assertion or not, I mean). It could have been worded like this: "There were words used in this book which weren't defined or given context to" and it would have been exactly the same tone and meant the same thing. To me a personal remark involves some level of subjectivity and some personal statement about the author herself. Frex, "this author is obviously a sensitive and thoughtful person because...." Now that's nice, but still personal. Or "the author can't write her way out of a paper bag and should go back to her day job". Nasty and personal. But the comment is about the author, not about the book she wrote. I can't reword those into any kind of objective statement.
Kate wrote: "Frex, "this author is obviously a sensitive and thoughtful person because...." Now that's nice, but still personal. Or "the author can't write her way out of a paper bag and should go back to her day job". Nasty and personal. But the comment is about the author, not about the book she wrote. I can't reword those into any kind of objective statement."
The book was so sensitive and thoughtful that it shrouded my body with warmth.
This story can't write its way out of a sewer and should have remained a shameful, shameful secret.
Do I get that butterscotch candy now? =3
Alright, but I would still like a butterscotch candy for my attempt anyway. =d
Hokey smokes! Well, no discussion stays small on GR, does it? ;) Hi everyone! I'm running on only one cup of coffee, so no pointing and laughing if I slur and stutter a bit.@Marleen--don't misunderstand me; I don't give 3 stars to things I think are awful, I just don't rate them. Which is a personal choice, not something I think others should do, and I don't fault anyone for choosing differently. None of what I've been saying here is anything I think other people should do--just my personal feelings and how I try to work with GR, that's all.
Also--free books?! Where are you getting free books? I want free books!
Honestly, as I've been saying, there is no real answer to this, which is why I think it's going to keep cropping up and causing trouble now and then. Readers have a different perspective on the whole thing than authors do, and in a world where authors are told by their publishers to get their asses onto GR NOW! and start being authorly, it's probably going to take on a bigger scale each time. (I don't know how to be authorly, damn it!)
So no, just to be clear, I don't think you should be doing things any other way than how you feel you should be doing them, and I don't think you should feel hindered by an author metaphorically looking over your shoulder. But to go all Spidey on you, 'great power comes with great responsibility', so you should probably expect that someone, somewhere is going to end up crying when you 1-star them. I know that if you rated something of mine badly I could probably come and talk to you about it, and we could have a good discussion and exchange viewpoints, and we'd both walk away feeling like we accomplished something. Other authors might not. And I certainly don't feel like I could do that with just anyone.
@Experiment BL626--*grin* Yes, that's exactly the way I chose to think about that situation.
I like your 'businessperson' analogy. And it's very reasonable, and I agree. I'm just saying that it's still skewed and not entirely fair to the author. I love having book discussions and dissecting characterizations, and I would never attack someone for having a different opinion. I might debate them, because I think it's fun (you never said if you were having fun!), but never attack. But even so, I can't really do that--except for with a very few, like Marleen and LadyM--when it comes to my own stuff. I apparently lost my nerdy discussion privileges when I started getting paid for my writing. That's not a complaint--it's a trade-off, and I get that. I just sometimes wish I were a little more free to be myself on here, you know? I mean, it's like FB for book nerds, and I don't get to play! Because if someone gave something I wrote a bad review and I came in and tried to talk to them about it, it's an attack. And you know, you don't know me, but it really wouldn't be. I just really like to talk about that stuff.
@Kate--any old time. ;)
See, this is where I'm seeing a disconnect, because to me, that absolutely is personal. I work really hard on my stuff. I invest a great deal of time, thought and emotion into it. I write, I rewrite, I listen to my betas, I listen to/argue with/mostly listen to editors, and I read and I re-read and I rewrite, blah blah blah. And then someone comes along and says I didn't bother. That's either an insult to my intelligence or my work ethic, which I think is personal.
To use Experiment BL626's analogy, imagine working your ass off for a project at work, and when you present it to your boss, he/she sneers at it and tells everyone within hearing that you didn't even bother to spell-check it. And you can't point out that yes you did, and that there isn't a misspelling in sight. And then, every time someone walks into that room, a recording plays of your boss telling everyone how you didn't bother. (Because, you know, as long as a book is out there, so is that review.)
It's not as simple as a thick skin and 'don't take it personally'. Writing is personal, and so is chiding the author for 'failing' when a reader didn't like something.
I don't expect anyone who doesn't write and put their stuff out there for public scrutiny to understand what I'm saying entirely, which probably sounds whoa condescending but I swear it isn't. It's just that basic disconnect I keep talking about. It's like my husband will never understand what it feels like to have a baby, even though he's witnessed the process. There is no way to make everything that goes into it understood unless you go through it yourself.
You know, honestly, if GR wasn't geared so much toward subjectivity, I doubt this would be such a hornets' nest all the time. You know how, on review sites, the reviewer might subjectively not like something but still has to adhere to an objective set of parameters to rate it? 'I hated the characters and I thought the plot was stupid, but all of the arcs were completed and I was compelled to give it points because everything was spelled right and the world building made sense, so I have to give it a 3.' Nobody on GR has to worry about 'giving it points for ____'. Which is, hey, just how GR works, and it absolutely works for a lot of people. And as Marleen said, it is mainly for the readers, so you can't really gripe about it. Which doesn't stop people, but still. Things like this are why I think the 'discussion', such as it is, will never go away.
@Blip--you brought butterscotches! :D I'm going to drop one into my second cup of coffee, which I'm going to get right now. (Okay, it's my third. Don't judge me!) Thanks everyone! This is all terribly interesting, and I'm really enjoying it.
That and plus it's nice to talk an author who respect readers and are not quick to label those who disagree with her as bullies, compare bad reviews as rape, make sockpuppets to game the rating system, deliberately antagonize reviewers for publicity, tweet-rant GR users as bitchy, etc, etc. All true examples btw. It's like, OMFG, you're reasonable. You're really reasonable. Y_Y *cries*I don't know about whether it can be unfair for the author because in becoming a business, because while you do give up some privileges, you gain some in return — a trade-off as you said.
Thank you very much for getting the fact that GR is for readers, that authors and publishers are here as guests. You know how I know? It's this:
Key sentence: Negative engagement with members could result in your account being deleted.
We readers can cat-fight each other all we want, but authors and publishers cat-fighting us readers? Yeah... not going to happen. As I said, there is a double standard. Authors = professionals, readers = the customers. Sorry if I keep saying that, but as long there are authors who not do not act appropriately like a good business, I'll keep saying it over and over till they do. It is my right as a conscientious consumer. (Speaking of which, I need to go hug some trees later.)
Actually, the reason why GR is so popular is because it is geared towards subjectivity, towards the greatest freedom of expression. The other two book cataloging websites? Not so much. Shelfari has been dead for four years now and LibraryThing is only popular among a certain demographic uninterested in users interaction. I would have gone to LibraryThing but, ugh, it was uglier than GR so I came to GR instead. Sometime being shallow works out, ya know. ;)
Experiment BL626 wrote: "It's like, OMFG, you're reasonable. You're really reasonable."*snicker* Can I paste that on my fridge and point it out to my husband every time he disagrees?
Experiment BL626 wrote: "As I said, there is a double standard. Authors = professionals, readers = the customers."
OMG, yes! You hit it! Fair -vs- unfair. That's it right there. GR isn't fair and it doesn't pretend to be, but that doesn't stop people from expecting it to be. PERFECT. And that expectation is--I think--where the trouble comes from. Authors keep expecting it to be fair, and it's not designed to be, it's not meant to be, and you either deal with it as it is, or you... um. Whatever it is you do when you don't deal with it.
You should write an entire blog post about that. Because I really do think that's it right there.
Experiment BL626 wrote: "Actually, the reason why GR is so popular is because it is geared towards subjectivity, towards the greatest freedom of expression."
Well, I didn't mean 'problem' as in 'GR has a problem and needs to fix it'. I just meant that that seems to be the place from where the disconnect stems. And authors, as feedback-seeking creatures (give it to us, Preciousssss), generally look for and expect objectivity when someone is reviewing their work. So even if they're aware that the point is to be subjective (and I really don't think a lot of authors are), there's still something back there in the lizard brain saying, 'Hey, wtf, that does not deserve a 1-star-it-sucks rating!' when what that 1 star really means is just a subjective 'I didn't like it'. We're used to a 1 star meaning 'written horribly with no redeeming value'.
And to be perfectly honest, if someone walked up to me in real life and said to me, 'You know, I really didn't like your book,' I bet I would flinch a whole lot less than I would seeing 1 star. (Although, in real life, I bet I could talk to that person and find out why and walk away having learned something without eventually finding myself on the wrong end of a cyber grenade-launcher, but again, GR--not built for me.)
Hey, lookit that--we solved it! We should go hug some trees!
(Also? Ooh, graphics and everything! Next time I want a pie chart and a Venn diagram. ;)
WeaselBox wrote: "Hello. Random stranger sticking his nose in. Free books are pretty much a guarantee of mean nasty reviews and comments as you're going to get downloaded by huge numbers of people who only got i..."
Hello, random stranger. :)
Yes, and I do understand that. Like I said, if you put something up for public scrutiny, you can't expect not to be judged for it. and I'm probably not one to go by, because #1--I'll likely handicap something with at least two stars to start, just because I'm grateful for the gift of a free read, and #2--I love to read so much that I can probably find redeemeing value in anything. 'Yes, I hated the plot, and all 15 pages were one giant paragraph, but the characters were so interesting!'
WeaselBox wrote: "But even when an author responds to a review to simply point out a factual error, the result is usually that the author is the one who looks bad."
Yes, exactly, and that's probably the only thing, out of all of the things being discussed here, that I have a real problem with and wish were different. I would like very much to discuss things readers didn't like--and I'm lucky, I have a few here with whom I can--but in general, it's just better to keep one;s head down and sing under one's breath.
WeaselBox wrote: "But outside of kindergarten nobody gets "A for effort."
Ha! True. But Experiment BL626 and I just solved the problem, so we should get... something. More butterscotches?
Thank you, WeaselBox-random-stranger. Excellent points all around, and I'm really glad you came by!
Carole wrote: "Well, I didn't mean 'problem' as in 'GR has a problem and needs to fix it'. I just meant that that seems to be the place from where the disconnect stems. And authors, as feedback-seeking creatures (give it to us, Preciousssss), generally look for and expect objectivity when someone is reviewing their work. So even if they're aware that the point is to be subjective (and I really don't think a lot of authors are), there's still something back there in the lizard brain saying, 'Hey, wtf, that does not deserve a 1-star-it-sucks rating!' when what that 1 star really means is just a subjective 'I didn't like it'. We're used to a 1 star meaning 'written horribly with no redeeming value'."
Hi, another random stranger here. :)
I think all of this is complicated by the . . . let's call them "mixed messages" goodreads sends authors. The warnings about "negative engagement" are relatively new. At the same time, GR builds features in authors' homepages that make it easy to (wrongfully) feel some sense of ownership over their pages for your book. They update you on the specific number of ratings and reviews (tempting you to look at them every time you log in!), make it easy to see the shelves it's on, and so on, and so forth. In the past, they've also courted author and publisher participation pretty heavily for ad revenue. And yeah, publishers DO tell authors to get on goodreads to participate, without offering guidelines. I've been here long enough as a user to know the community norms, but average Joe Author? Not so much.
Also, I'm not entirely sure that the financial arguments entirely hold water. Reviewers who are paid for their reviews have long-faced author melt-downs and even death threats. I actually see what's happening now between consumer reviews and authors a continuation of the same old problem: there are some reviewers (paid or not) who will always get personal. There are some authors (justified or not) who will always take it personally. These problems didn't start with the existence of GR or amazon.
This has been a really enlightening discussion, between here, Jeff Erno's blog post, and the book review that sparked Jeff's ire.
Since I interact here and on FB with several authors that I really like, I try hard to find the balance between kindness and honesty. I won't lie about a book, but I'm also pretty easy to please, I have a very few one and two star ratings. The one stars are reserved for books I genuinely hate, that infuriate me, for whatever reason. Two stars are books that I really didn't like, but they had some redeeming quality - good characters, decent story idea, or just some good writing.
And when I recently came across a book by an author I really like that - to me - wasn't good, it was unbelievably hard to give it the 2 stars that I felt it deserved, knowing that she'd see it. But I wanted to be honest because as a reader, I depend on honest reviews of books before I spend my money (and I read 400+ books a year, so I spend a TON on books). So in the end, I was honest with the rating and gentle in the written review, which I think is the best an author can ask for - honest and gentle.
The thing is, I won't rate a book one star unless I hate it. And I'm usually not mean enough to eviscerate a book publicly. So I rate it and say nothing. Is that better or worse? If I hated it enough to one-star, I am holding back some pretty choice expletives. Surely, no one really wants to hear those.
One thing I have definitely learned through all of these author/reader back-and-forth's of the last few months is not to pile on ANYONE, reader or author. I unfriended some readers for verbally beating the crap out of an author, and I unfriended, and banned from purchasing, an author for verbally beating the crap out of a reader AND a fellow author - she sucks. While active discussions are great and very informative, I despise it when the mob shows up - in attack OR defense. It just makes everyone look insane. So I really appreciate blogs like this where everyone is sane and relatively kind :)
Since I interact here and on FB with several authors that I really like, I try hard to find the balance between kindness and honesty. I won't lie about a book, but I'm also pretty easy to please, I have a very few one and two star ratings. The one stars are reserved for books I genuinely hate, that infuriate me, for whatever reason. Two stars are books that I really didn't like, but they had some redeeming quality - good characters, decent story idea, or just some good writing.
And when I recently came across a book by an author I really like that - to me - wasn't good, it was unbelievably hard to give it the 2 stars that I felt it deserved, knowing that she'd see it. But I wanted to be honest because as a reader, I depend on honest reviews of books before I spend my money (and I read 400+ books a year, so I spend a TON on books). So in the end, I was honest with the rating and gentle in the written review, which I think is the best an author can ask for - honest and gentle.
The thing is, I won't rate a book one star unless I hate it. And I'm usually not mean enough to eviscerate a book publicly. So I rate it and say nothing. Is that better or worse? If I hated it enough to one-star, I am holding back some pretty choice expletives. Surely, no one really wants to hear those.
One thing I have definitely learned through all of these author/reader back-and-forth's of the last few months is not to pile on ANYONE, reader or author. I unfriended some readers for verbally beating the crap out of an author, and I unfriended, and banned from purchasing, an author for verbally beating the crap out of a reader AND a fellow author - she sucks. While active discussions are great and very informative, I despise it when the mob shows up - in attack OR defense. It just makes everyone look insane. So I really appreciate blogs like this where everyone is sane and relatively kind :)
Carole wrote: "(Also? Ooh, graphics and everything! Next time I want a pie chart and a Venn diagram. ;)"I can't give you that, but I can give you a pie and a Venice dish. =D
@WeaselBox & Carole
My 1-star rating exactly mean what GoodReads says what it mean — "didn't like it". This includes books I hate so much I wish it was a DTB so I can burn it, books that are not my cup of tea, and books I read in a Monday morning-ish mood and did not do anything to brighten my day up. All of that under "didn't like it".
I know 1-star ratings suck for the author, but without the 1-star ratings, my 5-stars ones would be meaningless.
That's one of the many things I love about GoodReads, we can rate however what we like as long we're not gaming the system. Yes, this means we can use the rating system as a hype meter for books not released yet. Whether you agree or disagree (and most people do), we have to appreciate the high level of freedom GoodReads offer to us readers. If we don't, then perhaps GoodReads isn't the right book-cataloging website for us.
Phoebe wrote: "And yeah, publishers DO tell authors to get on goodreads to participate, without offering guidelines."
Without offering guidelines. Without offering guidelines! That makes me angry because I am getting the impression that publishers are pushing more and more of their responsibilities upon the authors. Authors who do not come with PR education.
I love books. I love authors who write those books. But I don't really appreciate authors disparaging me or other readers for our opinion of their books. Would anyone like it if Wal-Mart says to their customers they're incompetent shoppers for not shopping at Wal-Mart where low prices are always guaranteed? Would anyone like it if Apple says to their customers they're incompetent technology-users for getting a virus on the MAC computer? Would anyone like it if an author says to their customers they're incompetent readers for not comprehending the author's brilliance? Is it ever professional to attack a customer no matter how justified? No to all of those questions.
Phoebe is right, this whole authors vs. reviewers isn't a new thing. But one thing is new is that GoodReads has brought all of us closer, too close for comfort I would say. I believe this issue is one small example of a bigger issue. The advancement of technology has surpassed beyond humanity's capacity to install etiquette. Your boss wants to be your friend on Facebook now.
(Hopefully what I said made sense, I have not eaten lunch.)
@WeaselBoxA 2-stars rating on GR means "it was okay" which I interpret as indifference.
But there are other books, not at all uncommon, where I read, I get to the end, and I just feel nothing. I'm not upset that I read it, I don't want to demand my time back from the author, but neither would I remotely claim to have "liked" it.
Those are the books I'd rate 2-stars. My ratings follow closely to normal distribution, not something I intended but this is what results when I rate according to my perceived objectivity.
Excellent discussion. Most of my points have been made. @Carole: For finding free books, consider joining 'The Freeloaders' goodreads group.
So many excellent points. Where to start, where to start…Okay, from the top:
Blip wrote: “…but when a publisher consistently has glaring typos it's frustrating. I paid money to a publishing house for quality.”
No arguments here. I can forgive a lot on a free read, but you’re right, you’re paying for something, and the quality should reflect that.
Also--there are never enough butterscotches. ;)
WeaselBox wrote: “I hope you don't let 1 star ratings without reviews bother you because they may not even have anything to do with your book.”
I understand that, really I do, but I’ll be honest and say that yeah, I’m human, so they bother me. It really can be like a punch in the gut, and you have to kind of talk yourself out of getting morose and into believing that it doesn’t necessarily reflect on your own abilities. But it’s difficult. I mean, it upsets me that I’ve disappointed someone, it upsets me that someone spent their money because of me and didn’t like what they got, and it upsets me that to someone out there, I’m subpar. And it’s very hard to separate ‘this book is subpar’ from ‘you are subpar’.
But again, this is not the reader’s responsibility, it’s mine. It’s up to me what I take from the experience, and having one’s bubble burst now and then is really not a bad thing. Really. :)
Phoebe wrote: “I actually see what's happening now between consumer reviews and authors a continuation of the same old problem: there are some reviewers (paid or not) who will always get personal. There are some authors (justified or not) who will always take it personally. These problems didn't start with the existence of GR or amazon.”
First of all--Hi! :D Second--oh no, absolutely not. God, have you ever read those commentaries from Mark Twain to his reviewers? Yikes!
No, I don’t think it’s GR, but I think it’s a combination of lots of different things converging at once, and it just so happens to be converging here: small presses making it possible for non-mainstream authors to have a voice; the anonymity of the internet in general; the on-top-of-each-other atmosphere on sites like these; reader expectations versus author expectations, etc., etc.
Cris wrote: “The thing is, I won't rate a book one star unless I hate it. And I'm usually not mean enough to eviscerate a book publicly. So I rate it and say nothing. Is that better or worse?”
Wow, that’s a really good question, and I’m not really sure. With the reasons spelled out, you can at least see if what the reviewer is talking about is something that you did wrong, or if it’s just something the reviewer didn’t like personally. (One good thing an author can take away from a bad review is well-meant advice, you know? Because every author I know is constantly striving for improvement.) On the other hand, if it’s just the rating with no explanation, you can talk yourself into believing… well, pretty much anything that makes you feel better and lets you get over it. So I really can’t answer that definitively.
It sounds to me like you put serious thought into what you post and how others might take it, so you’re already doing wonderfully. Do what you prefer, because in the end, you’re the one who spent the money.
Experiment BL626 wrote: “…I can give you a pie and a Venice dish.”
OMG, I love you more every time you show up. Pie is always better!
And yes, I will confirm that publishers do indeed toss new authors out here into the deep end without so much as a ‘watch your back’. Not all of them--the one I’m with now does a really nice job with trying to keep everyone’s heads on straight, and they’re amazingly supportive. But some of these small press publishers are taking people who have had no experience with any of this whatsoever, giving them a list of things-to-do, and then kicking them out the door with a ‘and you’d better come back with a ton of sales!’ And if you don’t know how to self-promote (which I totally don’t) then you’re kind of screwed. I should say in some cases. I have nothing at all bad to say about my current publisher. I’ve been really happy with the professionalism and support I’ve gotten from them. But I’ve had a tiny bit of experience with other publishers, and… well, let’s just say I wasn’t with my current publisher when I was told to get my butt on GR, and it was a bit surprising to me to see how things carried on here.
I’m probably a touch luckier than a lot of other authors, because I used to participate in an online writing/critique community, so I learned how to keep my head down and my mouth shut. Comes in handy a lot. ;)
Marleen wrote: “Excellent discussion.”
It is, isn’t it? :D
*hugs you* just ‘cause. And thanks for the group thingy! I’ll definitely do that.
Wandering in late here. I did see the discussion on Jeff Erno's blog, and have no idea which book or author sparked the original post. I do think a lot of authors coming into GT have experience with forums and critique groups, or we'd be seeing a lot more meltdown situations. Not to say it isn't shocking, but we've seen a flame war already, and know to keep our heads down for the most part.
Unfortunately, it does seem like being an author is a lot like going to a fiesta and discovering you've volunteered to be the pinata. I've had a few *flinch* moments here recently, like when my new book got chalked off as "sloppy research, no good" because I mangled a couple of words of Spanish, which I'd lifted off a menu. The wrong menu as it turned out, but there's no way I can go say that.
I've picked up some 1 star reviews that were driveby hates, no explanation. One, acquired when a brand new author, made me think the person thought she'd been written into the book in an unflattering light.
(Small town setting, there's only so many folks of that demographic.) I've picked up at least one that was driven by some personal interaction with the reviewer long before the book came out.
My father used to say, "You never know when someone's had burnt toast for breakfast." I may not always have the charity in me to see things like that, nor is that always true, but it does help give perspective.
And if someone has 1 star for me and some valid points, I'll take my lumps.
*wishes for pie*
P.D. wrote: "Wandering in late here. I did see the discussion on Jeff Erno's blog, and have no idea which book or author sparked the original post."Oh, these are two separate discussions that happened to be about the same issue. Carole blogged about it first, leading us to discuss about reviews in general. Jeff OTOH blogged in reaction to one review in particular, leading to a, uh, very heated discussion. LOL, here we were talking about why author vs. reviewer battles happened and BAM! we got one a few days later. And I'm not talking about this thread, ya know.
Carole, I think we should have knocked on wood. Our words are magic! What we say can twist reality. O_O *I want to be rich* *I want to be rich* *I want to be rich*
@Carole
It is my political belief that those publishers should be slapped for telling authors to go to GR without educating authors on the proper use of the website. I know, I know, I should not promote violence but sometime a slap is necessary to bring a person back to reality. One does not push a businessperson with little to no sense of business on to a consumers-oriented website. You might as well shoot them in the foot.
BTW, what did Mark Twain said about his reviewers?
@P.D.
Perhaps it would be prudent for you not read any more reviews if find reading them slowly strangle your joy of writing. There's nothing wrong being a sensitive author, but hurt feelings should not affect one's professionalism. Plus, reviews are for readers. They're not meant for the author's eyes. Just because they're can be seen by the author, doesn't mean they should be read by the author.
Time for me to whip out an episode of When Authors Say the Best Thing Ever. Here's one by the funny author-couple Ilona Andrews.
The best, most sanity-preserving policy is not to read reviews. At least not too many or too often.And I give you pie now.
But some reviews can’t be avoided. Sometimes people demand direct attention and feedback. They’ve read the author’s book, they have written an analysis of their experience with the book, and they want to talk with the author about it. Or the author suffered a sudden bout of masochism and went to trawl blogs and Amazon for reviews. A response to positive reviews is easy enough to formulate. Thank you! But what about negative reviews, the ones that make you cringe? Equally easy. Say nothing. Say nothing, say nothing, say nothing.
But what if they said this unfair thing…
Say nothing.
But they brought up a really good point…
Say nothing.
If you argue with the review, you look unprofessional. You are a weakling who can’t take criticism.
If you agree with the review, you look unprofessional. You are sucking up in hopes of future positive reviews.
You can’t win. Remember the guiding principle: if you are an author, everything is your fault. You can’t show that you are emotionally hurt or angry. You are not a person. You are a representative of a brand. If you have to say something, if you just can’t help yourself, say, “Thank you.” You must find your inner customer service representative, smile, and say, “Thank you so much for taking the time to read the book.”
It is really, really difficult to find that customer service representative sometimes. So if you can’t trust yourself to smile and say thank you, say nothing.
Thank you or nothing. From the business point of view, there is no third choice. Nothing is better.
—http://www.ilona-andrews.com/being-a-...
@ Cris
I don't know, I kind of like it when authors smack-talk against one another. Their insults can be so fun to read. Here's one:
4. Mark Twain on Jane Austen (1898)This is not me promoting incivility, this me promoting comedy. Shin-bone! Hahahaha! XD
“I haven’t any right to criticize books, and I don’t do it except when I hate them. I often want to criticize Jane Austen, but her books madden me so that I can’t conceal my frenzy from the reader; and therefore I have to stop every time I begin. Every time I read ‘Pride and Prejudice,’ I want to dig her up and hit her over the skull with her own shin-bone.”
The 30 Harshest Author-on-Author Insults In History
Oh, I am busy saying nothing except into the unrecording air, you can be sure. I've been around long enough to keep any and all responses private, or non-existent. It's not strangling anything: I have some perspective. I was fortunate in not finding GR until I had that perspective. Which isn't to say that I won't flinch when I find a particular tidbit.And ok, if your cause and effect works, I'll go into the pool for the lottery tickets. *I want to be rich too*
*eats some pie*
@Pam--I should have mentioned, actually, that you were there and incredibly helpful when I first showed up here. *hugs you*Unfortunately, it does seem like being an author is a lot like going to a fiesta and discovering you've volunteered to be the pinata.
Bwah! *falls down* OMG, that's too funny!
Oh dang, sorry about the Spanish thing. Stupid menu people!
You never know when someone's had burnt toast for breakfast.
That? Is bloody brilliant.
@Experiment BL626--
Carole, I think we should have knocked on wood. Our words are magic! What we say can twist reality.
OMG, the pressure! What if I want to be a pretty pretty princess instead? Okay, okay--*I want to be rich*
Here's a link to some of Twain's quotes on critics: http://www.twainquotes.com/Critics.html The tumble-bug one is particularly... um, interesting.
Drat, there was someone else who was a big critic-hater, too, and now I can't remember who. Maugham? Melville? Feh. If I remember, I'll let you know.
Yeah, I have to say, I really try to stay away from any stats and reviews here when I can. The little stats thing is just below the bottom of my screen where I can't see it when I log in, and that's where I like it. On the less-that-frequent occassions when I'm here, I see reviews that people on my f-list leave, but other than that, I do. Not. Want. To know.
Even on Amazon--I know about the two I was telling you about because I went to my page to do some updatey stuff, and... well, they were kind of right therre, and it was the whole can't-look-away-from-the-trainwreck thing. But generally, I try to stay out of all of that. It's better for my equilibrium, and I really do suck at the internet. Even if I tried to keep up, I'd never be able to!
More pie! I'm going to have to go dig out my fat jeans! :D
P.D. wrote: "And ok, if your cause and effect works, I'll go into the pool for the lottery tickets. *I want to be rich too*"Carole wrote: "OMG, the pressure! What if I want to be a pretty pretty princess instead? Okay, okay--*I want to be rich*"
Yes, with great power...comes great luxury! Spiderman, you can take your great responsibility and shove it. OK TY BYEEE. =D
Oh, Mark Twain. If you were alive and here on GR, you would have been eviscerated by us readers. Heehehe, tumble-bug. Though that quote he said insult himself more than the reviewer. He just call his work dung. Heeheehe. Dung.
WeaselBox wrote: "In the trad system, most authors had the opportunity to toughen their hides with multiple rejections before seeing print."
Most authors? It should be all. That makes me sad that it isn't.
WeaselBox wrote: "The same will probably apply to those who've tried the old system and are now turning to direct publishing after some rejection, but there are going to be people throwing their first works out into the bloody maw of the internet who haven't had the benefit of a honest beta reader and don't have the maturity to to restrain themselves in the face of perceived attack. We'll probably see more authors behaving badly rather than less."
No kidding, that already has happened with a few certain YA authors. Ah, reality TV show, how you follow me on GR. No Snooki, you stay away from me. You hear?
That pout won't work on me. Wrong sexual orientation, hon.
Is it bad that I look at her and think "Bride of Frankenstein"?I heard the "toughen your hide with rejection" argument elsewhere, and I don't think I buy it. Certainly it couldn't hurt, but it isn't how sensible authors know not to make spectacles of themselves. You do that by learning from others' bitter experience and always remembering to put on your big girl pants before booting up the computer.
I want to thank everyone who participated in this discussion. You were all really great and it was terribly informative. It changed the way I think about this site.For anyone interested, I posted about what I learned here: http://www.goodreads.com/author_blog_...
I didn't get to address everything here, but I linked back to this post so that others can read through the comments. You were all terrific, and really--thanks for everything!
