Readers and authors unite.

[Harold]

I second your suggestion of reading the "Look Inside" excerpt that Amazon frequently provides when an author not familiar to you has a new book out that has caught your interest. I usually review the book I read and post the review on goodreads, librarything, and my blog site. Usually, the quality of the writing revealed in the excerpt is sustained throughout the book. Usually, not always.

[Jim]

All reviews - positive, negative, intelligent, vindictive, etc. - are merely subjective opinions. One reader's "worst book ever" may very well be another reader's "best book ever". I personally doubt that reviews (positive or negative) have much, if any, impact upon sales.

The vast majority of readers have never and will never post a review in a literary website or periodical. They are content to just occasionally share their opinions with their friends.

Personally, my reading choices are based upon browsing until a cover or title attracts my attention. Then, if the blurb and cursory review of a page or two arouses my curiosity sufficiently, I will borrow or purchase it. Reviews play absolutely no part in the decision.

[Lenita]

I disagree with your example, John, because I am a reader and reviewer who likes both the Bible and fantasy, I read much Christian fantasy and also write it. However, I do see what you mean because I don't do well reading out of my genre. If I read a mystery I'm liable to give it a poor review, not one star, though maybe three.

[Groovy]

I agree with Jim and Harold. And, to add to what Harold stated: an author's style of writing in the blurb or synopsis reflects to the reader the quality of writing inside the book. Maybe once they've read the blurb, they are not interested in continuing, or looking inside.

[Christine]

John wrote: "The original post is about inappropriate reviews and it does have a significant effect on the majority of readers. If your opinion were fact, Amazon and others would not have introduced the facility...."

Lets get a couple things straight - Reviews are written by readers for readers and represent their subjective opinion of the work. They have the right to review in any manner they see fit. What they say and how they say it is their right. They are not professional writers and can only express their honest opinion. On that basis, there is no such thing as an inappropriate review. I don't agree with your opinion - it's not your place to tell anyone how to write their review.

If you were referring to reviews that are bought, traded, phony and from author circles then those reviews would be inappropriate. All of these bogus reviews are generated by authors in a lame attempt to sell their book.

I also don't believe you are able to state unequivocally that reviews effect the choices made by the MAJORITY of readers. Jim is absolutely correct when he said reviews have little to do with sales.

Because of the manipulation, most avid readers never buy based on reviews - that's a slippery slope. Most read the blurb or the Look Inside feature, or know the author, or get recommendations from friends.

Unlike you, I think readers are very intelligent people. They are well aware of the manipulation that exists in reviews. Their reading decisions are based on solid criteria that makes sense to them.

Perhaps it's hard for you to imagine, but they don't need you to tell them how to write a review or select a book.

[Lakshmi]

Something that is commonly overlooked is that opinions can change with time. A book that you did not like today can seem attractive when you think about it a year from now. It can also be a likeable read if you are on a vacation than if you picked it up in the middle of a busy work week. But nobody has the time to give multiple reviews except perhaps a few discerning readers (though I confess that I have never seen multiple reviews from the same person).

[[deleted user]]

Christine wrote: "John wrote: "The original post is about inappropriate reviews and it does have a significant effect on the majority of readers. If your opinion were fact, Amazon and others would not have introduce..."

I hope you're right that reviews have little to do with sales -- cause I have no reviews at all right now! :)

As a reader, I only pay attention to the star rating, but not individual reviews. I only read those when I'm not enjoying the book. If reviewers have the same complaints as me, I stop reading.

And the only time I personally think reviews are inappropriate is when they're not really criticizing the book itself, but journey into the territory of personally attacking the author and just being plain nasty. If the book sucks, fine, but let's just stick to the book.

[[deleted user]]

John wrote: "J.H. wrote: "Christine wrote: "John wrote: "The original post is about inappropriate reviews and it does have a significant effect on the majority of readers. If your opinion were fact, Amazon and ..."

On the one hand, I do think readers are entitled to their own opinion and the right to express it. That's what sucks about being a writer -- subjectivity.

On the other, people LOVE to make writers squeeze into a box of their own creation. They want a story to be a certain way, because I don't know, maybe other books have conformed to those standards or rules, and when it isn't they are enraged. Not ALL, but SOME. For example, I just finished Cold Mountain and LOVED it, because I read the book as the author meant me to - as a slow-moving, reflective tale about an emotional journey. Yet other reviewers gave it one star because there was no plot. Well, it wasn't meant to have a plot. Let the book be what it is, and let the author tell the story the way he envisioned it.

And there's one important thing to remember -- a bad review doesn't mean the book is bad. It means one dued didn't like it.

[[deleted user]]

John wrote: "J.H. wrote: "On the one hand, I do think readers are entitled to their own opinion and the right to express it. ..."
I only agree with you if you are referring to a diligent reader who checked the ..."

Trouble is, we have no way of knowing, and that's very frustrating. Putting a book out there is a gamble. I think as writers, we have to take our lumps when someone is a jerk about our books (whether he did his due diligence or not), and move on. Otherwise, we'll drive ourselves nuts. But I agree with the anger toward readers who don't determine ahead of time that the book is right for them.

[[deleted user]]

John wrote: "J.H. wrote: "John wrote: "J.H. wrote: "On the one hand, I do think readers are entitled to their own opinion and the right to express it. ..."
I only agree with you if you are referring to a dilige..."

The hymn I'm singing is writers have to move on from bad reviews and keep writing.

[Darcy]

First of all, someone like me who refuses to support a company like Amazon will NEVER use the LOOK INSIDE feature.

Second, authors and book groups often encourage people to read outside their comfort zone. So yes, readers do experience reading things they are unfamiliar with.

Third, your scenario in the first post suggests that there's a pre-conceived knowledge of HOW the book should be read. Even with a blurb, there is no way to know that there might not be a plot line in the story. Even a LOOK INSIDE feature doesn't give enough for that either in some cases.

A reader can give whatever response to anything they read in any manner they see fit (without personal attack). It's not a job, there's no one formula, just as there is no one formula for writing a book.

Therein lies the irony. Authors are often not happy to read about 'inappropriate' reviews, because those are the reviews that tend to be negative. But that same review will help the next uninitiated reader, who has similar tastes as the reviewer, understand the book is not for them; thereby limiting the number of 'unacceptable' reviews. So, that 1 'inappropriate' review could potentially have saved the author from several of the like.

At any rate, it doesn't really matter to me what an author thinks of my review, whether to a book from a genre I am very familiar with, or from a genre that I have little experience with. The review is not meant to be for the author, it is meant to speak to other readers, and how they choose to communicate to each other, is up to them.

[Steven]

Researching for a blog post I did about review writing I got reminded of something that we, as authors, must remember. Reviews are for readers.

Knowing how readers react to our work is probably of tenuous benefit because it passes through a highly individualized filter. Reviewer read the book they read not the book the writer wrote.

[[deleted user]]

Darcy wrote: "First of all, someone like me who refuses to support a company like Amazon will NEVER use the LOOK INSIDE feature.

Second, authors and book groups often encourage people to read outside their com..."

That's a good point -- that bad reviews limit more bad reviews from people of like mind. I'll remember that when I get my first bad review ;)

[Vanessa]

I have several of these...... Is it really worth it?

[Christine]

@John - This entire thread is tantamount to shooting yourself in the foot. I've been through this conversation numerous times over the past year with many new authors driven by ego instead of common sense.

Like it or not we need reviewers - telling them what to do and how to do it is only insulting them. What you are accomplishing here is simple - reviewers will quit reviewing - they don't get paid for it - they do it for other readers not you - they don't need your inference they're stupid and doing it wrong - they don't need you. Too bad you need them.

Reviews are for READERS - not authors. If the author wants to read them that's their choice, BUT the review is NOT written for them. Other readers use reviews to make decisions (along with other criteria) and you have no idea how a reader takes the comments.

John, this is not about the reviewer - it is about you, a novice author who doesn't like his reviews. Even though several comments here have noted clearly that your book does need editing, you have decided your lack of success is the reviewers fault - not yours.

Writers scream that they need reviews - they give their books away for them and some even pay for them because they need them. Reviews tell other readers your book is readable and also points out attributes about the book (good or bad). Even bad reviews may actually sell your book, because what one reader hates another thinks is great.

You have not accomplished anything here but displayed your ignorance, arrogance, and unprofessional attitude. There is a good chance another group of reviewers just stopped reviewing thanks to you.

TO ALL REVIEWERS: I sincerely hope the reviewers reading this thread, know that the majority of authors, like myself, greatly appreciate the time and effort they put into writing honest and thoughtful reviews. Your opinions are helpful to other readers and your reviews play an important part in keeping our books at the level of quality readers deserve.

[Sarah (Presto agitato)]

J.H. wrote: "On the other, people LOVE to make writers squeeze into a box of their own creation. They want a story to be a certain way, because I don't"

And some authors want reviewers to squeeze into a box of their own creation. Either way, it doesn't tend to work well.

John, you are making a lot of assumptions here. There are many, many readers who do not read just one genre or just one "style," as you call it. It is possible for someone to read and enjoy very different books. If you ask people to avoid reading outside a designated genre, you will also exclude reviews that say, "This isn't usually the kind of book I read, but this was so great I want to read more!" That's a very powerful positive recommendation.

I also think sometimes people say something isn't their thing, "cup of tea," etc. when they are trying to be nice. The "I didn't like it but others may" kind of thing. It may not be something you want to read into too deeply.

[[deleted user]]

Sarah (Presto agitato) wrote: "J.H. wrote: "On the other, people LOVE to make writers squeeze into a box of their own creation. They want a story to be a certain way, because I don't"

And some authors want reviewers to squeeze ..."

I agree -- some authors do. Neither is being fair. We should let the writer do his thing, and allow the reviewer his opinion.

And I agree with you, Christine, that novice authors who need some writing lessons generally moan the most. If someone criticizes my work, I fix it, bottom line. That's the correct way to react.

[Christine]

Sarah (Presto agitato) wrote: "And some authors want reviewers to squeeze into a box of their own creation. Either way, it doesn't tend to work well...."

+1000

[Darcy]

This is a cyclical argument. You are complaining that the reviewer doesn't meet your expectation. The reviewer wrote that you did not meet theirs.

Conclusion: you each don't like the other's writing style.

[Nospin]

Christine wrote: "@John - This entire thread is tantamount to shooting yourself in the foot. I've been through this conversation numerous times over the past year with many new authors driven by ego instead of commo..."


Excellent post, Christine.

You are absolutely right that every time I run into these whinges it puts me off reviewing.

It is, however, not just newbie SPAs. I know 3 Amazon Top Reviewers who deleted their reviews and stopped reviewing due to insults, stalking, and doxxing by Anne Rice and her fans.

[Nospin]

John wrote: "Christine wrote: "@John - This entire thread is tantamount to shooting yourself in the foot. I've been through this conversation numerous times over the past year with many new authors driven by eg..."

While Christine's comment may have been blunt, in no way was it insulting. She provided you with the honest lay of the land.

BTW, while you write in one of my preferred genres, I would never get to the Look Inside due to your covers.

[Christine]

John wrote: "The thrust of your comment is that reviewers are some special breed that authors can be abused by, above the dictates of common decency. readers, reviewers and authors are all the same animal, so mutual regard for honesty and accuracy applies...."

You need to read my comment again, because you missed the whole point. You are the one insulting reviewers and have the arrogance to think you can tell them what to do. They paid for your book and they owe you NOTHING. Writing a review is a courtesy they extend to other READERS - not authors.

You've insulted and demeaned those readers that provide reviews - reviews authors NEED. In doing so you probably have given at least a few of those reviewers cause to wonder why they bother, and others will simply decide to never review again.

It seems you can explain your opinions about reviews and demand changes be made, because reviewers are explaining their opinions, but you don't like them. Do you get how ridiculous that is. Twisting words to defend your statements isn't fooling anyone.

For the record this thread is called "Readers and Authors Unite". Its probably been very powerful at accomplishing the opposite effect. Reviewers are READERS and you just drove a huge wedge between them and authors. I can only hope most readers realize most authors don't agree with you at all.

Your insults and demands have cost ALL authors as a result. I'm angry (I'm one of those reviewers) and I'm frustrated (I'm also one of those authors). I stand by every word I've written here and in any previous comments. You should be ashamed - you owe every honest reviewer, reader, and author an apology.

[Darcy]

John wrote: "That would be fair enough, but I am sure you you would not demand "Do not read this book" or some such. Anyway, if you buy an article of clothing from a shop, or suchlike, you check it out before you buy. Don't you? A book is no different. Do you bitch to the shopkeeper that the clothing is rubbish, just because you didn't like it? No, I expect you just put it back and keep looking. This is all I am saying. "

I will continue with your analogy. Yes, I check the clothes. They appear to be well sewn, fit nicely, and are the colours I want.

I wash it once, a button falls off, or the colours mixed, or it shrank (despite the label saying it was safe to put in the dryer). I bitch about it. I complain. I probably say it's crap. And if I'm lucky I get to say all that to a clerk when I return it.

I don't have to say anything beyond, 'Look at it, it's crap!' for anyone to understand. I don't have to detail what exactly is wrong with it, it's clear. And if I tell a friend (who had never seen the clothes before or after), they'll understand it too.

And for the record, people have been reading and reviewing books long before the LOOK INSIDE feature. So, don't blame it on the lack of use. People can make judgments about their book choices in many other ways. That these negative reviews you're getting don't sit well with you is not necessarily about how the reader chose the book - perhaps they did use the LOOK INSIDE feature and the bit they seemed to fit, but ultimately it failed to meet with their expectations.

Just because someone yells loudest, doesn't make them right.
You're spending a lot of time disagreeing with everyone who is telling you, the reviews are not for authors, but for readers. How those are done is really irrelevant.

[Nospin]

John wrote: "Nospin wrote: "John wrote: "Christine wrote: "@John - This entire thread is tantamount to shooting yourself in the foot. I've been through this conversation numerous times over the past year with m..."

I shop on Amazon.com

I have no idea why .uk shoppers like your book. If it is so popular why are you complaining about reviewers here?

Distributing what?

[Nospin]

John wrote: "Christine wrote: "John wrote: "The thrust of your comment is that reviewers are some special breed that authors can be abused by, above the dictates of common decency. readers, reviewers and author..."

Reviews are not written for authors; they are written for other readers.

Readers are not your editor or beta reader.

What is so hard to understand about those facts?

[Christine]

I think I get now - John has engaged us all in an elaborate spam adventure. His books are quite successful in the UK and he has pushed all the right buttons to get people talking and arguing about his books on this site. This is the fourth time I have found myself in this situation - an author using our GR discussions for publicity. He makes stupid arguments just to keep things going. What that line about ducks...

If that's the case, it really sucks. If this is for real - the man doesn't listen and I'm tired of wasting my time. Regardless of his motives, he just made my DO-NOT-READ list and I will not pursue this nonsense any longer.

[Groovy]

Christine wrote: "I think I get now - John has engaged us all in an elaborate spam adventure. His books are quite successful in the UK and he has pushed all the right buttons to get people talking and arguing about ..."

Right-on, Christine.

[Nospin]

John wrote: "Nospin wrote: "John wrote: "Nospin wrote: "John wrote: "Christine wrote: "@John - This entire thread is tantamount to shooting yourself in the foot. I've been through this conversation numerous tim..."

I am not an author.

[J M]

I''m both an author, a reader and a reviewer. Aware that authors need reviews, I'm always pleased to offer my services in that direction. If a book doesn't appeal to me I don't think it's fair on the author to write a really nasty review, just a little bit of constructive criticism. Let's be fair here. Alternativelywe don't need to mislead the customer into thinking a book that's had glowing reviews is in reality a load of rubbish. Authors need reviewers. Where would we be without them?

[Michael]

John, After looking at your reviews, I'm a bit confused. I was under the impression you had an endemic problem with readers giving you unkind reviews. However, I only see a total of four sub-three-star ratings on GR and Amazon for all three of your books combined. Some of them, admittedly, aren't kind, but all of them give advice on what turned them off.

One provides exact details about incidents that make characters unbelievable in his opinion. Another has a peeve about egregious use of exclamation points. A couple discuss some editing issues.

I thought this review was particularly constructive. The reader took a significant amount of his time after reading the book to give lengthy feedback about what worked/didn't work in his opinion. He didn't have to do that. He could've left you two stars and moved on. That is the case for several one-star ratings that were left on GR without any explanation at all. I would be more upset about those who left a low rating with no review, since you can't conclude anything from those ratings, and certainly can't learn anything from them.

[R.F.G.]

Great googly moogly.

As a writer I have a lot more to do than worry about reviews (good, bad, or indifferent), things like changing the tiny demon's diaper before she takes it off and spreads fertilizer at random.

Trying to steer how people review is like trying to herd kats, an effort in futility.

Regarding rudeness, that can be as subjective as a review, based simply upon cultural-background differences.

[Sarah (Presto agitato)]

John wrote: Groovy wrote: "Christine wrote: "I think I get now - John has engaged us all in an elaborate spam adventure. His books are quite successful in the UK and he has pushed all the right buttons to get people talking ..."
"Gosh you are smart, I wish I had thought of that.
Your responses have been quite surprising.
I am anxious to discover how the dickens this is going to sell as ingle book.
Let us be realistic, there are 4 or 5 persons here arguing about little that is important, certainly not my books, you don't even know what the next one is or the one after it or the one I really wanted to write, or anything. Great sales technique that is.
So, tell me how to capitalise on 5 people. Goodness me, I have sold 10 times that number of books just typing here."

Ninety-six people and counting have viewed this thread, so you're getting some kind of attention. Whether or not it sells books, only you would know.

I don't know how you can tell who has or hasn't read the Look Inside. I don't know how you know who is "qualified" to review books in your genre (looking at someone's other Amazon reviews is incomplete information at best). So why worry about what you can't do anything about?

If indeed it's true that people aren't reading your Look Inside, it's probably because it's a free book. It's easier to download than to preview. Presumably you made the book free in order to attract a wider readership, to get people to try an author they don't know. When you do that, it's inevitable that some of those people won't like your book.

[Christine]

Sarah (Presto agitato) wrote: "If indeed it's true that people aren't reading your Look Inside, it's probably because it's a free book. It's easier to download than to preview. Presumably you made the book free in order to attract a wider readership, to get people to try an author they don't know..."

Your presumption of John's motive is interesting. Here's an interesting statistic relating to those free downloads. According to recent surveys, it is estimated that 90% of the free books downloaded are never read.

[R.F.G.]

Christine wrote: "Your presumption of John's motive is interesting. Here's an interesting statistic relating to those free downloads. According to recent surveys, it is estimated that 90% of the free books downloaded are never read. "

This is why I charge unless someone contacts me directly.

[Michael]

R.F.G. wrote: "This is why I charge unless someone contacts me directly."

I'm curious to know why it is a concern to have a book downloaded and not read. I would think that those who downloaded it without reading it would also be the ones who simply would have never paid for it in the first place. For some of those 10% who do download and read it for free, some of them may have never even taken a chance on an unknown author.

My motive for keeping my book free is that I wanted friends and family to be able to access and read it at their leisure. I'm happy if others read and enjoy it as well.

[Groovy]

Like R.F.G., I don't give my books away for free anymore. I'm so thankful that my fan base, those that are actually buying, is growing and I just feel it's unfair to them. Downloaded free readers probably won't read them anyway, and the ones who buy will.

[R.F.G.]

Groovy wrote: "Like R.F.G., I don't give my books away for free anymore. I'm so thankful that my fan base, those that are actually buying, is growing and I just feel it's unfair to them. Downloaded free readers p..."

My exception on free is people who contact me directly, particularly current or former members of the military. When it comes to prints, I have promo versions (at basic print and shipping cost) available by direct link.

Part of my reason for restricting "free" copy is due to having researched which tactic worked best for unknown authors.

For readers who are serious about their books the best range for authors to garner sales was a price between $2.99 and $4.99.

For people who simply wish to pad an ereader the price was $0.00.

[R.F.G.]

Michael wrote: "I'm curious to know why it is a concern to have a book downloaded and not read. I would think that those who downloaded it without reading it would also be the ones who simply would have never paid for it in the first place. For some of those 10% who do download and read it for free, some of them may have never even taken a chance on an unknown author."

My issue with the "Free" is that it was overused early on in the self-publishing boom.

I've noticed that most of the people who won't take a chance on an unknown still won't, even when the price is $0.00.

On the other hand, there are some who normally won't chance an unknown who see a price between $2.99 and $4.99 who will take a chance if 1) the cover looks professional, 2) the blurb appears to be reasonably professional, and 3) if the look inside sample appears to reasonably well-edited.

As for my family and friends, all they have to do is say something and they get either a free e-copy or the promo-print at cost. Then again I don't have many close kin still breathing, and I'm not a social-butterfly. I have friends, but I have no need to have hundreds of friends.