Goodreads Authors/Readers discussion
III. Goodreads Readers
>
Reviewers don't have to be educated!!!
What a cheek, anyone has the right to review, and it doesn't matter the age, sex, belief or educational level.There's many an author less educated than some readers.
Harrison wrote: "What a cheek, anyone has the right to review, and it doesn't matter the age, sex, belief or educational level.There's many an author less educated than some readers."
Agreed! I wanted to say that too, but I didn't want to offend anyone!
Where to start with this? First, I would have thought it the other way around. Reviewers tend to write too many gushingly *good* reviews and if anything, its that bland, undifferentiated, lack-of-critical-faculty which might be tied to reduced effect of education. Authors' level of education, on the other hoof...agreed, that's certainly a factor..not only does it result in an impoverished reading landscape; but also imbues these wastrels with the petty immaturity we see exhibited when they obviously can't cope with their readers' bad reviews! As in the case, above.
Last comment: no, I don't believe anyone has a 'right' to review. Its simply a facility granted to everyone who can navigate the internet. Unfortunately that makes reviews based neither in 'right' nor 'merit'..
Reviews are just a record of someone's opinion, everybody is allowed to have an opinion.
I kinda disagree. What you're characterizing as 'allowed' is more like, 'facilitated' by the net. When the net wasn't around, the 'justness' of 'people having opinions' wasn't put to the test, because those opinions never reached us. Now that opinions are in-our-face, 24/7; writer Harlan Ellison's admonition comes strongly into play: "“You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.."
As both an author and reviewer, I couldn't agree with you more, Annie. We write and review for the same reason--a love of the written word, of its ability to enlighten, entertain, disturb and challenge. Authors who disdain their critics are writing to inflate their egos, not to serve their readers.
I agree Anthony to an extent. I just wish, though, that some reviewers would show some level of decorum and civility.
Well..'pearls-before-swine', you know. The internet isn't designed for good manners, its designed for oafs.
I agree that there are some reviewers that just review a book and say it was great, without saying what made it so great. Also a lot of reviewers tend to write 'good' reviews about books that they didn't like, purely because the author asked them to review their book and they don't want to hurt the author's feelings. I can understand this because it's someones pride and joy, they've spent a lot of time and effort on a book, just to have someone slate it and say it was shit.
However, if you don't like a book, then tell people why you didn't like it in the review. When I review books, I'm not afraid to say that I didn't like it, even when I know the author of the book is going to be reading the review. If I didn't like it, then I didn't, there's not much that anyone can do about it.
I hope my reviews are critical, well-written and helpful, but I can't be sure because I just spill the words of my thoughts and feelings onto the page.
If anyones interested in reading some of the reviews I've written you can check them out HERE just by clicking on the cover of a book
It continues to baffle me how many authors spend time worrying over reviews. There are much better ways to spend your precious time. And once you put your work out there, your input and control ends. Your book belongs to the readers, let them do what they will.
That's the key Annie. "Well written" reviews help both the reader and author perfect their craft.
And by that I mean as a reader and reviewer, I too could always improve the quality of my reviews.
I agree with this assessment. Good job Annie.Yes, there is some 'coddling' of authors by reviewers ...a terrible spin-off of all this author-reader interaction (promos, trading, swapping, twittering, giveaways, etc) which shouldn't even be occurring.
But I think the far greater number of mindlessly cheerful, blandly positive reviews happens first, because of the type of books these readers are consuming in the first place. Since they're desiring to gobble down copy-cat, formulaic, genre-series in the first place, what can they really say about them when they finish? They're not really reading; they're turning off their brains when they turn on their Kindles; and just gliding along like automatons. What the hell kind of cogent reviews are they capable of giving?
Secondly, I assert the following: a negative review is the best thing you can do for an author. It demonstrates that you *truly* read the book with keen scrutiny for its technique and type. You're offering feedback and input which the author can really benefit from. You're showing him that you exerted comparative thinking towards his effort (e.g., asking yourself whether is this book a competent example of its form? How could it be better?) Criticism is constructive.
Think about it this way, as well: everyone has a set of narrowly individual tastes. I hate beets but I love the flavor of hazelnut. So, when I say I 'love' hazelnut, what is there more to say? I can't define why hazelnut flavor rocks my boat. But I can describe precisely what it is about beets which sends me screaming from the room. They're squishy, they're thick, they're cold, they wobble, their alarming color reminds me of dried blood. Whatever the case may be. So a negative review is always more productive than a positive review because criticism stems from observations which one can expose for others. Whereas, I will never be able to rationally explain why 'The Green Slime' is my favorite movie of all time. Never! It 'just is'.
E.B.: You touch on the core of the matter. The author sacrifices his exclusive right to judge his own work when it is published. From that point on, the work is a gestalt of author and reader. The wider the readership, in number, space and time, the less significant the author's opinions and intentions.
Feliks wrote: "Secondly, I assert the following: a negative review is the best thing you can do for an author...."I disagree with this. A negative review doesn't "equal constructive criticism". Of course, a positive review doesn't necessarily equal "helpful", either. But are they supposed to? Aren't reviews supposed to be for the benefit of other potential readers--not the author? If you're interested in helping writers improve their craft, become an editor. ;-)
Feliks wrote: "Think about it this way, as well: everyone has a set of narrowly individual tastes. ..."I DO, however, agree with this. Their are billions of readers out here, and we don't all have the same tastes. It seems to be easier to find what you dislike about something than it is to properly word what you appreciate about something. But that isn't a good excuse to just say "I like it, I just do" without giving a reason, anymore than pretending it's helpful to other readers for you to simply say "I hated it." If you can't word your reason for your opinion, it might be better not to shout out your opinion.
V.K. wrote: "Feliks wrote: "Secondly, I assert the following: a negative review is the best thing you can do for an author...."I disagree with this. A negative review doesn't "equal constructive criticism". O..."
Or beta reader, or send a note to the author with your thoughts. If I don't like something about a book, I'll say it as tactfully as I know how, but I'm saying to inform other potential readers and to express my own opinion, not to inform the author.
V.K. wrote: "I disagree with this. A negative review doesn't "equal constructive criticism"..."It should have that effect, if the reviewer is at all capable and not simply bashing the product without any kind of rigor or method.
V.K. wrote: "Aren't reviews supposed to be for the benefit of other potential readers--not the author?..."
In that case, my second premise applies (the one you DID agree with). :p
V.K. wrote: "If you're interested in helping writers improve their craft, become an editor. ;-) ..."
There's abstract value in simply doing something right. It sets an example.
People review for all sorts of reasons, least of which is for an author, and yes some reviews good and bad are simply the reviewer saying they liked a book (or not). As someone said reviews are just opinions and if you put value on them then reviews are useful, if you don't then you won't.I am not sure education has much to do with it. There are undoubtedly some authors are more educated than some readers but the reverse is also true.
I agree that badmouthing someone leaving a review, especially an unfavourable one, is bad behaviour. Really reviews are opinions, nothing more and there are bound to be opinions which individuals don't agree with.
Just for the sake of playing Devil's advocate...There might be cases where it applies, though. Let's imagine, for instance, a book in which the author makes numerous winks to, say, Shakespeare. But a reader leaves a scathing review because, to him/her, "the author uses weird idioms that don't make any sense" (those idioms actually being quotes, or hints at quotes from Shakespeare). Should the book be labelled as full of weird sentences, and the author as someone who can't write proper (read: modern) English? Or is the fault on the reviewer's part?
(Classic literature as a whole fits this category. A lot of references are lost on a lot of readers nowadays because our education cursus, whatever the country, don't focus anymore on the same things that authors from two centuries ago were used to, such as references to lesser known Greek mythology nymphs, and so on.)
Now, my two controversial cents thrown in, I do agree, though, that education level shouldn't be used as some kind of rebuking tool, nor as an argument to tell people "if you didn't like my book, then just shut up". There are, after all, authors whose prose is hard to follow, who don't make their descriptions clear, and a reviewer would have a right to point at that, too.
A.L. wrote: "Really reviews are opinions..."But they can be much more.
Let's put it this way. When Sherlock Holmes is investigating a case, and he is snooping around collecting clues and making his deductions. Are those deductions his opinions? Mere guesswork? Or aren't they something more sound? Doesn't he have mental tools with which to go beyond his personal feelings? Isn't he making observations which dovetail together and form very reasonable conclusions?
If a book requires knowledge of a long-dead authors work in order to be appreciated, I don't really see how it's a fault of the reviewer if they weren't aware beforehand.As ever, the answer lies somewhere in the middle rather than at the extreme ends.
Yzabel wrote: "I do agree, though, that education level shouldn't be used as some kind of rebuking tool..."This is good. ^^^^
Some people make reviews a priority and make them substantial because it's part of their rapport. Some review a book simply because they just want to get their thoughts on the book out there. Some take reviews seriously and others don't, some take their book reviews as critical others don't. To me it's all a matter of opinion. Now as to whether or not those reviews can be taken seriously if they don't come of as some people expect them? Again a matter of opinion just like the review itself.
I write reviews and I don't really care about technicality or otherwise, I'd consider myself an editor or copy writer. I just write about my whole experience reading that book and things that I didn't like. Book reviews from non-authors are the best in terms of finding out how you're able to "touch" someone's life. IMO whether they're more educated or not is irrelevant.Movie goers doesn't have to be scriptwriters I guess, to tell that the lines are poor and that it s*cks. =)
D.L. wrote: "Miranda (Member of The Original 21) wrote: "D.L. wrote: "I said this in another thread, for which I took a scolding :-). I don't like the rating system for various reasons. At the very least, a rat..."It's weird that you managed to input your ratings to GRs 35 years ago. How young and naive you must've been back in April 2013. Are you joking?
And why would you delete them? They're a record of how you felt about those books. Maybe you want to delete them so you don't look like such a hypocrite the next time you try to scold someone else about how they personally use the rating system?
Why is it understandable that you simply rated a bunch of books when you signed up, same as every new GRs member as prompted by GRs, but it's unacceptable for others to have done the same?
Seriously, dude?
Oh, and I think you meant C'est le vie.
TinaNicole ♔ Le Book Nikita ♔ wrote: "It's weird that you managed to input your ratings to GRs 35 years ago. How young and naive you must've been back in April 2013. Are you joking? ..."I believe DL properly stated that he read the books 35 yrs ago, not that he reviewed them on GR 35 yrs ago.
D.L. wrote: "At the very least, a rating should accompany a review..."The whole concept of ratings is foreign to me. My stars may not mean what someone else's stars mean. Its totally abstract and arbitrary.
D.L. wrote: "...Miranda, I guess I'll say the same thing I told someone else on another thread. All the books that I only gave ratings on where ones I did when I set up my account and were for books I read as long ago as 35 yrs. I suppose I was too enthusiastic. I'll gladly go take them all down. All the recent books I've read have received reviews. It's too bad people aren't allowed to evolve here without someone misusing that information from long ago and applying it to a present opinion. That was when I was young and naive. Maybe some of us never change but I have. Sorry if that offends you. And your last comment certainly goes to one of the reasons I dislike an unaccountable rating system - spiteful, intolerance. Ce la vie."D.L., I kinda wished that I hadn't seen this thread. But the title of it was too eye-catching. :(
Given that you refer to the other thread 'for which [you] took a scolding' and then transferred an issue in one into a different discussion, I'll do the same and first note that your statement on the other thread was quite different. To wit, 'Personally, I would rather there wasn't a rating system at all. If it must be kept, a rating should only accompany a review. As has been mentioned, and I agree, a rating without a review is useless' (bold added for emphasis).
That's very different from saying 'At the very least, a rating should accompany a review'.
For me to point out the hypocrisy in your blanket statement―w/o any qualifiers, as I noted―by pointing to your own stats is not 'scolding' or misuse of info. I merely pointed out a factual and verifiable matter which went counter to your own words. And saying that said stats were from 'long ago' when you were 'young and naive' is odd given that your profile indicates that you've been a GR member only since April 2013.
Lastly, FWIW, it's c'est la vie. Not meant to humiliate you or Miranda. Just a petty pet peeve of mine when people use foreign phrases incorrectly.
ETA: Wow, that was a *really* delayed refresh. Sorry if my post is moot as this point. Bowing out.
V.K. wrote: "TinaNicole ♔ Le Book Nikita ♔ wrote: "It's weird that you managed to input your ratings to GRs 35 years ago. How young and naive you must've been back in April 2013. Are you joking? ..."I believe..."
Yes, I can read just fine. What does you reading them 35 years ago have to do with inputting your ratings 8 months ago?
My comment stands.
First of all, this is not Amazon. Just because Amazon bought GRs it doesn't make the two mutually exclusive. Different rules, different users, different purpose. Three also wasn't referring to author against author nonsense which is what usually goes down in the Amazon forums. That has fuck all to do with readers/reviewers/customers.
I beg you to find one, just one, example of an author who was 'attacked' by a reviewer for absolutely no reason. Just one will do.
If I write a review saying I don't want to read a book because the author is a racist, a pedophile, a mysogonist, or attacks reviewers that is very much in fact my opinion.
Where do you get the idea that a review saying the book is 'schoolboy twaddle' or 'should be required reading at college as an example of how not to write' or even just what someone might consider 'excessively negative' is proof the person didn't read the book?
Reviews are not for authors! They don't even have to be helpful. They're customers opinions on the product they bought/used/read whatever. If a particular review doesn't help you personally, move the fuck on and find one that does. If there aren't any, write one yourself.
Either way, it's not a reviewers job to help everybody, be super positive, give the author tips, or do anything but say what they think. It's not your place or mine to tell them the 'appropriate' way to do that.
Eta: as for the lists titled 'authors you should never read'? What is wrong with that? Why don't readers have the right to express an opinion about authors they *don't* want to read? I never see anyone complaining about the 'Bezt BoOk Eva!' lists. They're equally subjective, no?
Eta: sorry, Three. Should've refreshed sooner. :-/
Karl wrote: "...If you don't like a book, fair enough, say you don't like it, using such statements says more about the reviewer than it does about the book, however, and shouldn't be permitted. ..."Karl, I'm a bit confused. 'Shouldn't be permitted'? If 'excessively negative' statements say more about the reviewer than it does about the book, then why do you―or anyone else, for that matter―even care? GR should now censor reviews so to prevent people from making themselves look bad? And exactly how do you propose that GR suddenly become the manners police as to what is or is not 'excessively negative' re: a person's opinion?
Karl wrote: "If statements like 'schoolboy twaddle' and 'example of how not to write' aren't excessively negative to you I hate to think what would be.I can assure you, while I have not been happy with some r..."
You're missing the point. Whether they are or aren't is not my concern.
In all honesty, no. They're not what I would consider foul mouthed or even inappropriate. I could give two shits about 'excessively negative'.
Probably because, unlike some people, I'm not looking for validation through other people's reviews.
"If you don't like the type of person the author is move on and read someone else, don't use your review to trash him/her."
Didn't I just say this? Re: reviews. Why does it work in your way and not the other? Who are you to tell anyone *how* they get to express their opinion or what's the proper way?
I assume that if a reviewer tells you that you've written your book all wrong you're gonna go right ahead and fix everything they may not have liked or thought you could've expressed better, yeah?
Karl wrote: "If statements like 'schoolboy twaddle' and 'example of how not to write' aren't excessively negative to you I hate to think what would be."So, would you consider my review of this romantic suspense novel just 'negative' or 'excessively negative' or 'downright insulting'?
ThreeRs (revenge is probably icecream) wrote: "The writers who can't write are contributing to creating readers who can't read!"I think you are mildly exaggerating the influence of bad writers on the reader population... :)
If I'm honest, the education system is the one to blame for creating readers who can't read. It's not the authors responsibility to educate people. All they want to do is write a book and have others read and enjoy it. I know a lot of people who can't really pick out what a good piece of written work is and it's not because they read poorly written work, it's because they left school at 16 and now currently work in McDonalds.
ThreeRs (revenge is probably icecream) wrote: "Reading is massively important to building vocabulary, but if authors are misusing words, readers are learning the wrong meanings. (Yes, they should look the words up, but I guarantee you that many are not. Having to look something up requires work, and they're reading for pleasure, don't you know.)"In that sense, e-readers have an advantage that Kindles, Kobos and iPads have built-in dictionaries. Put the cursor before the word or highlight the word and the built-in dictionary will give definitions, examples of proper use, synonyms and antonyms.
And I agree about the lack of proper use. I had to explain to a group of American authors (discussing in a thread) that 'decapitated head' is improper use, since a head cannot be decapitated. A body can be decapitated, and the head will be severed.
'Real' authors know proper use because they're interested in words, and would know the etymology of 'decapitate'. But even someone who is not versed in Latin would know that 'capita' is head. Or they don't understand that 'Caps' on keyboard means 'Capital' letters.
So I was totally flabbergasted that I, for whom English is a second language, had to explain this to native speakers.
ThreeRs (revenge is probably icecream) wrote: "So while it's not necessarily an author's job to educate (and how true that is depends on what grade level they write for, I think) it's absolutely their responsibility not to compound existing problems. It's absolutely their responsibility to write a book that's been edited and is grammatically correct."I'm currently working on a blog article 'Stickler for Verisimilitude', where I also address the notion that authors writing for 'entertainment purposes' are not excused from doing proper research and polishing their work before they push the 'publish' button.
I'm often irked at reading something that is closer to a draft than a manuscript and which should've gone a few more editing rounds before it would be shown to beta-readers. Publishing that dreck is insulting to both readers and the people they would call 'peers'.
I'm not your peer if you don't know the difference between deprecate and depreciate.
(All Hail) Grimlock wrote: "Reading books isn't a craft that needs perfecting. Readers can read the book any way they please."While I agree with you that readers can read a book any way they please, I notice that some of my beta-readers are better at reading and interpreting my books than others. And most of that has to do with their experience reading 'layered' books and their reading habits.
My son is seven and is currently learning how to read properly. The school wants him to read 'quickly', but also 'accurately'. So he'll read to me out loud while I read along and stop him when he misreads a word. I also have him read along with me, and point out where I purposely misread words. That is a training to read words and not 'guess' what it says at a glance, something that is often ingrained at beginner level.
Many readers have not been taught how to properly read with speed and when they rush through a text they scan the text improperly, which leads to misinterpretations.
So I do think that reading properly is a craft that has to be taught and can be perfected, both in accuracy and speed. And once you master reading properly, you can learn how to critique a text, which is a whole other craft. Which, incidentally, is how professional reviewers distinguish themselves from amateurs, by their superior ability to read and critique a text.
@ ThreeRs,Maybe you should've reminded me not to drink coffee when I read your posts. Cleaning a laptop keyboard is not funny. :)
(All Hail) Grimlock wrote: "I agree, it *can* be perfected, but it doesn't *need* to be. I Sorry, couldn't resist... :)
reviews are opinions and opinions are like...earholes - everyone has one (or two) :)))I personally love getting positive reviews - even the gushing sort and am not overtly stressed by negative ones. After all, our works are a collection of our thoughts and ideas and attitudes placed inside the characters and tales we are writing. Not everyone will share that views and experiences or may dislike a whole different aspect of your work. If one cannot take it - s/he shouldn't be in the business of writing at all.
Martyn wrote: "I'm currently working on a blog article 'Stickler for Verisimilitude', where I also address the notion that authors writing for 'entertainment purposes' are not excused from doing proper research and polishing their work before they push the 'publish' button."Blog article is finished and live on my blog: 'Stickler for Verisimilitude?
Martyn wrote: "ThreeRs (revenge is probably icecream) wrote: "The writers who can't write are contributing to creating readers who can't read!"I think you are mildly exaggerating the influence of bad writers on..."
I'm not sure. It's been studied that "dumbing down" of vocabulary and concepts while learning does impair cognitive function. The same might be related to poor or uneducated writing becoming so commonplace that readers begin to disregard what they learned was right and accept what they are seeing as correct.
This is in no way fact. I'm only guessing between correlations.
Shari wrote: "Do they still do sentence diagraming in school?"I think it boils down to the teacher. I know a few who still teach it, even if it isn't considered necessary anymore. Sadly I can remember that my teachers didn't cover it much past second grade. And I'm not old but I'm not young either.
On the topic of reading comprehension and the quality of readers that we are producing today, I just wanted to add that I think a big part of "reader fail" these days is...*gasp*...the internet. I know, I know - enough with blaming the internet :) The idea actually has some merit though. It appears that we are becoming chronic skimmers (especially millennials). In this day and age of digital/info bombardment, our brains are apparently rewiring themselves to skim content - read as: people are developing a low tolerance or inability to absorb dense information because they're too busy skimming through their Facebook news feed or sifting through a wikipedia article to get to the "interesting section". On the up side (?), our brains are adapting and we seem to be able to zone in on key information in record time just by glancing at a paragraph. Unfortunately, that means that we compromise our ability to read War and Peace accurately :-/
Anyway, sorry if this is a derail, but I thought the skimming theory was an interesting one. For your reading pleasure, the original article I read is below!
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/a...
Skimming goes hand-in-hand with texting OMG IDK if they're both connected (grins)....The point being we are truncating our language skills along with our short attention spans!
Arabella wrote: "The point being we are truncating our language skills along with our short attention spans! "Precisely. It's terrible. I lived (briefly) with my sister and her teenage daughter. While my niece wasn't guilty of poor language or reading skills, her friends were atrocious!
Listening to their conversation often made me physically ill. And I'm someone who lived (and guiltily enjoyed) 'Valley Girl' speak. At least it was creative. Now it's all abbreviation. IMO it lessens the beauty of the original word.
Check out my thoughts & let me know yours! THanks
http://originalbooker.blogspot.co.uk/...