Horror Aficionados discussion
Authors, What Do You Feel When You Read Negative Reviews of Your Books?
Justin, she comes on the Amazon forums fairly often.
oh wow, that's crazy yet kind of cool. I suppose it would be cooler if she wasn't so outspoken.
You should see the stuff I have for my eventual stand-up act.
I've had one or two and at first I found it hard to detach from the personal aspect from the "creative". When I write, I put a little bit of myself in there, as I imagine everyone does to a certain extent, and when someone doesn't like the final work it could appear like they don't like you.Now I realise that as long as the majority of feedback is positive then it/I can't be all that bad. Go withthe majority.
Certain ratings require certain depths of analysis in your review. I haven't gotten a bad review yet, but I did receive an anonymous 1-star that I stared at for a while. If you feel strongly enough about something to give it the lowest rating (or a 2-star rating), do consider your review's various effects, and respectfully explain why you hated it. A 3-star rating in some ways doesn't need a review, as the rating itself conveys most of what you need to know: good enough, not terrible, not great. I can't imagine being upset with someone not liking my book if they gave evidence of having actually read it, and if there's a well-formulated opinion on why it bothered them. But some bad reviews I see that leave me shaking head, and should be stricken from the record, are:
1. "I hate reading (horror/fantasy/scifi) and this book just reinforces why I hate it so much; why do people think Game of Thrones is so good when Pride and Prejudice is a true classic?"
2. "I saw all these positive reviews, so I downgraded it just because that's how I roll, and only Trainspotting deserves a 5-star review."
3. "There are no cute animals in the story. I need a story about Finnish immigrants in post-Civil War Montana mining country to have cute animals, preferably a dog that saves people and brings families together."
4. "The book was really good, but I had to pay a little more for it than I'd have liked, so 2 stars instead of 4."
I happen to mostly review books that I enjoyed, just because I don't get much satisfaction out of writing a negative review. If I do write a negative review, it's probably because I felt let down by an established author who obviously mailed in a weak effort. I don't bother negatively reviewing poorly written/edited books by self-pubs (unless it's 50 shades of Grey) because, well, what's the point?
No one wants negative reviews, but it's impossible for any story to make every reader happy. Most of the time I don't actually read reviews, positive or negative. If I'm looking for constructive criticism on a story I'm self-publishing I have readers I send work to. For other things, I've worked with great editors and we work hard to put out the best possible story. After that, how people will react is completely subjective. The only kind of reviews I find ridiculous are the ones that clearly ignored the description and complain about a story not being their personal preferences for it...which it was never going to be since it was written by someone else. Or like, someone who hates the genre you wrote in (which is clearly stated) but reviews based on that dislike. That tends not to go well. Or the ones that have a really personal objection an author couldn't possibly be expected to address reasonably.
The way I see it, it's okay not to like a story for any number of reasons including "I just didn't like it". But a review is different than that and I think writing them carries a certain responsibility. I always keep that in mind. If I didn't care for something I feel like it's my responsibility to constructively say why, but not get personal or ever say someone shouldn't be a writer.
I also really, really, really, really, don't believe in telling other writers how they "should" have written something, how to write, or expect them to fulfill my preferences for a story or character outcome. If I want that, I'll write my own. They get to tell their story their way and I'll like it or I won't.
Beyond that, I don't think authors should respond to reviews, personally. It does no one any good. Trolls will troll regardless, and even if you think a reviewer is wrong or giving misleading info, you'll just look like you can't take criticism if you react. Only exception is, say, personal threats like what happened to Harris. That should be addressed, though I think more by fellow readers/community. It doesn't mater how much you hate an outcome, threatening authors = no.
Sophie wrote: "No one wants negative reviews, but it's impossible for any story to make every reader happy. Most of the time I don't actually read reviews, positive or negative. If I'm looking for constructive cr..."True that. These reviews do carry some weight, and should be treated with some sense of responsibility. A review is far away from an anonymous scratch on a bathroom wall.
Oh, quick thing I have to admit: As a new author, I love receiving reviews from readers, because those are the folks I wrote it for. I'm waiting for some critical reviews, but I kind of believe in the wisdom of crowds when it comes to a novel's basic appeal.
Eliot wrote: "Sophie wrote: "No one wants negative reviews, but it's impossible for any story to make every reader happy. Most of the time I don't actually read reviews, positive or negative. If I'm looking for ..."I've learned over the years as an editor/writer that reviews have a kind of...shelf life in terms of being actually helpful to your writing. At first they can be useful if you see similar critiques of, say, storytelling issues or a similar point of confusion. But reviews are only a percentage of people who read something. And it's like doing things by committee...eventually you have to trust in what you're doing and you can't take literally every pov on your work to heart.
As an example, I've written for things with well established fan bases with the smaller groups of highly critical, and highly vocal, critics. They pretty much react negatively to anything written in that world. So, based on that, you'd think what you were writing was "bad" because the only voices you're hearing from are those who hate everything. Then, another story world has fans who are just happy to have more stories are not particularly critical and love most stuff done in that world. They also write less reviews, but tend to skew positive. Basically: there's not much balance in those kinds of reviews so the benefit to your writing will be minimal.
It's not that reviews don't matter, and I love hearing from people at conventions and things. But I tend to trust in my editor or objective readers more than reviews for feedback on my actual storytelling. There's a potentially disastrous rabbit hole to fall down when relying too heavily on reviews.
Eliot wrote: " If you feel strongly enough about something to give it the lowest rating (or a 2-star rating), do consider your review's various effects, and respectfully explain why you hated it...."I agree. I think that the 1 or 2 star ratings are worth a lot more than the 4 or 5 star ratings. If you are going to give something a bad rating say why.
In regards to the Anne Rice books that I rated so poorly without a review, those were rated years after having read the books and a proper review wouldn't have been accurate outside of "formulaic and arrogant". Besides, there are hundreds of reviews and ratings on those books. My poor ratings were more of a placeholder and as a matter of comparison for anyone who cares to look at my other ratings.
I would never give a book with only a couple of ratings or reviews a poor marking without an explanation.
Sophie wrote: "The only kind of reviews I find ridiculous are the ones that clearly ignored the description and complain about a story not being their personal preferences for it.."Yes! A Pet peeve of mine! "I usually read Bible stories for children. The Edward Lee is disgusting. So much sex and violence. 1 STAR!"
I have noticed more on Amazon than on GR but sometimes it looks like a group of zealots will attempt to knock a book's ratings intentionally. You will see 6 or 7 bad ratings all within a couple of days and all clearly outside of the normal reading choices of the reviewer.
Eliot wrote: "Oh, quick thing I have to admit: As a new author, I love receiving reviews from readers, because those are the folks I wrote it for..."Write for yourself not others. I'm pretty sure ts elliot and Hunter Thompson didn't give a crap what the reviewers were saying. Their audience found them.
I just had one of my reviews commented on by an author. I had written a bad review of the book because it really was bad. I have written a lot of really good reviews so Im not a troll. First the author using a different profile from his author profile commented on my review panning my review and insulting my intelligence. The funny part of this was he used his first name in the new profile. Not too hard to figure that one out. Then he posted repeatedly insulting me. I finally just deleted all of his comments but I thought it was hilarious that he thought he could pretend to be just a reader but didnt think to change his identity.
I think authors need to be open-minded and expect that not everyone is going to enjoy their work. I know how much work goes into completing a book and of course, it becomes an author's "baby," in a sense, but opinions vary and what works for some people won't for others. I remember the first negative rating I received. I admit to being a bit outraged and I even took it personally. Now I look back on it and can really see the value of what the reviewer commented about. I'm definitely a "newbie" so feedback is very important to me and will shape my future books.
BUT...
I don't appreciate nasty, malicious comments that serve no purpose other than to make the reviewer feel superior somehow, I think it's totally tacky, but people see right through that. Constructive negative feedback, I think is valuable. Harsh criticism written merely to "bully" is downright pathetic, in my opinion.
I just shrug it off. Thankfully, my reviews have been far more positive than negative. But I would never, ever contact a reviewer who left negative feedback. People will see it for what it is.
Ken wrote: "Eliot wrote: "Oh, quick thing I have to admit: As a new author, I love receiving reviews from readers, because those are the folks I wrote it for..."Write for yourself not others. I'm pretty sure..."
Sage advice, and one tries to remain an island amidst a storm of... whatever it is. And to another point, it is important to not get sucked down a rabbit hole. Much agreed there. But as a newbie to the review process, it's fascinating what people who have no history with me have to say about my story. And, while I agree that you have to stay true to your own author's vision, it's important to always remember that a plot-oriented book is meant to be read by readers, and is therefor for readers. After publishing my book, I want to raise my sword and shield and bellow, "ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED???"
Yes! A Pet pee..."It's one of those things that's both hilarious and annoying. My favorite review of anything I ever did was a negative one that basically amounted to: "This story, which says very clearly that is about this character doing this, did not have any bees in it. I wanted a story about bees. I read this story, even though it was very clearly not about bees, and was disappointed. 2 stars." Nothing I could do about it and the only thing I could hope was that other people would read that and go "yeaaaaaah, no".
The only other thing I'll mention about being careful of reviews and rabbit holes: a very talented atist I worked with got about 98% amazing feedback on her work in a story we did. Only two reviewers weren't into it, and both because they were basically annoyed that a book for pre teen girls wasn't aimed at them, over 40 year old men. They said two very mildly critical things about the art. She completely forgot about the seriously 98% great reviews and fixated on these two, to the point of not being able to produce much work after the fact. Obviously different personality types will vary, and obviously I think criticism can be really useful. But not if it does that.
As always, I tend to think "consider the source" is a really helpful thing to keep in mind no matter what.
I would be more concerned about 40 year old men who WERE interested in books for pre teen girls. Ever read Kiss Me Like You Love Me?
"She completely forgot about the seriously 98% great reviews and fixated on these two, to the point of not being able to produce much work after the fact. Obviously different personality types will vary, and obviously I think criticism can be really useful. But not if it does that."I found that the long process of rejection before acceptance by a publisher inoculated me against soul-crushing rejection by a reader/reviewer. I wonder if artists (and some self-pubs) missed out on the chance to toughen up their skin in that process.
Back to the original point of what authors feel: Those who put a starred rating without a review on a mega-seller like Anne Rice or Stephen King needn't worry. Once the reviews reach into the hundreds, the reviews mostly can get redundant. Most of what's to say has already been said, and unless you just really need to share your love or hate of the book, it probably won't affect the book's sales or the author's ego any more than the bare rating will.
But it's a different story with books with fewer than, let's say, forty-two reviews. That's an arbitrary number. I have no science or primary source to back that up, other than Douglas Adams. Any-hoo, when there are few reviews and ratings, each one counts when it comes to potential readers who probably will read many reviews of each book before deciding how to invest their time and money as peruse the jungle of hundreds of thousands of titles.
So: If reviewing negatively a mega-best-seller, be fair, but don't put too much pressure on yourself. If reviewing a mid-seller, small-seller, or micro-seller, I can guarantee that those authors will read the reviews. How they react, who knows, it's not really your concern; but do know they'll read it and it can sting a little. Then again, so does Finnish salty licorice vodka before it starts to taste good and build character.
Ken wrote: "Eliot wrote: " If you feel strongly enough about something to give it the lowest rating (or a 2-star rating), do consider your review's various effects, and respectfully explain why you hated it......"Actually, I disagree. If I don't feel like reviewing book, why should I have to? As a reader, I already have spent my time and money purchasing, reading and rating the story. I don't feel as if I am required to state anything more about it, if I don't feel like it. (Though, those of you who know me, know that I usually do review.)
I wasn't saying it was mandatory. I just feel if you pan a book your rating means nothing without an explanation. Maybe it was just your time of the month, maybe you had an argument with the author previously, maybe the story didn't have bees in it.
Ken wrote: "I would be more concerned about 40 year old men who WERE interested in books for pre teen girls. Ever read Kiss Me Like You Love Me?"Haha, yeah. It was weird because the reviewer had to know it wasn't "for" them but reviewed it anyway and was SUPER grumpy they clearly weren't the audience and the story hadn't even attempted to be. I thought it was pretty funny. But several other dudes in the same range knew it wasn't "for" them, but were totally capable of writing a review that understood that and didn't hold it against it. Instead, they focused on the audience it was for and felt it was great for them. So. There you go.
Charlene wrote: "Bees in it? LOL :)"It's my go to for complaints about something being not what they wanted, when it was clearly not going to be something they'd like and was super clear in the description. Like people who hate horror about vampires but then deliberately read a horror/vamp story and say something like "I hate horror and vampires, but I read this book anyway and I hated it because it is horror and about vampires. Also, I wanted to read a book about Not This so I'm really disappointed." So you might as well be saying "This book, clearly about one thing, is not about bees which is what I wanted. Even though there are many books about bees, I decided to read this book not about bees and complain about the lack of bees."
It's the WTF BEES factor, I like to call it.
Mod
Not the fact you dislike the author's politics, attitude, choice of necktie, choice of genre, sexual orientation, refusal to have sex with you, the voices in your head, or because all the "cool kids" are bashing that author.
Reading the book before reviewing helps, too.
And if you just wanna rate a book, go for it. Why write a review for a book you didn't enjoy, when you could be using that time reading and reviewing something you do enjoy?
Charlene wrote: "Bees in it? LOL :)"From Sophie's comment above!
Charlene wrote: "Ken wrote: "Eliot wrote: " If you feel strongly enough about something to give it the lowest rating (or a 2-star rating), do consider your review's various effects, and respectfully explain why you..."This discussion is kind of funny. As an author, I would never for a minute believe that a reader owed me an explanation/review for a low rating. A reader owes an author NOTHING beyond payment for their work. That's it. Once you sell your work, its out of your hands, you have put it out in the world and the world will do with it what it will. Its a one-way transaction and any feedback offered is a gift, period. Even negative reviews that seem unreasonable can teach an author a lot about the climate of the writing market and the composition of the reading community.
I agree. The reader owes the author nothing. It is more for other readers that come along afterwards.
Mod
I wish that more authors were his level headed! Great comment.
Maxine wrote: "Charlene wrote: "Ken wrote: "Eliot wrote: " If you feel strongly enough about something to give it the lowest rating (or a 2-star rating), do consider your review's various effects, and respectfull..."Maxine, you stated it much more succinctly than I did.
I agree with what you wrote, especially the negative reviews part. As I stated somewhere earlier in this conversation, I have purchased a lot of books over the years based on negative reviews. Mostly because some the reasons for the negative reviews are things that I think of positively. :)
Mod
Jon Recluse wrote: "If I read something, rate it badly and don't bother with a review, that should be a big enough clue to the next person."Agreed, Jon. If you gave it a bad rating, there's no way it's making it to my TBR. Our tastes are so very similar, I feel safe thinking that if you didn't like it, then I wouldn't either.
Ken wrote: "I agree. The reader owes the author nothing. It is more for other readers that come along afterwards."So long as it comes with the caveat that readers don't owe authors reviews or explanations for reviews (they definitely don't!) but do need to steer clear of personal attacks. Everything about a work is fair game, threatening authors with harm, suicide, whatever, isn't. But I'm assuming that's a given (I hope!).
There is an interesting article on this topic in The Guardian. It was written by Alison Flood. Anne Rice created a petition to stop the cyber bullying of authors. http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014...I apologize if somebody already mentioned it. Personally, I find that I deal much better with the negative reviews after a good night's sleep. No matter how thick my skin becomes, they always sting a little.
Mod
Agreed, Jon. If you gave it a bad rating, there's no wa..."
That's the whole point I think people miss in all this. Reading isn't a popularity contest, it's personal. You have to find someone with similar tastes, someone you trust. A review from them carries more weight than a 1,000 positive or negative reviews from strangers.
I have my group here, who I know and trust. Everything else is just background noise.
Sophie wrote: "Everything about a work is fair game, threatening authors with harm, suicide, whatever, isn't...."That would be one bad book if I threatened suicide over it! The ultimate review!
Mod
Kasia wrote: "I've seen more personal attacks coming from authors, especially the self published ones on Goodreads if anything. Last week I was reading a thread where someone rated a book 3 stars and the author..."Wow. Last I checked, on Goodreads at least, 3 stars means 'I liked it."
Kasia wrote: "I've seen more personal attacks coming from authors, especially the self published ones on Goodreads if anything. Last week I was reading a thread where someone rated a book 3 stars and the author..."Yes, I have seen that quite often, Kasia. It saddens me. When I see it though, I do note down the name of the author, to remind myself to not be foolish enough to purchase and/or review their books in the future.
Mod
I lump those "authors" in with the reviewers who write hate mail in virtual crayon.
They are beneath me. I ignore them. They should thank God every day that I do.
Mod
Right? 3 stars is not so bad lol.
Mod
They really should, they don't want you to unleash on them :P
I dont know how people find time for such menial crap, seriously, books and reading are a joy, they make it something else entirely.
Mod
Same here Charlene, better safe than sorry.
Kasia wrote: "Gregor wrote: "Kasia wrote: "I've seen more personal attacks coming from authors, especially the self published ones on Goodreads if anything. Last week I was reading a thread where someone rated ..."To be clear, even if it was a 1 or 2 star review, the author shouldn't respond to it. And I'm on the fence on whether or not authors should respond to reviews at all. A simple 'like' is all right, I'd say, but anything beyond that seems invasive.
Mod
Yes I agree, it's ironic that we're talking about it, every once in a while I check my favorite author's auto biography ( Kate Christensen) and the negative reviews on Amazon, ZOMG.. make ME want to cry, but she never answers, which is for best. Most of those reviews seem to condemn her as a person, its very odd but what can you do?
Mod
Seriously. Life is too short. If you can't find a good book, you need to rethink what you are doing, not spew venom all over everyone else. Or grow up and realize that no one will like everything you write.
Jon Recluse wrote: "Kasia wrote: "Jon Recluse wrote: "Kasia wrote: "I've seen more personal attacks coming from authors, especially the self published ones on Goodreads if anything. Last week I was reading a thread w..."I agree on both points, Jon.
Me too, Jon. Life is too short for venom spewing. :)
I have better reviews on Amazon than Goodreads. Seems like a tougher crowd here, maybe. Some reviews are just plain rude, though. Not a bad review but mean. I had someone say you would have to be on meds or a lunatic to like a certain story of mine. I mean, that's not a review. That's juts mean. I didn't reply, though. that stuff is gonna happen whether you like it or not. Best not to feed the fire. I've had people say they loved the story. Still, a review should be helpful. Giving a one star review to an independent author, and then saying something like it just wasn't their kind of story, is grossly unfair, and it brings down the overall rating. If it's not your kind of story, then maybe you shouldn't review it at all.
Horror Aficionados
Books mentioned in this topic
The Cutting Room: Dark Reflections of the Silver Screen (other topics)Emma (other topics)
Emma (other topics)
Kiss Me Like You Love Me (other topics)
Kiss Me Like You Love Me (other topics)
More...
I should have been more specific, I guess. Sorry about the misunderstanding.
..."
This misunderstanding was comedy gold.