Okay, so here’s what I learned

Last week, I ended up accidentally hosting a rather informative and pretty brilliant discussion about… well, a ton of things. Reader-writer relations here on GoodReads, author expectations, reader perspectives, reactions and whether people should have them, fairness, etc. You don’t have to read all of what I’m going to say next—you can just go to that link and read the discussion itself, because everyone has their own take on things, and this is going to be mine.

First, I want to thank everyone who participated in that discussion, and especially Experiment BL626, who really got the ball rolling. I don’t know where you came from, Experiment, but I’m glad you showed up! :)

Now, just to be clear: I know there were a couple of blowups in the past couple of days. That post linked above was not in response to them, and neither is this one. I have no response to them. The discussion in that post was going on a couple of days before the blowups, and continued on sedately and good-naturedly all through them. Basically, we had something like a four day party, during which, in addition to pie and butterscotches, I got some new insight into how readers use this site, and I think it might help others. So I’m sharing. 'Cause I’m just generous like that. ;)

Okay, so the first and most important thing I learned as an author is:

GoodReads is not fair to authors.

Now don’t get excited, readers, because that’s not what it sounds like. Because the thing is—GoodReads is not supposed to be fair to authors. Let me repeat that, because it really is hugely important—GoodReads is not built to be fair to authors. It wasn’t built for us, it’s not geared toward us, it’s not our personal marketing tool. GoodReads was built for readers. If you need any proof of that, have a look at what those stars mean.

5 stars-it was amazing. 4 stars-really liked it. 3 stars-liked it. 2 stars-it was okay. 1 star-didn’t like it.

Now, before we go on, let’s have an up-close look at that last one. 1 star-didn’t like it. Not it was a piece of crap. Not horrible, omg, what were they thinking?! And while I will concede that sometimes a reader means exactly that when they give a book 1 star, and that’s probably what other potential buyers see when they see a 1-star rating, that doesn’t necessarily mean that’s what the reader is saying. Sometimes, the reader really is saying, not my thing, which… hell, I write fantasy with male/male storylines—I write a subgenre of a subgenre—so of course my books are not going to be a lot of people’s ‘thing’.

These ratings were not designated as a guideline toward objectivity. They’re subjective and they’re supposed to be. (Remember that word—subjective. We'll come back to it later.) Which means a reader can rate a book with 1 star because they had a crappy day at work, their kids are puking on the livingroom couch, and their hamster ran away. Is that fair to the author? Nope. Do they have to care? Well, that brings us to the second most important thing I learned:

Readers get to say whatever they want in their reviews, and they don’t have to care how it sounds to the author.

But, but, but, you say, that’s not fair! To which I say, no, it isn’t. And go re-read that first bolded italicized line.

One of the biggest complaints I see from other authors—and let’s be honest, one I have myself—is that some reviews get fairly personal. And this issue is a lot more complex than it sounds, so bear with me while I break it down a little.

During the discussion last week, I mentioned a bad review I’d gotten over on Amazon, in which the reviewer said the following: The author uses words she does not bother to define or give context to. Kate commented that she was kind of surprised that I took that personally, because she didn’t view it that way. I explained that yes, to me it was personal, because first of all, it wasn’t accurate, and second of all, to say that I ‘didn’t bother’ explaining something in the context of the story—when explaining is something that, as an author, is rightfully expected of me—was a reflection on my intelligence and my work ethic.

But what I regret not making clear in my response is this: how I take that comment is not that reader’s responsibility. How I take anything ever said to me is not the responsibility of the person saying it to me. If it was, I could climb up to the belfry of a clock tower in a clown suit and fuck-me-pumps and start shooting with impunity every time someone said something nasty to me, because it wouldn’t be my fault, it would be theirs. (Whoa, that’s quite a mental picture. Sorry.)

So, let’s see if we can figure out why this is so consistently a problem. I think the first reason is:

To authors, it’s all personal.

No, seriously. Which sounds like an excuse to cry every time someone says something we don’t like, but it’s not. It’s just how it is.

Write what you know is something we all hear bandied about, but not everyone knows what that really means. It doesn’t mean that if you’re a stockbroker, you should write about stockbrokers. It means that to write something authentic, you have to use your life experiences, your feelings, your knowledge, your observations, etc. You have to dig down inside yourself and pull up something you would probably never really talk about, and then you have to use it to inform what you’re writing. It’s not always a pleasant experience. I can’t tell you how thrilled I was to finally be done writing Fen, so that I didn’t have to spend one more second inside his head.

So, when an author more or less opens their head and their chest and their guts and lets a reader poke around in there, and when that reader winces and says Ew, gross! that really stings. That still doesn’t make it that reader’s responsibility, but it’s the way it is and I don’t think it’s going to change any time soon. It’s reality, and none of us are doing ourselves any favors by not accepting reality and adjusting our expectations accordingly. Which brings us to the next point:

Authors are going to react to bad reviews.

Whether they do it in the privacy of their basement computer room/hovel or blare it all over every blog they have, it’s going to happen. And readers have to expect that.

But, but, but, you observant readers say, that’s not fair! To which I say, well… it kinda is. I think this is the only point on which I will unabashedly argue for the author. If we want to assume that readers have the right to speak freely and expect to have that right respected by authors, you have to also give authors the same right. In other words: if you get to do it, so do they.

Now, that’s not to say I think authors should. In fact, I really think authors shouldn’t. I’ve never seen anything good come of it, and if you’re an author reading this and thinking you’re going to be different—no, you’re really not. Seriously. You’re not that special and it can only end in tears. All of them yours.

But if you’re a reader, you can’t go on about freedom of speech and then try to stifle someone else’s. If you want the right to say whatever you want without worrying about how it might affect someone else, you have to reciprocate. If an author wants to rant about a bad review you gave them, it’s their right to shoot themselves in the foot, just as much as it’s your right to hand them the bullets.

Experiment BL626 made a really good analogy, in which he compared an author to a business. (Comment #9 on the above link.) And it made a lot of sense. But to take it a step further: if an author is a business, and you’re the customer complaining about the quality of their product, there are effective ways to do that, and ineffective ways to do that. For instance, if I’m calling DirecTV because they’ve tacked yet another hidden charge somewhere onto my HD NHL Center Ice package—which I paid for before the season even started—the first thing I do with the hapless customer service rep that answers my call is tell them, ‘Now, I know none of this has anything to do with you personally. I know you don’t make these ridiculous decisions.’ And I repeat that many times during the conversation, the result of which is usually the customer service rep eventually telling me in a low, discreet voice that yes, it is a stupid policy, and that if I threaten to disconnect my service, they can take off those charges and hey, wouldn’t I like three free months of HBO too? All the while nudging and winking at me.

If I started that conversation off with insults and highhanded ‘I know better than you do because you’re obviously an idiot,’ I wouldn’t get to watch Bill Maher as often as I do. And I’d be paying extra charges to watch the Rangers in HD.

It’s the difference between a scathing review with the possibility of a resulting backlash, and a sincere dialogue with those authors with whom I hear a lot of you saying you like to interact. And if you’re lambasting a book in the comments section for two days, after you’ve friended that author so he/she has to see everything you say whenever he/she logs in, you really can’t expect that author to be happy about it. You are not doing the author a favor by reading their book—to keep with the business analogy, they have provided a product, and you have purchased it; the transaction is done.

The review is a whole other animal. And yes, I will agree that if a reader chooses to review a book, they are doing a favor to its author. Whether they mean to or not. I’d venture to say that most reviewers don’t look at it like that—they do it for their reading buddies and themselves, and if the author sees it and thanks them for it, that’s probably a teeny little bonus. But, see, if that review ends up being OMG, do not waste your time on this book! you can’t really be surprised when the author’s reaction is Don’t do me any favors.

I’m not saying you should watch what you say. In fact, I think I’ve said several times that it’s your right not to. I’m just saying that the way authors feel about their work isn’t going to change, none of them will ever be happy about a 1-star bad review, and that’s just reality. If an author is expected to just face the reality that you hated their book, you have to face the reality that they don’t have to appreciate you saying so.

Which brings us to the next thing:

No matter how nasty it may seem to you, it may seem to the reviewer like the most objective, insightful review ever written.

I have yet to get a bad review wherein I thought the reviewer’s main purpose was to make me cry. Now, I’m small potatoes. Like I said, I write a subgenre of a subgenre, so I don’t get the amount of critique a lot of the more popular authors get. I’ve gotten just enough to be able to speak on what the experience rises in me, but I don’t know what it’s like to have that coming at me on a bigger scale. But still, I’d venture to say that I get at least enough of a statistical sampling to be able to say that, by and large, readers are not out to get authors.

Yes, there are some reviewers who never do anything but badmouth and poke and insult. There’s a small percentage in every group that gives everyone else in the group a bad name. Again, that’s just reality. But most—at least those I’ve seen in my limited experience—are just speaking freely with their reading partners about something that’s stirring their juices—good or bad. They probably don’t even know you’re there. And like Kate in that one comment didn’t see what I was talking about as personal, these readers probably don’t view what they’re chatting about with their friends as a personal insult to the authors they’re talking about. They probably don’t see it as insulting at all.

I mean, look—I’ve got an author friend whom I’ve known for years and years, with whom I exchange stories and critique. You would not believe some of the criticism we’ve exchanged on each other’s stories. If strangers saw some of the marked-up .docs we’ve sent back and forth, they’d probably think we hated each other. I’ve written stories she’s hated, she’s written stories I’ve hated, and you know what? She’s still my best friend. When she rips something I’ve written to shreds, it doesn’t ruin my life. My husband doesn’t leave me, my kids don’t turn to lives of crime, my house doesn’t blow up, my dog doesn’t die, and she doesn’t stomp off in a huff thinking I’m the worst thing that ever polluted the planet with my words. (Okay, I don’t have a dog. Literary license. Shut up.) And none of those things happen when I get a bad review in a public venue, either.

Does it still sting? Well, yes, of course, because as I said, it’s all personal in some way, and knowing someone thinks you’ve fucked up in a big way makes you wince. It just does. But does it mean my friend thinks I’m a complete waste of space and we’re not friends anymore? Obviously not. I can read her wtf were you thinking here, didn’t this guy die two chapters ago? and not curl up in a ball because I know her, I know what her tones mean, I know she’s being purposefully blunt because that’s the best way to be absolutely clear when you’re trying to make a point. And I also know I can call her up and tell her to fuck off, wench, and how many times did you use the word ‘cousin’ in your last manuscript? Like 642 in 21 pages, wasn't it, Ms. Perfect? In the most loving manner possible, of course. (*blinks innocently* What?)

Authors don’t generally know their readers as well as I know my friend. We can’t decipher a reader’s tone, except by what’s on the screen. We don’t know if they’re being tongue-in-cheek, we don’t know if they’re having to alternate typing their review with rending the pages of our book, we don’t know if they’re playing it up for an audience, or if they’re playing it down in case we happen by.

And that’s the point—we don’t know. Maybe English isn’t their first language and their wording is harsher than they meant. Maybe it’s exactly as harsh as it was intended to be. We don’t know unless we actually speak to the reviewer, and we really can’t do that on here. Too many authors who went on the attack in the past have ruined that for us. That’s not fair, either, but you know what? It’s reality. And besides, even if we did feel free to approach a reviewer and open a reasonable dialogue to see exactly where they think we went wrong, that doesn’t mean the reviewer would welcome it. Know why? Because everyone is an individual, with individual reasons for doing what they do, and none of us get to tell each other how to do it.

If we respect nothing else about each other, we have to respect that. Which brings us to the most important point:

GoodReads is about subjectivity, not objectivity.

See? Told I’d make it back to that eventually. And there’s really not a whole lot left to say about it. Everyone knows what those two words mean, and the differences between them. This site is built for subjectivity, which, by its definition, is inherently not fair to at least one side in any difference of opinion. I think we’d all be better off if we stopped expecting GoodReads to be something it’s not, and stopped expecting the readers not to use it in the way it was meant to be used.

Stop expecting objectivity and fairness. It’s not about that and it’s not about us. Even if we sometimes feel like it is. It’s not about what we feel, it’s about the reality of what it is.

Read the link in comment #6 of that other post. It’s important. And no, it’s still not fair, but it’s not supposed to be. Accept the reality of that, and you’ll be a lot happier.

(Also, feel free to carry on in the other post if you have something you’d like to discuss. As you can see, everyone was more than willing to participate in a healthy exchange of ideas, and I really did learn a lot.)
10 likes ·   •  18 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on April 15, 2012 13:23 Tags: goodreads, reality, reviews
Comments Showing 1-18 of 18 (18 new)    post a comment »
dateUp arrow    newest »

Experiment BL626 In short:



Authors and readers, beware. >:D


message 2: by Carole (new)

Carole Cummings Experiment BL626 wrote: "In short:



Authors and readers, beware. >:D"


*falls down* OMG, you kill me. And hey, that's not pie!


message 3: by Carole (new)

Carole Cummings WeaselBox wrote: "Good post, Carole. I've been debating with myself whether or not to respond, since I've had enough of this discussion for a good long while..."

Ha! That's because you follow the links and read them, you silly thing. I like my method of whistling and just moving right along. ;)

Yeah, I think that for every reader who says they like the interaction, there is at least an equal number who really don't. And I know exactly which author you're talking about, because I had the exact same experience. (Unless there's more than one of them that fits that description, in which case... ergh.)

But I don't want to have some weird reader-to-writer relationship with them. What the hell does that even look like?

*snort* Well, in my case, there are a couple of readers on here who, if they were to dislike one of my books and say so, I know I could go and talk to them about it in the comments of the review, and it's not going to get all out of hand and vicious. Maybe because my aim would not be to try to talk them into liking it or tell them how badly they missed the point, but to see where they think I screwed up, and if they turn out to be right, learn from it.

I honestly don't expect anyone--even those people who generally like my stuff--to like everything I've written, and if they don't, I don't expect them to spare me in a review. And if I don't expect that of people I 'know', I can't expect it of people I don't.

Although, now you've got me wondering why there are no altars in my honor. Should I feel slighted? ;)

Part of me thinks they should leave their writer persona behind and come participate here only as fellow readers, under cover...

You know, in the past couple of days, I've seriously considered doing that. Only I'd make it obvious it was me. You know--Carole Cummings Reader or something like that. And I wouldn't friend any authors with that account, just follow them, so there wouldn't be a danger of some kind of overlap.

I came to the conclusion that I can barely keep up with the account I already have, and plus I'd have to make a whole other email account, and remember more passwords, and then make sure I'm logging in under the proper account, and... Well, I'm exhausted just thinking about it.

Honestly, keeping my head down and singing lalalala under my breath when I'm here works out pretty well. I'd like it if I could be a more active participant, but as I said above, it's not about me.

Thank you once again, WeaselBox. You've been incredible all through this, and I really appreciate it. It was a sincere pleasure to 'meet' you. :)


Experiment BL626 Well...

[image error]

Pie is gone. Cake is gone too. LOLCat always get want she want. =(

You made a really good point about GR not being fair to authors. It can't be, it's a readers-oriented website. Authors may pay for the website's upkeep, but readers are the ones who keeps the site healthy with book reviews, book banters, and book clubs. We're the million reasons why authors come here in the first place. Without us, GR would not be GR, it would be dead and full of authors ghosting around.

Not that this excuses rudeness, but it's important to keep in mind whose turf one is on. And this includes readers and why I preach if a reader do not like a review and its reviewing style, block the reviewer instead of making an inflammatory comment. The "block this member" function is starving to be used. Less fights would happen if more people would utilize the function instead doing confrontations.

I should have been more specific with my author-business "analogy," I meant authors are businesspeople and businesspeople should act professionally. If a businessperson thinks engaging and further antagonizing an unruly customer is justified, maybe that businessperson should reconsider her job. I agree that the customer isn't always right but how is it productive telling the customer off? It accomplish nothing and makes the businessperson looks unprofessional. The customer is an asshole, and the businessperson is an asshole. Assholeness, like misery, loves company.


message 5: by Carole (new)

Carole Cummings Experiment BL626 wrote: "Well...

Pie is gone. Cake is gone too. LOLCat always get want she want. =(

You made a really good point about GR not being fair to authors. It can't be, it's a readers-oriented website. Authors..."


Bwah! Well, I'll just have to go scrounging for leftover butterscotches. *shakes fist at LOLCat*

We're the million reasons why authors come here in the first place. Without us, GR would not be GR, it would be dead and full of authors ghosting around.

Oh good god, what a horrifying thought.

You're right, rudeness is rudeness, regardless, but I did enough waitressing in my college days to know that all you get for returning rudeness in kind is fired. Not a bad life lesson, and one that I think certainly pertains to situations like these.

I should have been more specific with my author-business "analogy," I meant authors are businesspeople and businesspeople should act professionally.

I think either way you look at it--business or businessperson--it works out the same. Either way, yes, professionalism is the key word. I understand that even businesspeople blow their tops every once in a while and tell off a customer--sometimes deservedly so--but again, all that's going to get them is fired. It may be cathartic to be an asshole for five seconds, but I bet it's no fun at all being an unemployed asshole.

Thanks once again, Experiment. You've been amazing and I'm really glad you handed over your two cents last week. It's been great! :)


message 6: by Dani (new)

Dani Alexander Carole wrote: "Maybe because my aim would not be to try to talk them into liking it or tell them how badly they missed the point, but to see where they think I screwed up, and if they turn out to be right, learn from it."

I just wanted to say: THIS. I read a lot of comments hoping that I'll learn from them. I can certainly decide if the reader is right if I allow myself to read the person objectively. That's the trick. Reading objectively is the key factor. Maybe there are good points in there.

Figure out what's helpful and what's just something subjective to that reader in particular and use it as concrit. It's much like the editing process. I decide what to accept from my editor (not as often as he'd like) and what to reject. If you're going to read a review (and if you have thin skin, I suggest you don't), dear authors, then use the information.


Experiment BL626 @WeaselBox

That's why I changed business to businessperson, although I think authors are both. Anyway, I was speaking on the author's term, to those who do thinks negative reviewers are unruly, or at least unappreciative, customers. Most don't think this way, but a few do. Regardless of what any author thinks of reviewers, it's never a good idea to engage reviewers because very few authors can do it professionally.

I don't believe I can change an author's mind about what is a review and what isn't, I don't believe anyone can. I probably will have an easier time trying to convert an author to another religion. What I can do is advise them on their business choices and points out the bad ones. That might be presumptuous of me but, hey, authors always want constructive criticisms. Telling them to avoid Author's Big Mistake is constructive, imo. One would think a bad business choice called Author's Big Mistake would be well-known, but *shrug* eh.


message 8: by Carole (new)

Carole Cummings @WeaselBox--Yes, naturally PM or email would be better. And no, you can't do it with just anybody. It has to be someone whose opinions you respect in general, and also who is willing in the first place. 'I didn't like the red-headed guy because gingers freak me out' is not a valid critique, where 'I thought the red-headed guy stepped out of character here' is something that, if pointed out by one of those people whose opinion I respect, is something I'd want to pursue.

And there is no pleasing everyone, so I can't imagine why anyone in their right mind would try.

@Dani--Heh. Well, I don't want to give you the impression that I'm braver than I am. I kinda try to stay away from the reviews and stats section of GR. Mostly because I'm pretty bad at the internet part of this whole 'being an author' gig, but partly because if I saw a low-rating review, I'd want to apologize to the reader and offer a refund, and I probably shouldn't be setting a precedent like that. ;)

Yes, cherry-pick what's helpful to you and what works for you, and leave the rest. No one can be all things to all readers, and we'd just make ourselves crazy if we tried.

Thanks, Dani! :)


Experiment BL626 @ Carole

Hey, you're welcome. Authors like you build up my faith that most authors are professional and entirely reasonable in the face of adversity. It's discussions such as this that makes readers enjoy interacting with authors and encouraging them to interact more. I recall a friend of my friend once said that a positive discussion will overcome a bad review every time, even if that bad review comes from you.


message 10: by Experiment BL626 (new)

Experiment BL626 @ WeaselBox

I wonder if that is where the starving artist trope is born.


message 11: by qx (last edited Apr 15, 2012 06:54PM) (new)

qx Carole wrote: But to take it a step further: if an author is a business, and you’re the customer complaining about the quality of their product, there are effective ways to do that, and ineffective ways to do that. For instance, if I’m calling DirecTV...

If I started that conversation off with insults and highhanded ‘I know better than you do because you’re obviously an idiot,’ I wouldn’t get to watch Bill Maher as often as I do. And I’d be paying extra charges to watch the Rangers in HD.

It’s the difference between a scathing review with the possibility of a resulting backlash, and a sincere dialogue with those authors with whom I hear a lot of you saying you like to interact.


While I agree that a scathing review is unlikely to garner a positive reaction from the author, I'm not too sure how many people writing reviews are actually doing so with the intent of interacting directly authors. Or how many reviews are actually for the primary benefit of the authors. It seems like most reviews I read are like a group of friends hanging out, talking about what they read/saw/bought and what was wrong/great/weird about it. Or like coworkers in the break room.

Which is why I'm not so sure that your analogy of calling up customer service works. Calling up customer service would be if a reader wrote a direct email or posted a message directly addressed to the authors in question in the authors' own forum with *some* expectation of a response from them . (After all, you expect your call to be answered even if it's just to put you on hold, right?)

When you're complaining to other people in your own space (and your own little portion of Goodreads is basically your space here) about, say, the new waffle maker you bought, that's not calling up customer service to tell them the design of the waffle maker is bad because there's no heat-resistant handles for you to separate the top from the bottom when the waffles are done so you can actually get the damn waffles out, that's simply complaining to other people. That's telling your husband/wife/kids that the new waffle maker sucks. Maybe you detail why it sucks, maybe you don't. If you make your review public, you're still not directly engaging the producer of the product. You're still not calling up customer service. You're maybe putting up a sign on your front lawn.

Maybe then you post to some random kitchen appliances forum about what a crappy product it is, how poorly it's made, how you wish you'd never bought it, how you can't even open up the damn thing without a knife to pry it open, etc. You're venting in the hopes of warning others off or just for some relief from the frustration of an unsatisfying experience. You're complaining because sometimes you just want to complain. You're not doing it with the expectation of recompense. Even if it would be appreciated, it's still unexpected. (Though, really, with such a crappy waffle maker, you *should* call up their customer service and demand a refund.)

Maybe, in the back of your mind, you'd like it if the authors or publishers chanced across your comments and improved their (later) products. That would be good, great even, but that's not your primary objective. I'm wondering if perhaps, when people say they want a sincere dialogue with authors, it's more of a "If so-and-so author finds this review, it'd be neato if we had a thoughtful discussion on this book, but I'm not holding my breath" or "I'd love it if said author read my reviews and responded but who knows if that'll happen" and not so much a "I am expecting the author to engage in a discussion with me about this book and this review is my entry into said discussion." If it were the latter case, I think the reviewer would be likelier to actually contact the author directly.

All of which is to say...nice post and, um, I don't think most reviews are readers' attempts to engage with authors. They're just a nice bonus if it happens.

Oh, and careful when buying waffle makers.


message 12: by qx (new)

qx WeaselBox wrote: "Mmmmm, waffles."

:( They were not so mmm from that machine.


message 13: by Carole (new)

Carole Cummings OMG, you guys keep bringing food! Is it possible to gain virtual weight? 0_o

@WeaselBox--What, now I can't moan dramatically about the woes and tribulations of my creativity? Geez, why don't you just stab me in the heart while you're at it? ;)

You know, I think that has something to do with what you were talking about the other day too. I can only speak for myself here, but I don't think any of this kind of stuff is 'beneath' me, but I also don't really know how to do most of it. Self-promotion? No. It makes me feel like a braggart who's just setting herself up to be the target of critical rocks. Marketing? Bzuh? Branding? Um... what?

Before the small press opportunites came along, you had mostly mainstream authors, who didn't get to be mainstream until they'd already gotten an agent, who would take care of all of that kind of stuff for them. So you've got a bunch of people who might have done nothing else in their lives besides squint at a word processing screen suddenly getting dumped out here and being expected to know what to do with themselves. Right now, we're witnessing the growing pains and flailing. Hopefully, it'll settle in eventually to a decent equilibrium.

@Experiment BL646--I want to hug you. Can I hug you?

@dx--While I agree that a scathing review is unlikely to garner a positive reaction from the author, I'm not too sure how many people writing reviews are actually doing so with the intent of interacting directly authors. Or how many reviews are actually for the primary benefit of the authors.

Er... I'm trying to find where I implied that, but it wasn't my intent. In fact, I think I said that most readers who review do it for their reading buddies and themselves. Now, I maintain that there are readers who have stated plainly that part of what they enjoy about GR is interacting with the authors, because some of them have stated it plainly to me. But that still doesn't mean I think they do any of what they do for me.

When you're complaining to other people in your own space (and your own little portion of Goodreads is basically your space here)...

And that would be true if readers posted their reviews and all ensuing commentary to their own blogs, but they don't. They post them to the book pages, which belong just as much to the authors as the readers. And like I said, when a reader has gone out of their way to friend an author and then proceeds to gripe about a book that author wrote on the comment threads of that book page, they can't be surprised when the author sees it and doesn't appreciate it.

Personally, I don't run around friending people. With the exception of a few authors whose work I like and who I've met personally and like, I don't friend anyone. Everyone on my list is there because they put themselves there. I don't go hunting down commentary on my stuff, I don't haunt the review section. But if I happen to be here when someone is in the process of reading one of my books and updating their status accordingly, I'm going to see it, because that reader put me into a position to see it.

Do I expect them to consider my sensibilites as they're reacting to the book? No, absolutely not. And in all but the cases of the few with whom I know I can discuss this sort of thing, no one's going to hear a peep out of me about it. But if someone else in my situation did peep about it, that reader doesn't really have the right to be shocked and offended that the author was watching.

I still don't think that's an excuse for an author to freak out about it. But in a case like that, the reader left him/herself open to it, and they have to accept as much responsibility for the fallout as the author does.

Does that make it more clear?


message 14: by qx (new)

qx Me going on for too long, take two:

Carole wrote: Er... I'm trying to find where I implied that, but it wasn't my intent. In fact, I think I said that most readers who review do it for their reading buddies and themselves.

Sorry, I guess I misread you. It's just that when you wrote: It’s the difference between a scathing review with the possibility of a resulting backlash, and a sincere dialogue with those authors with whom I hear a lot of you saying you like to interact, then when you compared reviews to calling customer service, that read very much to me as though you were talking about readers writing reviews as interacting with authors. So we agree that the majority of reviews aren't for the authors, but then how would the customer service analogy work since the customer (reviewer) isn't asking for service from the company (author/publisher)? I'm sorry, I'm still lost on that.

When you say book pages, you mean the Goodreads pages where people rate the books? That's a shared space, I agree, but I'd say that it's meant to be shared mostly by readers and belongs less to the author than to the readers. Goodreads is a site for book readers and book recommendations, not authors. The very site description says so in the first line, though I doubt all that many people read that.

Just look at what's on those book pages. There's publishing info on the books, usually a publisher- or author-provided summary, a list of people who read/are reading/plan to read/will never touch the books (and have marked it as such), links to buy the books. Do authors need most of this info? There's space to leave ratings and opinions, and maybe find out what others thought. There's no special space for authors to provide extra info or playlists or inspiration or whatever their writing processes were for their books. If they want to do so, they have to leave it as a review which basically means that they're treated as just another reader on those book pages. Can authors use the book pages for promo and to talk to readers? Yes, of course, and maybe there's even some special Goodreads function that gives authors special abilities to edit their own book pages or highlight their own comments (Are there?), but this is still for the benefit of readers. The book pages are geared toward providing readers with a space to leave their opinions and maybe to interact with other readers. There's not much there for authors.

Space to interact with authors would be the authors' own pages, I think, or maybe the publishers' pages or communities.


message 15: by qx (new)

qx I am long-winded, take three:

For the most part, I think we agree, but:

Carole wrote: But if someone else in my situation did peep about it, that reader doesn't really have the right to be shocked and offended that the author was watching...

...I still don't think that's an excuse for an author to freak out about it. But in a case like that, the reader left him/herself open to it, and they have to accept as much responsibility for the fallout as the author does.


Authors can be offended and react negatively as publicly as they wish, but then I don't think they have a right to demand that others not criticise them for or call them on this behavior. They, in turn, don't have a right to be shocked that readers and reviewers are offended by their reactions. Like reviewers, they've left themselves open to the fallout.

Neither side, really, has a right to demand that no one else be offended, I think, but reviewers at least should be able to expect professional authors to behave professionally. It's not unreasonable to hold these authors to a higher standard than casual, Goodreads reviewers who are not making money off of their products (reviews), no matter how much or how little time and thought goes into the reviews or how much or how little the authors are paid. I don't think it's unreasonable for there to be more of a backlash against authors reacting badly than non-professional reviewers being negative.

Which means I don't think reviewers and readers should be taken to task for objecting when authors very publicly react negatively to reviews. They shouldn't be held to the same standards.

(And then the people criticising the authors' reactions have to expect criticism, then those critics should in turn expect to be criticized for their criticism, too, then...then...omg, have we lived and fought in vain?! Sorry, totally unrelated, doesn't even really apply, but I've been wanting to say that for weeks and couldn't find any other discussions to stick it in.)


message 16: by Carole (new)

Carole Cummings @WeaselBox--If a reader has friended you and then writes a snarky review about one of your books, that reader is an asshole. Or at the very least incredibly absent minded.

Thank you! I didn't think it was just me, but you never know.

You know, honestly, I've always thought following was the better way to go, and I'm not sure why it's not utilized more than the friending. *shrug* Different strokes, I guess.

@dx--I was talking about reviewers reviewing books of authors whom they've friended, and therefore more or less forcing that author to notice what they're saying. And I still think that's pretty low. If it makes more sense to you, change the analogy to a message board on a company website.

And sorry, you're not going to convince me that anyone has more of a right to my own book pages than I do. Equal right? Sure. More? Not when something that came from me is the reason it's there in the first place. I really did try to see it your way, and I'm still not arguing against readers having more of a voice here, but I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. And that's probably simply because we're coming at it from two different perspectives.

Authors can be offended and react negatively as publicly as they wish, but then I don't think they have a right to demand that others not criticise them for or call them on this behavior.

Yeah, but again, you're making a case for something I'm not arguing. I said several times in the post and the comments that I don't think authors should have ranty attacks when they get a bad review. I'm not arguing that they should. And I'm not saying they won't deserve any criticism they might get if they do. I'm saying that if a reader wants the right to say whatever they want with impunity, they need to concede that right to others--whether it's another reader or the author. Simply because the site is not built for authors--which, again, I conceded that point several times over--does not make authors 'less than'. You sound like you're arguing that authors have less of a right to free speech than anyone on this site, and I'm not willing to concede that any human being has more of a right to free speech than another.

I think I get what you're saying, and you're right, I'm pretty sure we're generally in agreement, with the exception of a couple of semantic circumstances. It seems like you think I'm confusing 'has a right to' with 'should do this' and I'm not. An author has a right to commit publishing suicide by freaking out on a reviewer--that does not mean an author should. It's the difference between principle and practical application. The principle is there; the practical application of that principle is just unwise.

Which means I don't think reviewers and readers should be taken to task for objecting when authors very publicly react negatively to reviews. They shouldn't be held to the same standards.

No, I'm not arguing for that, either. In my personal opinion, the back-and-forth is ridiculous, reactionary and pointless. I can understand the emotion and motivation behind either 'side' of it, but that doesn't mean I condone it. It would be nice if reviewers were held to some standards (and this from the POV of both a reader and an author--some reviews are just completely useless when I'm trying to use them to determine the quality of a book and figure out if something does genuinely suck or if the reviewer just had a bad day), but again, it's GR, it's how it is, it's reality. By and large, reviewers do what they do conscientiously, and authors are better off just ignoring those who don't.

You know that adage? I do not agree with what you are saying, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. That's supposed to be what free speech is about. What the GR atmosphere boils down to is that reviewers expect that from authors, but don't have any inclination to reciprocate. And again, that's just GR, that's the way it is, and while I'm here, that's how I conduct myself. But just because no one is defending the rights, doesn't mean they don't exist.

Again, not saying that just because those rights exist they should be shoved in reviewers' faces. I know why authors are here, and I think attacking is stupid and rude. I will absolutely concede that authors should not utilize those rights, but I can't concede they don't have them.

And then the people criticising the authors' reactions have to expect criticism, then those critics should in turn expect to be criticized for their criticism, too, then...then...omg, have we lived and fought in vain?!

Ahahahahaha! And on that, we agree completely!!


message 17: by R. (new)

R. But, but, but, you observant readers say, that’s not fair! To which I say, well… it kinda is. I think this is the only point on which I will unabashedly argue for the author. If we want to assume that readers have the right to speak freely and expect to have that right respected by authors, you have to also give authors the same right. In other words: if you get to do it, so do they.

Now, that’s not to say I think authors should. In fact, I really think authors shouldn’t. I’ve never seen anything good come of it, and if you’re an author reading this and thinking you’re going to be different—no, you’re really not. Seriously. You’re not that special and it can only end in tears. All of them yours.


This. You can. But should you?

I love this clear, thoughtful post. :)


message 18: by Carole (new)

Carole Cummings Sorry, guys, was offline for a couple of days. Thank you for stopping by!

@WeaselBox--Oh yeah, definitely. I can't recall the last time a review sold me on anything.

I've found the best tools to use to decide if I want to buy a book these days (besides the auto-buys from authors I know/trust to tell me a good story) is the blurb and the Amazon free sample. It's still not a guarantee but at least I won't be groaning about wasting my money within the first five pages.

@Lisa--Hiya, love! :) Oh rating system, how do I hate thee. *sigh* It's just so arbitrary, and designed for laziness, in my opinion. And everyone does it anymore. I blame Siskel, Ebert and their thumbs, the bastards. I don't want to know how many stars someone gave something--I want to know what they liked and disliked. And while, as an author, I do love me some stars, as a reader, they're basically useless. I hardly ever like what everyone else likes, you know? And too many reviewers don't put nearly the thought into their reviews that you do--some will take off stars for such ridiculous reasons. Average ratings don't help me even a little.

I've been thinking about this while I've been gone, wondering why I care if a stranger I know nothing about giving one of my books one star matters. I mean, maybe that person really is a moron, maybe they're just pissy in general and impossible to please, maybe I'd hate them if I met them in RL--as some readers have asked, why should I really care if they hate my book, as long as they paid for it? I made my money, right?

It's because when I put something out there, I'm looking for connection. A kind of 'do you see what I see here?' I mean, I love discussing books in general. When I read AMLS, I bought copies for five of my friends and made them read it so I'd have someone with whom to dissect and discuss it. So of course I'd love to do that with someone who's read mine. And when those low ratings show up, that connection was missed and it stings, because I've disappointed someone. This is so totally not about the money for me. I've been giving my writing away for free for years; I got published by accident and had to be talked into accepting the contract. 'Buy my book' is not the point.

Which was totally not your point. I have rambled. Er, sorry. But yes, in with all that is the initial scowl when someone attacks something that's so exquisitely personal I don't have words to express it. But there's a difference between attacking something and just saying 'I couldn't like this because...' Which is, I think, the less arrogant way to do it, because it admits that you are an individual, and your take on it is not a universal 'it sucks' and others' mileage may vary. The way you do it is conscientious and fair. Not so for everyone.

@R.--Hi! Nice to 'meet' you and thanks for stopping by. :)


back to top