Goodreads Authors/Readers discussion
III. Goodreads Readers
>
How to Help Self-Published Authors and Raise the Quality Bar
Martyn V. wrote: "R.F.G. wrote: "The NSA tends to look for certain trigger criteria in a user's internet searches, and if your searches press a few of the right trigger(s), human eyes will take a look. Those eyes ar..."And when the set of human eyes take a look for the other markers they find a writer.
It's not simply researching certain topics that gets people in hot water, it's the combination of the research and certain other activities as well.
If the sum of your research and activity had raised enough red flags, the odds are you would already have been interviewed by the guys with ties.
Martyn V. wrote: "Jan wrote: "Perhaps we should get Amazon KDP etc to have a 'read this first' page before writers upload their work. It could explain about the necessity for editing and making sure your product is ..."Didn't mean it for a RULE, just some advice that writers might find useful.
R.F.G. wrote: "If the sum of your research and activity had raised enough red flags, the odds are you would already have been interviewed by the guys with ties."So I don't have to worry about that van parked across the street? That's a relief...
This is just my experience.The first essay I published was published too fast. It was an interesting subject but needed better proof reading. I was then introduced to a document specialist who had spent 15 years with an international company preparing all their reports, letterheads, brochures etc. She taught me typesetting software and from the moment I started to use it, I stopped wordprocessing with Wordperfect - which I had loved for over a decade.
Not only do I write straight into book form I can print out pages onto A4 thereby making the page-by-page editing and proof reading done by others, much easier for them. I have learned all about the history of typesetting and fine design and work closely with artists on all our book covers and all the art inside the books.
The result of this is our book about India was found to have one factual error when published and we were able to correct that immediately. I started a publishing company which was nothing but a name three years ago and now has a monthly turnover with regular sales - none of my books yet but there is hope. It isn't big but our reviews are excellent and we have gained respect which has brought a book to us which will gain us national press coverage.
Authors working together will create a mass of marketing skills that feeds of each book and raises them all. I recommend it but be absolutely professional and learn all the skills you cannot source.
Martyn V. wrote: "R.F.G. wrote: "If the sum of your research and activity had raised enough red flags, the odds are you would already have been interviewed by the guys with ties."So I don't have to worry about tha..."
I didn't say that, it could be anyone from someone intent on robbing your house, to someone you didn't tip well enough, to operatives from intelligence agencies from other countries.
Despite all the sensational news reports, it isn't just the NSA looking at what people do, it's agencies from just about every country that (1) has an intelligence agency and (2) has a cyber-intelligence office.
It could be locals hired by someone in Tehran, Moscow, Beijing, or Slippery Rock. I tend to worry more about the local wildlife, the bear-racoons raiding garbage cans around here are big enough to drive a car.
Jan wrote: "Martyn V. wrote: "Jan wrote: "Perhaps we should get Amazon KDP etc to have a 'read this first' page before writers upload their work. It could explain about the necessity for editing and making sur..."When you upload your document to KDP and it converts, spelling errors are flagged and counted. Homonyms are not and that is the biggest danger next to bad edits which transpose words. If you allow an MSS through without correcting what is flagged then you can't blame Amazon for not having a system.
Hopefully you will also have used beta readers as well as read and reread your script. A professional edit should catch grammar errors, punctuation mistakes and homonyms. If your characters are drinking there ail or there whine instead of drinking their ale or their wine a spell check is inadequate. A peer read or pro-edit is usually quite effective rather than affective.
One should also neither completely trust spell checkers to perfectly reliable nor ignore them.If your working vocabulary includes words not loaded in your word processor's dictionary, it's a good idea to double check with a good reference dictionary and then add the verified word(s).
When it comes to "author-created" words (i.e.: a fictional species, fictional personal names for otherworldly creatures, and etceteras) it will most likely be flagged as an error when it isn't.
R.F.G. wrote: "If your working vocabulary includes words not loaded in your word processor's dictionary, it's a good idea to double check with a good reference dictionary and then add the verified word(s)..."Like when the spellcheck tried to change 'deprecate' into 'depreciate'... :)
Martyn V. wrote: "R.F.G. wrote: "If your working vocabulary includes words not loaded in your word processor's dictionary, it's a good idea to double check with a good reference dictionary and then add the verified ..."Basically the point, and whenever I have to load a new computer I go through the process again. I think with 'deprecate' I was offered the choice between 'defecate' and 'depreciate'.
Depending on subject matter, there are many valid technical terms found in reference dictionaries that spell checkers will flag until the words are added.
R.F.G. wrote: "Depending on subject matter, there are many valid technical terms found in reference dictionaries that spell checkers will flag until the words are added."Plus spell checkers have a limited tolerance for non-English names.
Martyn V. wrote: "R.F.G. wrote: "Depending on subject matter, there are many valid technical terms found in reference dictionaries that spell checkers will flag until the words are added."Plus spell checkers have ..."
ROFLMAO -- Half of my name shows up squiggled by most spell checkers. My daughter's full name is almost one continuous squiggle.
When uploading a manuscript or looking at misspelled-word counters, people should be aware of the limitations of most spell checkers.
I agree that the readers should be the gatekeepers in the form of negative reviews.But authors as reviewers are always at risk if they give any sort of negative review as the backlash can be damaging in the form of retaliation reviews. I know from attending writers' workshops that even the best-intentioned evaluation and subtle suggestions for improvement can be met with a either a stricken look, or a hotly defensive reply.
If honest negative reviews help to improve the standard of Indie books then I'm all for them, but as a writer you leave them at your peril.
Jan wrote: "I agree that the readers should be the gatekeepers in the form of negative reviews.But authors as reviewers are always at risk if they give any sort of negative review as the backlash can be damag..."
The problem there is that authors are also readers. Why should someone's honest (hopefully honest) reviews as a reader be discounted simply because he or she is also a writer? The implication is that a reader leaves a negative review because the book didn't meet that reader's standards for whatever reason, but an author leaves a negative review because he's trying to stomp down the competition.
I think the more reviews a book has the better a reader is able to tell if they would like the book. It seems reasonable that struggling authors can help each other out by providing reviews.However, we are sensitive to authors pumping up their reviews and ratings by performing "unethical review swaps", and authors posting "retribution" reviews. It may be a lost cause, but I am trying to think of a set of guidelines for ethical review swaps. I am happy (and sometimes anxious) to read the works of GR authors, and don't want to get caught up in any impropriety (or the appearance of impropriety) by posting a review after I've read the book.
I've had two silly/crazy ideas (I tend to run with scissors) that I'd like to toss out here. One is more complex but more foolproof - the other is just a code of conduct. I'm not sure I like either of them - I'm just trying to stimulate some conversation.
Code Of Conduct
A) Provide a full disclosure at the top of the review, e.g. "I am an author on GR as is the author of this book. We may end up reviewing each other's books."
B) Pledge that your review is honest, e.g. "This review represents my honest feelings about this book, and has not been "puffed" to benefit the author.
C) If you don't review every book you read you must say so, e.g. "The fact that I am reviewing this book at all is an indication that I like it. If I do not like a book I will stop reading it and not post a review at all."
Complex and bureaucratic:
A) Establish a discussion thread on Author-to-Author reviews.
B) If you are swapping reviews, before you post the review on the book you must first send a PM to the discussion moderator giving them your rating and a copy of the review.
C) When the moderator gets a PM from both parties, the ratings/reviews are posted in the group. The group acts as sort of a 'escrow' for the review.
D) Once posted in the group the authors then post their reviews on the books, and can state at the top of the review that they have followed the "Ethical Review Guidelines" (or some such thing).
Authors involved in retribution or Quid Pro Quo reviews will quickly become obvious.
I don't know if this makes sense, if it is practical, or ... I want to be able to review any book I want, and I want other GR authors to be able to review my books, without feeling like we are trying to put one over on other readers.
Thoughts?
Imagine a review system like this. SPA authors submit books to a non-profit charitable organization that is created to support the art of writing (Let's call it GoodPens). GoodPens verifies the author and the book, stips the book of its title and author name, and then emails the book to a anonymous pool of people who like to read and review books in that genre. The authors can order as many reviews as they desire, but they must contribute a set amount to GoodPens for each review. In this way, reviews are purchased, but neither author or review know who is who.
Not a bad idea, Stan. Also, here's a recent blog post from Chuck Wendig's blog that may be of interest to folks reading this thread:
http://terribleminds.com/ramble/2014/...
Linda wrote: "@Stan -- I'm not sure what you're talking about is a "purchased" review. I think the issue being discussed here is "purchased" in the sense of the author paying someone directly or indirectly to..."
How would the reviewer be able to identify it? Google key words?
Gregor wrote: "Not a bad idea, Stan.
Also, here's a recent blog post from Chuck Wendig's blog that may be of interest to folks reading this thread:
http://terribleminds.com/ramble/2014/......"
All very true. You may have heard some professional comedians say from time to time, "EVERYBODY's a comedian." It's an expression of frustration. Well, it seems that everybody's an author. And because self-publishing is so easy to do, we get a lot of children playing in the traffic, and with children you get childish responses when you criticize. Until we get standards that readers can rely on, it's just a matter of plugging away at it in the hope that you'll be seen by some rescue party and pulled out of the slushpile. It's also very much a matter of luck, and that's unfortunate.
Also, here's a recent blog post from Chuck Wendig's blog that may be of interest to folks reading this thread:
http://terribleminds.com/ramble/2014/......"
All very true. You may have heard some professional comedians say from time to time, "EVERYBODY's a comedian." It's an expression of frustration. Well, it seems that everybody's an author. And because self-publishing is so easy to do, we get a lot of children playing in the traffic, and with children you get childish responses when you criticize. Until we get standards that readers can rely on, it's just a matter of plugging away at it in the hope that you'll be seen by some rescue party and pulled out of the slushpile. It's also very much a matter of luck, and that's unfortunate.
Linda wrote: "Stan wrote: "How would the reviewer be able to identify it? Google key words? ..."Yes."
Ah!, true, true. Leave it to Linda to smash our hopes and dreams (with things like logic and reason).
Linda wrote: "Sorry. My bad. I'll try not to smash any more hopes and dreams.Oh, wait, that's what many of my reviews do!
Seriously -- I've caught several plagiarizers and identified some fanfic that's been..."
Yeah, I'm (almost) surprised folks still think they can get away with plagiarism these days.
Perhaps a partial solution to the caca-factory dilemma would be a bit simpler, if there was a slightly different method of attacking the problem.People like forming groups and organizations, and a problem with that is exclusivity. As Groucho Marx recounted in his autobiography, he sent a telegram to the Friar's Club of Beverly Hills (of which he was a member): "PLEASE ACCEPT MY RESIGNATION. I DON'T WANT TO BELONG TO ANY CLUB THAT WILL ACCEPT PEOPLE LIKE ME AS A MEMBER".
Call it what you will, but why not form an organization to offer some breath of legitimacy to authors who are starting out.
(1) Entry fee, nominal or waived, because there are people who write well who simply can't afford to shell out even $60.
(2) The entrant has to submit one work that can pass muster as not being garbage -- as in the author has taken due diligence about spelling, usage, and grammar.
(3) Have both traditional and indie authors and / or editors (dealing with different genres) be the judges of an author's ability to at least competently write.
(4) Issue a seal, with the understanding it's not a guarantee that the reader will like every author's work, it just means the author isn't a cockroach jumping around a keyboard at random and shows at least a basic level of professionalism.
People on both sides of the publishing aisle see the problems inherent with the current situation, so have people on both sides of the aisle be part of the solution.
Linda wrote: "Stan wrote: "How would the reviewer be able to identify it? Google key words? ..."Yes."
I don't believe the vast majority of people would do that.
Linda wrote: "Stan wrote: "Linda wrote: "Stan wrote: "How would the reviewer be able to identify it? Google key words? ..."Yes."
I don't believe the vast majority of people would do that."
Trust me, Stan. ..."
I tend to agree. Enough people would do it that it would be a problem.
Linda wrote: "Stan wrote: "Linda wrote: "Stan wrote: "How would the reviewer be able to identify it? Google key words? ..."Yes."
I don't believe the vast majority of people would do that."
Trust me, Stan. ..."
I have a belief not only in the basic decency of people, but also in the basic laziness of people.
The problem with these boot-strapped 'organizations' is getting enough funding to have qualified reviewers. Why should a small group of volunteer 'every-day' reviewers be considered as the gatekeepers of quality? If we are going to rely on every-day reviewers then what we need is a large quantity of every-day reviewers to make sure outliers don't have undue influence.I recently posted the first three paragraphs of Hemingway's Old Man and the Sea in one of these discussion groups to see how 'every-day' reviewers would react. Now I realize that Hemingway is a bit 'old fashioned' now, but I got comments like "that is so bad it rolled my eyes up into my head - I couldn't even finish it". Do I want that person as a gatekeeper? No.
I published a niche homage to B-movies called Bisexual Vegetarian Zombies. This was clearly not an attempt at high literature, and I expected about 30-50% of the readers would hate it. But an 'every-day' reviewer suggested I read Moby Dick to get ideas on how to improve it. Another 'every-day' reviewer got upset and stopped reading because the one of the 20 year old characters, writing in 1st person, spelled through as thru. When I submitted the book to the annual Writer's Digest competition their 'not-every-day' reviewer understood exactly what I was doing and gave it 24/25.
I'll take my chances with a large number of reviewers, but I have serious concerns with a small number of volunteer gatekeepers.
Some see the glass as half full and others see it as half empty. Some take their opinions and point of views on the matter way too seriously and act way too liberal.
I was a wee bit discouraged when visiting The Source threads, after reading the moderator's general guidelines and seeing the first comment, which was a writer asking "What's an info dump?"I did continue reading through some of the approvals/rejections, and most were very nicely explained. But I have to admit, that first comment made me wonder if that particular person were qualified to screen or review at all. Ironically, that same person wasn't pleased with the results for her own book and kept publicly arguing with the reviewer, who was obviously uncomfortable with her persistence...especially considering that the guidelines stated that authors were supposed to contact the moderators, not the reviewer, if they were unhappy with a review. It didn't paint her in a good light at all.
Try reading the suggestion a second time without the bias.It wasn't about having another review with someone saying they liked the work, nor was it a small group of people offering their opinion, qualified or not.
It was more about offering those authors who give a rat's behind about what they're writing a chance to show they are part of an organization that takes writing seriously. It's about being able to show they have had an industry professional (Traditional and / or Indie) at least look at a sample of their work and say: "Yes, this person can at least write competently."
Think about it.
@Lynda: The reason The Source exists, in my opinion, is to get the honest screening and reviews that Linda mentioned earlier. I'm a moderator with the group, and I understand that not everyone who offers to read these books will be professional-level in their ability to be discerning editors and authors.My hope is that authors and other readers will be able to recognize these bad reviews, which I believe Martyn or someone else commented on earlier in the thread. There is a difference between a negative review (I've given a few of those) and a bad review, which is just poorly reasoned or biased in its opinion. If a reviewer is not being objective in their assessment, or is only promoting what they "like" and not pointing out negative aspects, that's a lack of honesty that I would hope other readers will recognize in reading that review. Moderators actively evaluate reviews as well for fairness and objectivity. For instance, if Author 1 gives a negative review of Author 2's book, and Author 2 retaliates with a scathing, personal review of Author 1 and their work because of it, that review won't carry much weight. The review will still be there, because that kind of censorship would be wrongful on the moderator's part, but readers should recognize bad reviews just as readily as they recognize bad writing.
There seems to be a problem here that people want self-published authors to police themselves, yet they want every one of those authors to have the pedigree of a professional editor. That isn't going to happen. But an aggregate source of multiple reviews from multiple readers, all of whom are hopefully remaining as objective as possible, is the best we can do at the moment.
I read somewhere that if Jane Austen were to try and publish her work today, it would be instantly rejected because that isn't what sells in today's market. We can't expect every SPA to recognize and appreciate Hemingway (I think we have an unhealthy attachment to our "classic" literature), but I hope we can actively keep the market from being completely saturated with prematurely published material of sub-par quality.
Martyn V. wrote: "R.F.G. wrote: "If your working vocabulary includes words not loaded in your word processor's dictionary, it's a good idea to double check with a good reference dictionary and then add the verified ..."Could be worse - It could changes bitches (in reference to a female characters) to complains
@R.F.G.: If your comment was directed to me, I'm afraid I'm not sure what you mean, and perhaps you misunderstood my post. I wasn't aware of reading anything with a bias. Bias toward/against what? I merely checked out the thread. If any of the volunteers there (regardless of personal taste) don't know what it is they're looking for, then I'm not sure if they'd be the best judge of writing competence. And this in NO way is aiming to insult anyone. But if a writer (as in my example above) doesn't know what an info dump is, then he won't recognize it in the screening process. It's like not knowing what someone means when they state that a book is full of clichés. If you don't know what a cliché is, then you won't realize they make your writing sound amateurish.
Overall, I thought the screenings posted were thorough and objective, which is why I was bothered by an author immediately arguing with a reviewer about not getting a fair evaluation. I do believe the reviewers are able to put personal taste by the wayside as they screen the first pages of a book. To argue a hopefully objective judgement call before the book even got very many views didn't speak well for the author. That first rejection may have been the only rejection for that particular book, and everyone else may have liked it.
@Thomas: For what it's worth, I do think The Source is doing the job in the best manner possible, with multiple readers/screeners and a clear goal of how many "yes" or "no" votes are needed before a book can move one. And I'm honest enough to admit that I don't know how good a job I'd do if I were screening, based on the type of editing I do. Everyone has their strengths.
No insult was intended by my post, and I apologize if it appeared that way to those who are working hard on the screening process. I was commenting on author behavior more so than the screenings themselves.
Linda wrote: "I may be the only one, but I'm a strong believer in the necessity of the negative review as a tool for the reader to establish the standards by which any reviewer -- individual or group -- reviews. I want to know what books Reviewer Q doesn't like as much as I want to know which ones she does like before I'm going to rely on her reviews to help me choose what to buy and what to read. Does that make sense?"Yes, it does make sense. It's one of the reasons why I post negative reviews of books I stopped reading. I've heard from people who say 'you cannot review a book you haven't read to the end', but they're wrong. If a book seems professional, then turns into a crapfest just beyond the sample, am I supposed to read on in the hope it gets better? Of course not. Nobody can expect me to waste my time.
My 'Stopped Reading' reviews state clearly where I stopped reading and what made me stop reading. I will often quote the book and analyze the flaws I detected and why these flaws were serious enough to make me lose faith in the author's ability to suspend my disbelief.
I've heard authors tell me that I should support other authors. And I do. I just don't support morons who think they can publish prematurely and think they can get away with it.
And I'm still honest and fair. You publish crap, I'll call it crap. I won't call it feces or discharge or waste. The butt-hurt few who will complain about their feelings getting hurt by my blunt dismissal shouldn't assume they deserve my compassion. These fakers don't care about my feelings of getting duped by their lack of integrity. Most of these people know they're putting out an inferior product. And if they don't, I have no problem pointing it out to them.
So if you see a positive review from me on The Source, you know how to value my opinion. :)
@LyndaI was talking about a more formalized process before a self-published author ever gets to reviewers the first time, whether the reviewers are considered competent or otherwise.
"(3) Have both traditional and indie authors and / or editors (dealing with different genres) be the judges of an author's ability to at least competently write."
As for people getting upset over a negative review, their problem. There are traditional authors who are gracious, and others who are far less so, just as there are some self-published who kick up a fuss.
Pick any topic and someone somewhere will get stupid about it.
R.F.G. wrote: "@LyndaI was talking about a more formalized process before a self-published author ever gets to reviewers the first time, whether the reviewers are considered competent or otherwise."
Thank you for the clarification! I hate it when I'm the one getting stupid about it...
Lynda wrote: "R.F.G. wrote: "@LyndaI was talking about a more formalized process before a self-published author ever gets to reviewers the first time, whether the reviewers are considered competent or otherwis..."
I try to be lucid, though with a three month old daughter gifting me with fresh cheese at regular intervals it doesn't always happen.
It would help both TPAs and SPAs if there was an association to help those of us who didn't with the traditional publishing lottery show we are trying to write as professionally as possible.
When a traditional professional tells me a rough draft of mine appeared to be well written and a hungover college intern in charge of a slush pile gives it a pass, I tend to doubt the process.
Why shouldn't those who've made the most do some pro bono to help readers know what's readable?
I would be interested in your thoughts on my blog post on Huffington Post on this topic:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deborah...
Thanks much!
Good article, Deborah. I like the comparison to American Idol auditions.
At the same time, however, there's not really a "limit" of books people read in their lives. It's a competitive market, yes, but I would say less so than the market for traditional publishing, or, say, the TV/movie industry. I think something else important to consider --that your loved ones won't tell you -- is that you have to make your peace with the fact that your book won't be successful.
Deborah wrote: "I would be interested in your thoughts on my blog post on Huffington Post on this topic:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deborah...
Thanks much!"
Lovely article, Deborah. I think the comparison to Idols is particularly apt, as are the consequences of surrounding yourself with biased supporters.
The only (minor) point I'd disagree on is putting the cost of self-publishing at 5,000 dollars. With the right connections, you can easily put out a professional self-publishing novel at a third of that price, or even less depending on your talents.
As to having a filter beyond family and friends, that's why most serious SPAs have beta-readers to read their drafts before they publish. Now, I understand that it's difficult to get beta-readers, especially if you're still at a stage where the craft is lacking, but publishing anything without having a pair of dispassionate eyes going over your story is the worst thing you can do for your reputation. The main difficulty is to discern between those utterly beyond hope and the talented few who publish prematurely.
I think there's nothing wrong with author helping author, if they have the time to do so and the "relationship" for that - when is one is open to learn and the other is open to teach or give feedback.
I am an artist/illustrator and I can say in the art community artists are always helping each other with tips, feedback and trading ideas about techniques. I miss a bit of this in the writer's community.
I however agree that there are tons of online materials, courses and workshops on how to become a better writer. And any author should always aim to enhance his/her work, after all, you want to deliver a great product to your audience.
This topic is great and full of insights. I have experimented with self-publishing and I have learned a great deal through trial and error and harvested some interesting experience for my upcoming self-published graphic book.
Being in the indie author's pool for a while, I'd say:
- Not every author is a "great writer". Anyone can author a book, but few write well and juicy.
- Rush. New indie authors are always or most times rushing their works when they are not ready yet to be published - like I did!
- They don't have a second pair of eyes, as also stated in this topic, you can never edit your own work. You need someone else to see what you can't see as you are immersed in that piece.
(As an artist, I do that a lot, always ask a second opinion on a piece I am working on. As author, I learned the second best thing I did was to work with Clare Diston as my editor!)
- Good/professional presentation of their product. Many indie authors have horrible covers and formating for their books...
- Spam: some authors are shameless of spamming about their books in every non-related topic and place you can image. I really dislike that...
I am an artist/illustrator and I can say in the art community artists are always helping each other with tips, feedback and trading ideas about techniques. I miss a bit of this in the writer's community.
I however agree that there are tons of online materials, courses and workshops on how to become a better writer. And any author should always aim to enhance his/her work, after all, you want to deliver a great product to your audience.
This topic is great and full of insights. I have experimented with self-publishing and I have learned a great deal through trial and error and harvested some interesting experience for my upcoming self-published graphic book.
Being in the indie author's pool for a while, I'd say:
- Not every author is a "great writer". Anyone can author a book, but few write well and juicy.
- Rush. New indie authors are always or most times rushing their works when they are not ready yet to be published - like I did!
- They don't have a second pair of eyes, as also stated in this topic, you can never edit your own work. You need someone else to see what you can't see as you are immersed in that piece.
(As an artist, I do that a lot, always ask a second opinion on a piece I am working on. As author, I learned the second best thing I did was to work with Clare Diston as my editor!)
- Good/professional presentation of their product. Many indie authors have horrible covers and formating for their books...
- Spam: some authors are shameless of spamming about their books in every non-related topic and place you can image. I really dislike that...
@Linda,You make a valid point, why help other authors? True it may help them compete with you (apparently a gad thing) and it would help the readers (apparently also a bad thing to do).
There's always someone else out there to help out, whether it's improving someone's writing, or helping the poor, or insert the group needing help. And as I can I do my part with telling people, use spell check, buy a dictionary, find an editor to work with, etc...
Take the "Why should I help X" analogy a bit further because so many 'enlightened' people like that 'you need to cover your own six' attitude today. If your house is on fire, why should I call the fire department? If your kid's car ran off the road and they'll die without quick assistance, why should I should I place a call? If a devastating storm destroys your home and thousands of others in your area, why should I spend a dime to offer you assistance? If you're in an accident, why should I be bothered to donate blood?
There's always an 'organization to help' out there, usually for a fat price that some people just can't afford to pay.
If you help the writers who want to be helped, you help the readers. There are always excuses on why not to do something, and there will always be those people who provide validity for those excuses. Sometimes you do things because it's the right thing to do.
I don't think helping other authors will necessarily draw readers away from buying your book.There's a new book by Jim Butcher coming out at the end of May, called Skin Game. Let's say I really want to buy Skin Game. Just because another interesting book comes out around the same time or even earlier doesn't mean I won't buy Skin Game anymore. I'll just buy two books, because it's worth it to me.
If you can help somebody else to the extent that their book exceeds your own in sales potential, maybe you could become a really successful editor instead!
On the flip side, helping finding good authors and providing meaningful reviews will draw people to look at your own books by way of natural curiosity. Having a reputation for solid critiques and knowing what good writing is will inevitably bring you more attention, which can bring more sales. So helping others helps you.
I agree with the point that some authors might not take that criticism well, but that isn't your problem. The moment a book is published, it's fair game for reviews of all kinds; why not fix any concerns before it goes public? Writers need to be open to suggestions and criticism if they expect to grow and succeed as authors.
R.F.G. wrote: "@Linda,You make a valid point, why help other authors? True it may help them compete with you (apparently a gad thing) and it would help the readers (apparently also a bad thing to do). ..."
RFG, I could've misread Linda's post but I got the sense that the first half was more a devil's advocate argument. (Also, I don't think that assisting writers re: their skills is on par w/ RL emergencies, do you? Such seems to entail a different set of standards for decision-making.)
More importantly, AFAIK, most of the organisations noted by Linda probably don't charge anything, except perhaps a membership fee to cover costs. And things may be different these days but I imagine that some would even waive such fee depending on circumstances. But even if they did charge something, such should be consider as a business expense, no? Same as if I took a course in my field so to 'freshen up' my knowledge.
And yes, sometimes one does things because it's the right thing to do. But per the adage, one can lead the horse to water but can't make him drink. :)
ETA: I forgot to note something from one of your posts on previous page. Thanks for the laugh re: 3-month old 'gifting' you w/ fresh cheese! Good luck & keep the sauce-like stuff away from those tiny, clever fingers.
Linda wrote: "...Their lack of talent is actually showcased and they are held up to public ridicule with what seems to be unwarranted cruelty. I find that very distasteful, and it certainly isn't what I'd call entertaining. But that's a personal preference. ..."If I may take a stab at my own analogy, I would say that the minute a person decided to audition for the show, knowing that it was televised, etc., then that person became fair game re: critique of talent (or lack thereof). So to the extent that they were humiliated in public/on TV, then they bear a large part of the blame/responsibility.
In similar fashion, the minute someone uploads their book for sale on Amazon or other outlet, then said book is fair game for critique.
ETA (b/c forgot to c&p this part):
Thomas wrote: "...The moment a book is published, it's fair game for reviews of all kinds; why not fix any concerns before it goes public? Writers need to be open to suggestions and criticism if they expect to grow and succeed as authors."
(bold added)
Thomas, that's the 20-million dollar question.
Maybe I read part of it wrong, trying to juggle diaper change, laying out Wife's work clothes, sucking down first kaffee, feeding the kat, and if so you have my apologies.Since you've got all the workable answers, I'll leave you to it -- good luck.
I'm going to take a risk here and say that I actually like American Idol. I've seen every season, even the bad ones. When you watch it and become familiar with the contestants you can be greatly rewarded by watching a talented performer grow during the season and finally become a singer worth listening to. Kelly Clarkson, Jordin Sparks, and David Cook are examples, whether you've heard of them or not. This season they aren't making sport of the bad ones as much as they used to -- trying not to hurt feeling -- but now and then a particularly funny one does get through. (Okay, my testimonial check please.)
Linda, I was trying to say something similar to what Karma summarized so nicely with the horse-to-water adage. Authors need to want help, not just seek validation for what they think is gold. But if the author isn't willing to accept constructive criticism, or work hard to polish their work, then the reviewer has reached the edge of what they can do. It affects the entire industry for bad work to be published under the indie banner, but people need to be receptive to suggestions if that's going to change.So I amend my original statement: It is your problem insofar as it negatively impacts the industry you happen to be a part of. But beyond that, it isn't your job to make that horse drink. ;)
Negative reviews, positive reviews, they all serve a purpose. It would be completely unfair to readers if we omitted all of the negative reviews for the sake of the author's pride. I have, unfortunately, seen plenty of what you mentioned with honest reviewers being stifled for giving out harsh truths. I'm relatively new to the book-screening scene (in a public kind of way, at least), but here's to hoping I remain objective, honest, and thorough for the good of all!
Goodreads Authors/Readers
Books mentioned in this topic
They Still Call Me Sister (other topics)They Still Call Me Sister (other topics)
Reprobate: A Katla Novel (other topics)
Aspen Allegations (other topics)
Reprobate: A Katla Novel (other topics)
More...
You do know why Amazon allows people to publish through KDP for free and without restriction, don't you? Any attempt at controlling what gets through would defeat their purpose.