UK Amazon Kindle Forum discussion
General Chat - anything Goes
>
Have I been too harsh?
date
newest »
newest »
I definitely don't look at books that are over £5.99 (and over £4.99 needs to be an author I particularly like and am collecting. For "on spec" books, £4.99 is my limit)That said, I'm wary of sub £1 books, (but not free on promo) on the grounds that the author themselves doesn't seem to think they are worth the money...
Tim wrote: "I definitely don't look at books that are over £5.99 (and over £4.99 needs to be an author I particularly like and am collecting. For "on spec" books, £4.99 is my limit)That said, I'm wary of sub..."
$6.99 USD = 4.36 GBP
Perfect :)
An awful lot of my freebies are books that I wouldn't consider paying for. I have a collection on my kindle called "free books" Every so often I'll read a book from in there.I'll often use look inside to see whether I fancy a book. If it's a freebie, I might bypass that step. I've been doing a cull and putting books I doubt I'll read into an "unfinished" collection. I don't want to delete them as one day I might fancy it.
I don't think I've downloaded an awful book. Just books that I now know I won't like.
As a for example, I've put Ian Ayris' Abide With Me into that collection. Obviously being an Ayris, I'd heard it was very good. But it's so not my sort of book. I couldn't get past the first page the twice I tried. I'd never ever rate that book on Amazon as it's me, not the book that has the problem with compatibility.
Marc wrote: "You'd have thought, but the economics of the post kindle market mean many readers are only interested in the free or $0.99c book and as there are so many of them around, it matters not almost if they pick up a dud. Just move on to the next one on your kindle.I blogged a while back about my experience of a free giveaway - "Something For Nothing?"..."
I think you were right with your comment "If we give it away for free, we may get more readers. But they may not gain or give back any value from the experience. There has to be some sort of premium to any work of art."
On a serious note, We have only so much time in this world. How much of this time are you willing to deny family, friends, employer and spend producing stuff which will be given to people you never meet and who may never actually bother to read it?
I don't think your review was harsh at all Geoff. I'm with you on the price front too, what is wrong with people? :-(
On the price issue, I blame the teenage attitude of:"I want it, I want to download it NOW and it had better be free!"
I price the majority of my books at half a Pratchett. That seems only fair considering how famous he is and how obscure I am. I have one that is minimum priced, but it's the first in a series and I use it as a hook to get people buying the later ones.I would have given them away for free at the beginning to get them read. Having people say that they've enjoyed them is more of a driver than financial gain (I'm never going to earn a Kingload of money with independent comic fantasy) and if that makes me a hobbyist rather than a 'professional' then I'm entirely not fussed. The quality of the books isn't changed in either direction.
I'm always hearing that readers don't owe authors anything. I disagree. I owe people like Arthur C Clarke, Terry Pratchett, Douglas Adams etc a huge debt for the love of reading and the hours of entertainment that they have given me.
More importantly in this context, however, I do believe that everyone owes everyone honesty and courtesy - two things that seem to be in short supply these days (though fortunately not around here).
Hmm. I always read the 'readers don't owe authors anything' with a wry smile. I feel, when I've had a superb reading experience - which I often have with indie books - that I do owe the author something. For a few pence or pounds I've got a huge piece of his/her life. Months, years of work, little bits of the writer's soul in there, and I've been vastly entertained too. At least a 'Thank you' is in order!
Ignite wrote: "Hmm. I always read the 'readers don't owe authors anything' with a wry smile. I feel, when I've had a superb reading experience - which I often have with indie books - that I do owe the author so..."That's good to hear :)
Ignite wrote: "Hmm. I always read the 'readers don't owe authors anything' with a wry smile. I feel, when I've had a superb reading experience - which I often have with indie books - that I do owe the author so..."It's certainly a view frequently ( and vehemently!) expressed on dotcom. Not least by a group who don't like me very much, for daring to disagree with them.
Michael wrote: "I don't think your review was overly harsh at all, though I can understand the author having heart palpitations about a 1-star review.In all honesty, his blog post is aimed at no-one but himself...."
I agree, as an ebook author myself, I may be tempted to answer a reviewer, but everyone is allowed an opinion and the only reviews I respond to are really good ones to say 'thank you.' Never a good idea to respond to a negative review.
I was speaking as an author. If I could somehow separate myself as a reader, then I have been moved to be thankful to authors, but that has come from within me, not some external compulsion. I don't quite buy the 'you're entering and sharing a part of the author's life' through reading their book. It's a work of fiction after all, transformative work has been done by the author on the material of their actual life, otherwise it would be too subjective and not universal enough to speak to an audience.
An author however is definitely privileged when a reader commits 2-4 hours or whatever of their life to reading the author's work.
Well, I've gone and ignored my own advice on this. I got a review that intimated that my book was rife with typos, but when I reviewed the text again I only found one or two (of what the reviewer described). So I fixed them, but i did feel I needed to leave a comment to say that the problem wasn't quite like how the reviewer described it. But I was very nice so I think it's okay.But now there's another negative review of the type I described in my blog post – completely asinine and pejorative toward me personally. But I'm going to suck it up and just leave it alone.
Going back to the original post (I just read the review and blog). I think they are both fine. You have justified all your opinions Geoff and they aren't extreme so that's fine and the author has been quite civil in his response. He is entitled to defend himself. Nothing to worry about :o)
As for the later conversation, I don't judge a book by it's price but by it's blurb and occasionally by comparing the blurb with the price and if I think it sounds as though it is worth the money
James wrote: "Well, I've gone and ignored my own advice on this. I got a review that intimated that my book was rife with typos, but when I reviewed the text again I only found one or two (of what the reviewer d..."James, I just went to look, and couldn't find the second review you mention.
Hey Will,Yep, it's still there, on the US Amazon site - the 1 star one.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00905G0LE/
James wrote: "Hey Will,Yep, it's still there, on the US Amazon site - the 1 star one.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00905G0LE/"
A review that seemed to be more about the reviewer than the book.
"Didn't like it too graphic and depressing. no good resolution. Not encouraging for those of us dealing with an autistic chils. Maybe the author needs a support group like church. I know it has kept me sane."
This strikes me almost as an irrelevent review rather than a good or bad one. I would paraphrase it as
"I didn't like the book."
"I've got my problems, look at me"
Certainly if it is any consolation, as a reader that review wouldn't put me off the book, it might even encourage my interest
Yes, I saw that one. I didn't take that as being a personal comment on you or your book, more a reaction from someone who is not coping too well themselves. No response to that one would be essential.My ex's close mate has an autistic child, and I've watched her cope with him growing up over 15 years. I have immense respect for her, and sympathy for the family.
Jim wrote: "James wrote: "Hey Will,Yep, it's still there, on the US Amazon site - the 1 star one.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00905G0LE/"
A review that seemed to be more about the reviewer than the book.
"Di..."
see to me that is you judging the reader with no more information about them than they have about the author. Whether intentionally or not, any response would come off as tit for tat.
How can you judge a reader you've never met? They at least have shared the author's words in their room or train carriage over the duration of the book. The author has shared no experience of the reader's life other than reading their review in the 5 or 10 minutes it took to read it.
Marc wrote: "How can you judge a reader you've never met? They at least have shared the author's words in their room or train carriage over the duration of the book. The author has shared no experience of the reader's life other than reading their review in the 5 or 10 minutes it took to read it...."It may be harsh, but I wasn't judging the reviewer, I was judging their review. And as a judgement of the review I think my point in valid. Having read the review (which was as long or as short as the writer of the review wished) I've made my judgement about the review, much as the reviewer made their judgement about the book they were reviewing.
Looking at the Reviewer I wouldn't attempt to judge them at all. That review could have been written by someone at the end of their tether and crying for help, or by someone with a large ego that they expect the universe to orbit round. As you say, on that length of a review there isn't really enough to go on.
But as a reader and potential purchaser, looking at the review, it is useless for me as a potential purchaser. It just says the reviewer didn't like the book and appears to think that the writer may need some sort of support group.
But certainly if it was my book, I wouldn't reply to this review, the reviewer has enough issues and I don't think that there is anything James can do or say that would help.
Reviewers are responding to the book. They will inevitably bring their personal values to any review just as they will to reading the book. Are we to criticise them for their value systems with which they read the book? I've written a book that involves abortion. If a Pro-Lifer read it, chances are high they wouldn't like it. But it is not for me to carp at any view they express about my book. They still read it. They still engaged with it on some level. They would express their review as truthful to their beliefs and how they read the book. It's neither useless nor invalid to my mind. They have the right to challenge the values expressed in the book (as they see it), which clash with their own. It doesn't make their response any less truthful.
I think here we have to start breaking things down a bit. The metaphorical pro-lifer reading your book writes a review.Now then, I must admit I am not desperately in favour of abortion, but regard it as one of those areas where 'there but for the grace of God go I'. Whether that means I'm a 'pro-lifer' I'm not sure. I'm not a 'pro-deather' which is the obvious alternative :-)
So I could see your anti-abortion reviewer taking several difference stances.
1) Liked the book, disagrees with abortion, but felt that the way you handled it and its aftermath was both moving and meaningful and feels that the book both contributes to the debate and is worth reading in its own right.
2) Didn't like the book and felt your handling of abortion was shallow, verging on facile.
3) You wrote about abortion without condemning it so you are obviously an apostle of Satan and the reviewer will leave no stone unturned to discourage others from reading the book.
I would say 1) and 2) are perfectly acceptable stances, indeed honourable.
3) on the other hand is not a review, it is an attack on an author masquerading as a review. A reader has no more right to attack an author than has anyone else, and a person under attack has a right to defend themselves should they feel it is necessary.
My problem with the review that James got was that it told me damn all about the book. It wasn't really about the book, it was about the reviewer. It might have been an interesting piece of social history, or a plaintive cry for help from a lost soul, but it was damn all use to me as a prospective purchaser. Therefore I would suggest it was a poor review.
Marc, I've read your posts throughout this thread, and you seem to think that anything at all any reader says about a book they've read is valid. That's it's their right to say whatever they want about since they've read the book.Well, yes, it's their right to say whatever they want, because we live in free countries, 1st Amendment/Charter of Rights and Freedoms etc. But that doesn't automatically make what the person says valid if what they say is, as Jim points out, more about their beliefs and frame of mind than it is about the book.
The reviewer in question here said the book was 'too graphic and depressing.' Does a book being graphic automatically make it bad somehow? Is there some rule somewhere that says only an cheerful book is good? Did the Attorney General somewhere decree that any books with autistic character must somehow be 'encouraging' to those with autistic children? Not that I'm aware.
This reader simply doesn't like reading books that don't have a happy ending - that doesn't mean my book is bad, it means that it's not to the reader's taste. Does the reader have a right to give it 1 star because it wasn't so her taste? Yes. Is that a valid assessment of the book? No. It is uncritical to the utmost in all the ways we understand literary criticism to function.
Then the reviewer intimates that I'm emotionally disturbed for writing this book and that I need the help of organized religion to save myself. Does this statement really have anything to do with me? No.
Hence Jim's, and now my, points on why the review is meaningless and invalid and the reviewer's point of view if flawed.
As long as it is valid to them then nothing else matters. A crazy person may ramble on and it doesn't matter if nobody else understands it but them (I'm not implying reviewers are crazy people)
Louise-Lesley (Elle) wrote: "As long as it is valid to them then nothing else matters. A crazy person may ramble on and it doesn't matter if nobody else understands it but them (I'm not implying reviewers are crazy people)"I disagree, because if that's true, than the whole notion of intellectual objectivity is incorrect. And if intellectual objectivity is incorrect, than not a single piece of science or journalism can be trusted at all, because you're always going to be arguing bias even in the most banal facts.
Proper literary criticism can be accomplished with a (mostly) unbiased eye by someone with a proper knowledge of writing forms, structures, theories, etc. The critic can state his/her personal views on the work, but is also, innately aware, through education, training and practice, of which parts constitute his/her personal views and which parts constitute the unbiased deconstructing of the text as a product of the craft known as writing.
Blathering on simply about personal opinions in a review, while it may be completely valid to the reviewer, should not be valid to anyone else who knows anything about literary criticism.
The great thing about what I just said is that I think it's valid and I have absolutely no care if you agree or not :Dseeee what i did thurrrr?
Louise-Lesley (Elle) wrote: "The great thing about what I just said is that I think it's valid and I have absolutely no care if you agree or not :Dseeee what i did thurrrr?"
Oh yes, wow, gee, you're slick.
I agree with Louise-Lesley, the review is valid to them. It is not meaningless. It may be unhelpful. It may be completely out of step with all other reviews. But to suggest that it is invalid implies it shouldn't be allowed to continue to exist which I can't agree with. Of course a book being too graphic or depressing doesn't automatically make a book bad. I think you have to have faith in potential readers perusing that review to draw their own conclusions, that they themselves cannot base their buying decision on that particular review. As I say, it's unhelpful, but not meaningless.
We can't hold up the open forum of Amazon reviews as "all the ways we understand literary criticism to function". Literary criticism until a decade ago or so was the province of an elite in the media and academic circles. As publishing has been thrown open to everybody, so has criticism. Most 'punters' reviews on Amazon are fairly brief. They rarely get to the depth of a review in a broadsheet newspaper or review journal. The landscape of literary criticism has been radically transformed. As with publishing books, there are no gatekeepers overseeing the criticism. Google recently moved to institute some sort of check by rooting out sock puppet reviews, and have only succeeded in vexing many authors by using a sledgehammer to crack that particular walnut.
I'm prepared just to say that we'll never agree on this issue. But I fervently believe no author can criticise anyone who picks up their book and reads it, or even part of it. Writers want to be read. They'll be read by those who love their books, those who are indifferent to it and those who don't like it; and the reasons for not liking it are wide and various and as you say, sometimes have nothing to do with the book itself.
Marc said it much better than I.And can we take a moment to recognise he is actually agreeing... with... me..
Marc wrote: "I agree with Louise-Lesley, the review is valid to them. It is not meaningless. It may be unhelpful. It may be completely out of step with all other reviews. But to suggest that it is invalid impli..."Okay – I think now we're sort of narrowing in on the same point. By 'invalid' I mean 'unhelpful.' In saying more about themselves than about the book, the reviewer is not giving any sort of useful instruction to anyone else who may be thinking of reading the book, except perhaps telling someone 'if you don't like depressing books, don't read it.'
I guess the problem is that the star rating and the text rating are meant to go hand-in-hand, but don't really; the star rating is mixed together with all the other star ratings and the average (whether explicitly or not) implies the 'successfulness', or 'well-done-ness' of a book. So if you somehow get a bunch a of people reading a graphic book who don't like graphic books, they're all going to give it 1 stars, and, even though at that point it was simply a preference issue, the book now has a very low star average, implying that on the whole, it is 'bad', which is unfair, especially if it ends up driving away other readers who may have in fact liked it if they'd have given it a chance, if not for those many bad ratings.
This is why I've never really bought into the whole 'oh, we need to get rid of the ivory towers' and such; if you're having a heart attack, you go to a doctor, if you need your pipes fixed you go a plumber, and so, logically, if you want a well-thought out and reasoned review of a book, you should go to a trained and experienced reviewer.
But now all the power in the hands of people's subjective tastes, and any sort of rational objectivity is being leached away from lit. crit.
well the notion of scoring literature out of 5 and then agglomerating them into some sort of marker of quality to establish a chart, is bizarre to me in the extreme. But hey, it's Amazon's economic model and we authors can choose to join up and use them as publishers or sellers, or we can choose not to.The use of tags and labels to help search engines does nothing but diminish a book (and indirectly the reader and author too), but again, how else are Amazon going to sort through the mass of titles they're offering so that any reader can find the book they're after?
It is less than ideal in many ways. But it is what it is.
Marc wrote: "well the notion of scoring literature out of 5 and then agglomerating them into some sort of marker of quality to establish a chart, is bizarre to me in the extreme. But hey, it's Amazon's economic..."Well, yeah, that's a good point to. What this has shown me is just how important it is to target specific groups of readers with specific genres (instead of just broadcasting to the masses and hoping for the best), and how doing a free give-way really doesn't bring positive results anymore.
Though I will still contend that when one leaves a review like the one in question, one makes oneself look rather silly.
Very true. But I've also read many blogs and chatted with people who say that they don't even look at a book that's less than $4.99 because they just assume it isn't worth their time. Those people are probably in the minority, but still.
At least now I have the flexibility to move around with the price.