"Why Haven't You Read and Reviewed My Book Yet? I'm Kind of a Big Deal."

earlier today, i was scoping out some of the goodreads authors feedback posts, and i noticed that one source of contention for authors seems to be that people who get copies of their books for advanced review don't review...or don't even read it. or--gasp--rate it without finishing!

some of these people were saying that the solution would be to bar certain people from being able to apply for books in the giveaways, or only allow certain groups to get arcs, or limiting the number of books one can apply for in a month.

all i have to say to that is, wtf?

the reader side of me is outraged. the writer side of me is disgusted.

i'll say it once, and i'll continue to say it until it stops happening: authors need to stop. being. so. freaking. entitled. (not all authors have this problem; most of you are quite lovely. unfortunately for us, though, the jerks are the most vocal.)

1. "but they are taking forever to read it!"

maybe they have a job. or a life. you know? instead of just existing to please you and your ego. but oh wait, that would mean acknowledging the fact that you aren't the center of the universe, and that would cause your very existence to collapse and implode, like a neutron star.

2. "they are keeping this book out of the hands of people who would actually like it."

um. okay? well, that's part of the risk of participating in a random giveaway. if you want to put your book out there for review, you'll get people who are more interested in the concept, sure, but since they're more emotionally invested in the idea they are liable to be more critical than a neutral party. so be careful what you wish for.

3. "they just apply for everything indiscriminately."

but isn't that a good thing? you want people who might not ordinarily pick up your book to read it and give it a chance. some of my own readers came from people who picked up my books while they were free and decided they liked my writing. i don't think being open-minded should be punished.

4. "we should put limits on how many books people can apply for."

yes, limiting your pool of participants will make it waaaaay more likely for you to get a good review. good thinking!

i think this really highlights the sheer egocentric nature of some authors. people aren't going to be applying for indie books if the gr mods put a cap on how many books you can apply for. they're going to save their applications for the nyt best-sellers. books that have already, you know, proven themselves to be worth it.

5. "there are no consequences for people who don't review the books."

actually, there are, and it says on the sidebar that site activity, review rate, popularity, and 'read' books all affect how likely you are to win a book.

i win a lot of books, but if i get really behind in reviewing i don't win a thing until i get my bum in gear. gr is very good at what it does, and to say otherwise is very ignorant not to mention insulting to the mods and librarians who do their utmost to keep this site running well.

6. "they gave me a bad review!"

people give shakespeare bad reviews. are you implying that you think that you are better than shakespeare? people give the bible bad reviews. are you implying that you think you are better than god? here's a tip: don't go walking around outside in any lightning storms. you might get smote.

7. "they gave me a one-star rating but didn't say anything. i want to know why! i deserve to know why as an author!"

it doesn't work that way. sorry. but on the other hand, if they did write you a bad review, isn't it possible that you'd pull the 'just be nice card?' maybe they figured they were fighting a losing battle and would save themselves the strife by just keeping their silence.

can you blame them?

i don't.

think carefully about the things you say and the opinions you hold publicly about and to your readers.

they are your customers - don't treat them like an enemy. it's like going to war against yourself.

happy reading!

xnenia