Goodreads Authors/Readers discussion
III. Goodreads Readers
>
If you want readers, why aren't you defending them?
Fair enough. Back to the topic
J.D. wrote: "I think this will all work itself out eventually. Those authors putting out sub-standard work and behaving unprofessionally--especially those attacking readers whose opinions don't support their d..."This is a good, if colourful, way of putting it! The publishing industry as it's hitherto been is disappearing, and books are reaching the market in new ways. That's a good thing, as it means a lot of fine books will no longer be kept out of the marketplace. But it also means there's no mechanism to keep crap ones out any more. Social media is the answer but it isn't working yet. But the ash will fall to earth.
Okay, here’s one that’s not OT. :)Should authors defend readers? Arguing from the standpoint that authors are readers, I think the answer is self-evident. I despise the “culture of me” indulged in by writers who demand that reviewers post only gushing nonsense having nothing to do with either the quality of the book or a reader’s reaction to it. Reviews, good or bad, are opinions. They’re valid. One author who didn’t like a review I wrote about her book complained that any criticism of indies’ work didn’t “give them a chance.” Silly of me to think that she’d had her chance when she decided the book was ready to publish, I guess...
Similarly, C.M.J. the belief that readers have to somehow prove themselves worthy and qualified to review a book before they can post a negative review (but not for a positive one) annoys me. As and example, this comment was thrown at me recently,...But attack pieces from people with neither the courage or the talent to write their own work and put it up to scrutiny shouldn’t sit so high on the horse...
Leaving aside the fact that I have written my own work put it out there for scrutiny (and taken my lumps), the argument is a ridiculous symptom of that same 'culture of me' you referred to.
Who better than a reader/non-writer to assess a book or story without bias, without consideration for technique or having their opinion hampered by the knowledge of how hard writing is. They are able to see a story as just that. The insistence that a reviewer has to have proven themselves or their work superior to another before they are allowed to express criticism is egocentric and, I might even go as far as, offensive.
Sadie, it's offensive, all right, and that comment you got begs the question that anyone who chooses not to write has no linguistic talent--and that those who choose to write inherently do. Not so in either case!
as I said, authors are often their own worst enemies. They have no right to demand anything of a reader, not even to read their book
Sadie wrote: "...As and example, this comment was thrown at me recently,...But attack pieces from people with neither the courage or the talent to write their own work and put it up to scrutiny shouldn’t sit so high on the horse..."
*facepalm* Why is one of the lame fallbacks this ridiculous notion that every reader secretly aspires to be an author? I understand that *some* may but my RL friends and I certainly don't.
the problem authors face when trying to promote their books by social media, is that they end up only talking to other authors, because that's who they gravitate to on their networks. Now of course authors are still readers, but there is a reluctance of authors to buy the books of other authors as if somehow they are in competition with one another (which they are not, there's enough to go round everyone.) What authors struggle to do is reach 'pure' readers and behaviour & comments like the ones cited above just push potential readers further away and out of reach.
Karma♥Bites ^.~ wrote: "Why is one of the lame fallbacks this ridiculous notion that every reader secretly aspires to be an author?"Lack of originality, perhaps? ;)
Marc wrote: "They have no right to demand anything of a reader, not even to read their book"
Too right. When readers buy a book or download a free copy, they are engaging in a transaction, not entering into a contract; there’s no obligation on a reader’s part to do anything with the book.
"Linda wrote: Your first statement is probably correct, but the accuracy seemed to go downhill from there."Accuracy? Sorry I wasn't aware I was writing an entry for Encyclopaedia Britannica. It is called an opinion, to which everyone is entitled.
Marc wrote: "There is writing that is entertainment, telling stories, providing escapism as Keith says. But then there is writing as literature, that is it is art, which has very little to do with escapism, but..."Marc, you can attack my work with as much passive aggression as you like. But it does not change the fact you need to remove your head from your proverbial. That is exactly the kind of ego about which I was writing.
C.M.J. wrote: "Karma♥Bites ^.~ wrote: "Why is one of the lame fallbacks this ridiculous notion that every reader secretly aspires to be an author?"Lack of originality, perhaps? ;)..."
Ach, if so, then doesn't bode well coming from an author, eh? ;-)
Keith wrote: "Marc wrote: "There is writing that is entertainment, telling stories, providing escapism as Keith says. But then there is writing as literature, that is it is art, which has very little to do with ..."sorry, how do you construe what I said as an attack on your work? I was certainly disagreeing with your statements that books are universally means of escapism, simply because the niche literature that I write and read gets overlooked in these type of statements. I am not positing any such notion that these types of books should prevail over other books as I said, the market is diverse enough to sustain all types of writing. There is commercial fiction and there is literary fiction, at least to judge by those who market books for the industry.
You can call me or my work pretentious, egotistical or whatever. But I never accused anyone of anything, other than overlooking that there are other ways of writing books and consequently by implication categorising my work as something that it isn't.
Linda wrote: "Marc wrote: "the problem authors face when trying to promote their books by social media, is that they end up only talking to other authors, because that's who they gravitate to on their networks. Not all authors, so let's try not to paint with too broad a brush there, okay? ..."
It's a fair cop.
Karma♥Bites ^.~ wrote: "C.M.J. wrote: "Karma♥Bites ^.~ wrote: "Why is one of the lame fallbacks this ridiculous notion that every reader secretly aspires to be an author?""Lack of originality, perhaps? ;)..."
Karma♥Bites ^.~ wrote: "Ach, if so, then doesn't bode well coming from an author, eh? ;-)..."
…which may be one of the reasons said author undoubtedly deserved the criticism received!
Linda wrote: "Marc wrote: "the problem authors face when trying to promote their books by social media, is that they end up only talking to other authors, because that's who they gravitate to on their networks. ..."To Richard: I'm curious why you know longer care about discoverability?
Keith wrote: "Accuracy? Sorry I wasn't aware I was writing an entry for Encyclopaedia Britannica. It is called an opinion, to which everyone is entitled."I don't understand this. Yes, everyone is entitled to their opinion. But isn't accuracy a consideration as to whether or not such opinion has any weight or value? Frex, one certainly can
ETA: Unless your position is that no one's opinion is subject to debate or scrutiny. In which event, you're entitled to that opinion. :)
etc: typos
Richard wrote: "Marc wrote: "To Richard: I'm curious why you know no longer care about discoverability?"Ah, sorry. You must have missed the link... ;-)"
Doh! Mea culpa. Thanks for pointing me in the direction
Marc wrote: "living up to your name :-)My work often deals with the hyperreal and to my mind that represents the blurring of reality with notions about it that are fed by media, TV, film and other sources, so that one can no longer tell if the experiences one recalls are actually not personally experience, but shaped by say a TV programme or a film. The hyperreal becomes reality for those unable to distinguish things within it. But I'm not sure that makes it escapist. A film like "Natural Born Killers" is a pretty good example of hyperreal art.
Terms like pomo & experimental are flawed, but yes that's the sort of work we're talking about. Again I'm still not sure the mere reading of such work meaning you're not currently doing anything else like cooking or the laundry, necessarily means you're escaping from them!"
I've been "escaping" by reading since I was a little kid. I think the enjoyment and absorption implied in that can happen with all kinds of books, including so-called "difficult" ones, even those that play with perception and language and that test our ideas of reality. You mention that you are concerned with reality and media, and I can't help but think of Infinite Jest, the reading of which was totally escapist for me.
I'm being a little difficult here, though. We are using a slightly different spin on the word "escapist." I'm thinking less about the getting away from something part of it and more about being engrossed in something fictional.
I just don't like seeing books that are considered a little more difficult or avant-garde all put in a box like they are some totally different entity. I think doing that makes them seem elitist and/or inaccessible, and I don't think they have to be either.
well while I understand your last comment, I'd hate to advertise my books as something they're not and mislead readers into what they think they're getting. it's a hard balance to strike. I think you're right in our differing takes on the word 'escapist'. Any read involves the reader taking an imaginative leap into the world created in the book by the author, but I wouldn't call that escapist. Yes we can lose ourselves in books, or we can read them and reflect as we progress through them on how it might reflect back on our world. Different strokes for different folks.
As Proust described reading, "I believe that reading is that fruitful miracle of communication in the midst of solitude"
Marc wrote: "I think you're right in our differing takes on the word 'escapist'. Any read involves the reader taking an imaginative leap into the world created in the book by the author, but I wouldn't call that escapist. Yes we can lose ourselves in books, or we can read them and reflect as we progress through them on how it might reflect back on our world. Different strokes for different folks."But here's the thing, for some of us reflecting as we read a book and relating it to other things is escapist. In the sense of being enjoyable, engrossing, intellectually stimulating, etc. (and for some probably also in the sense of helping them avoid the unpleasantness of their personal realities by thinking about something else). Some people may "escape" by playing chess or playing a musical instrument. I don't think reading metafiction, or any other kind of fiction, is much different.
Again, I'm being difficult (and really, really off topic). I concede that your definition of "escapist" is more standard than mine. But while I understand that you don't want to mislead readers about what you write, I also don't think that your preferred area of literature should be somehow set aside from the rest of literature. I don't think it's categorically different.
This is an interesting discussion, but not really in the right place. Maybe we need to resurrect the epic literary fiction thread.
yes you're probably right about it being the wrong thread. the thing about a book being engrossing and stimulating is what I would call entertaining me as a reader rather than providing escapism. But I think this is probably just a different semantic interpretation of broadly the same thing.
Cphe wrote: "I think that is one factor that has contributed to a lot of discontent. "I'm not sure I followed. Do you mean the discontent is coming from a feeling of obligation, for better or worse, that isn't there for a traditionally published book? Sorry, you're probably being perfectly clear and it's me who's being dense.
Karma♥Bites ^.~ wrote: "I don't understand this. Yes, everyone i..."Karma, I was being facetious. Part of what I was saying was any fair, but poor review of your novel should always be looked upon as an opportunity to improve your craft. Which, amongst other things, was an accurate statement I would have thought (if you take your writing seriously). It also appears that having a professional editor improve your work prior to publishing is also inaccurate (according to Linda). No wonder readers like Cphe don't read SP authors anymore.
Marc, I apologise, mate, I misunderstood your message. My mistake. I shall pull my head out of MY proverbial.
Cphe, I agree, and it's your type of reviews that not only inform the readers, but (should at least) warn SP authors their work may need improvement. I don't see why a fair, but low marking review should be looked upon as an attack on the author.
Sadie wrote: "Cphe wrote: "I think that is one factor that has contributed to a lot of discontent. "I'm not sure I followed. Do you mean the discontent is coming from a feeling of obligation, for better or wor..."
Sadie, I think Cphe means (correct me if I'm wrong Cphe), the discontent is coming from the SP author who may have received a poor (but fair) review (indicating they may need to re-view their novel and fix grammatical errors and so forth), and taken it as a personal attack. That's how I read it, anyway. I may be completely off the mark.
Keith wrote: "Karma♥Bites ^.~ wrote: "I don't understand this. Yes, everyone i..."Karma, I was being facetious. Part of what I was saying was any fair, but poor review of your novel should always be looked up..."
No worries. Words eh, can't trust the pesky blighters! :-)
Happy coincidence, I was reading an essay by short story writer Gary Lutz and he differentiated books that were "page turners" for their readers and books that were "page huggers" for their readers.
I'll bite. What is the difference between "page turners" and "page huggers"?
Stefani wrote: "R.A. wrote: "If people on both sides would just have a little respect, it wouldn't be an issue."I respect your opinion, however I think you are mistaken on this point. I have often done nothing m..."
So one point I'd like to make is that most reasonable people recognize bullies for what they are--that author might have been attacking you on your blog but he only made himself sound like an idiot. You remained respectful and he went off the rails. That's really all you can do.
If I had seen the conversation I would definitely have jumped in. I know it's hard to receive a bad review, and I dread getting my first one (only had my book available for five months or so) but that's not because I don't want the feedback--it's because I already have self doubts and neurotic paranoia about whether I should be doing this at all. It's my life's dream and it's really hard to feel attacked or bullied on the writer's side. But I will always listen to criticism. My book has 13 reviews on Amazon, some 5s and some 4s. I know sooner or later I'll get a 3 or lower. It's a fact of life.
But if someone has criticism about my book I want to hear it. The only way I will grow as a writer is if I figure out what I can do better. And if someone is overly rude or hostile in their review I plan to simply ignore it.
As for the person who harassed you on your blog--just delete his posts and ignore him. Clearly he isn't worth the time of day. Reasonable and intelligent people will side with you. Those who don't: screw them.
I only ask that you keep looking for "diamonds in the rough". On amazon you can preview the book--I do this all the time. I've found some good books this way.
JD Kaplan
Another thing I meant to say...the OP said something I wanted to address:"I'll admit that I'm not feeling terribly charitable given the number of authors who have attacked readers this year, when it's not even two months in, "
Think about this in Darwinian terms: readers who see authors acting like 8 year olds are less likely to bother even considering that author's work. These people are actively putting themselves out there to be ignored entirely. As a self published author, struggling against a traditional system, I realize that I cannot afford to attack the very people I'm courting.
Remember that trolls and bullies on the internet are the noisy minority--it's the silent majority that you have to remember exists. We all see when these people act like idiots and quite honestly I believe they are going a long way to cull themselves from the herd. One less book or set of books to have to evaluate when looking for something interesting to read.
A.R. wrote: "I'll bite. What is the difference between "page turners" and "page huggers"?"well a page turner is something that racks up the tension/suspense and makes the reader want to keep turning the pages to find out what happens. A page hugger is a book whose language just makes the reader at various points stop and bask in the language or the imagery, to read the paragraph/page again, rather than be in a rush to get to the next page. Of course a reader may read a page again because they haven't a clue what the writer is going on about, but that's not really the same thing.
J.D. wrote: "I only ask that you keep looking for "diamonds in the rough". On amazon you can preview the book--I do this all the time. I've found some good books this way. "Thank you for your post, I appreciate and agree with your sentiments. For now I will keep reading SP books, but more selectively. I will investigate not only the book but the author as well, see if there's a hint that they might be a problem child. I have found some great SP books and authors, so I can't give up entirely. But also because I am most likely going to be SPing myself soon, so I would want someone to give me that chance too. It's a conundrum.
As a reader, it baffles me that so many authors get their panties in a twist over negative reviews. Personally, the first thing I do when I read a book is look at the 1 and 2 star reviews. If I see that most of what is being complained about is spelling and grammar, it's a pass. If the complaints are things that annoy me about a book, it's a pass. If I don't really think any of the complaints will bother me, now I'll buy. This is infinitely more valuable to me as a reader than a 5 star "OMGAAWWWDDD this was the most amazing thing ever!!" review. I wish more of these kinds of authors could see that.
I approach reviews in a similar manner--I read the worst ones and then I read the 4 star ones then finally if I've not already moved on, I'll check a few of the 5 star ones. I do find spelling and grammar issues annoying but if that's the only complaint in an otherwise solid set of reviews I'll usually try the first few pages and make a decision after that. And I'm completely embarrassed to admit that the cover of the book is something I look at early in my "process". Horrible covers drive me away faster than spelling and grammar mistakes. I'm a bad person...As for why authors get their panties in a twist over negative reviews, I would say that it's because it's so hard not to take feedback in a personal way. Sometimes I liken the act of publishing a fiction work sort of like walking down mainstreet in my underwear. scary. The trick is to ignore the sense of nakedness and find a way to use those comments to improve the work.
This is not as easy as I make it sound. "Dude you should NEVER walk down the street in your underwear again. You are fugly!" hurts. "JD if you're going to walk down the street in your underwear you should consider wearing boxers instead of tighty-whities" is helpful. But a writer will sit there and think "I shouldn't wear tighty-whities because that person thinks I look fugly".
Consider DeNiro's quote about writers from the other night (internet meme alert!!!)
https://twitter.com/tayloreaton/statu...
J.D. wrote: "Horrible covers drive me away faster than spelling and grammar mistakes. I'm a bad person..."If that makes you a bad person then I am a horrific person. I have avoided so many books because of a bad cover. And I have also bought books for no other reason than having a great cover. I have a problem, I admit it.
Stefani wrote: "J.D. wrote: "Horrible covers drive me away faster than spelling and grammar mistakes. I'm a bad person..."If that makes you a bad person then I am a horrific person. I have avoided so many books ..."
I deeply appreciate your honesty and candor. It's nice to know I'm not alone...
I realize that a bad cover might curl itself around a great book and that a great cover might try to mask the puss-filled boil of debilitating drudgery inside.So I always read the blurb and the sample, no matter how awesome the book cover might be.
Stefani wrote: "J.D. wrote: "Horrible covers drive me away faster than spelling and grammar mistakes. I'm a bad person..."If that makes you a bad person then I am a horrific person. I have avoided so many books ..."
You and me both, Stephani. I have hundreds of truly awful books with badass covers on my kindle.
That one click buy button will be the death of me. Or at least, the death of my wallet. ;)
J.D. wrote: "Stefani wrote: "J.D. wrote: "Horrible covers drive me away faster than spelling and grammar mistakes. I'm a bad person..."If that makes you a bad person then I am a horrific person. I have avoide..."
Perhaps that's not so illogical. A good cover suggests that some thought's gone into the book and its production. I try not to be too influenced by covers, but a really crappy one will put me off.
Mike wrote: "Perhaps that's not so illogical. A good cover suggests that some thought's gone into the book and its production. I try not to be too influenced by covers, but a really crappy one will put me off."I tend to liken a pretty cover to preparing oneself before going out. Sure, appearances can be deceptive, and being well-dressed doesn't mean you're a nice person... but people will still judge you on that. It's unfair, but it's true, and it's the same with book covers.
Vicki wrote: "Yzabel wrote: "Mike wrote: "Perhaps that's not so illogical. A good cover suggests that some thought's gone into the book and its production. I try not to be too influenced by covers, but a really ..."I've already got grandiose plans for my next cover! It's funny how the "little" things motivate and excite :)
I look at 1 and 2 star reviews also, but I have to see a lot of grammar complaints before I give a book a pass. I'm much likelier to skip a book due to the content. One of the worst things about becoming a better writer is that I've gotten more critical of books written by my favorite authors.STOP analyzing the book, Stan! and just enjoy it.
Stefani wrote: "J.D. wrote: "I only ask that you keep looking for "diamonds in the rough". On amazon you can preview the book--I do this all the time. I've found some good books this way. "Thank you for your pos..."
I like the 3 and 4-star reviews. They'll often tell you a mix of "why I liked the book" and "what were the shortcomings". That, the overall number and rating of "stars", plus a look inside will usually suffice for a buying decision -- once I get past the cover and the sales blurb.
Al wrote: "I like the 3 and 4-star reviews. They'll often tell you a mix of "why I liked the book" and "what were the shortcomings". That, the overall number and rating of "stars", plus a look inside will usually suffice for a buying decision -- once I get past the cover and the sales blurb."I like those for very similar reasons. Although 1*/2* can also be good indicators, depending on what they're about. For instance, I've seen reviewers state they didn't like this or that book because "there were more than 3 POVs", but without saying if said POVs were put to a good use or not; if such opinions are a matter of personal preference, and unrelated to an author's skill, then maybe the book is worth 1* to that specific reviewer, but could be worth more to someone who likes rifling through POVs. Same with romance as main plot (something I'm not too keen one, and that someone else will love); with anti-heroes vs. true white knights; etc.
Wow, I'm a fairly new SPA, and I had no idea this stuff was going on. For me, writing is not about selling books. I have no delusions of grandeur. I will probably never make money doing this. But I love writing and I love sharing with readers. My reward is absolute joy when a reader enjoys a book. My desire is not to become a rich, famous author, but to become a better and better writer. So far, I've found that although criticism hurts a bit, it helps even more. On behalf of the group of authors that I have evidently joined, I sincerely apologize to the readers who have been mistreated. After all, I'm a reader, too. I've read more books than I've written. I promise not to judge sincere reviewers by the actions of a few people who post rather spiteful, undeserved reviews. And I hope you won't judge me by the actions of a few SPA's who have obviously behaved very badly.
J.D. wrote: "Horrible covers drive me away faster than spelling and grammar mistakes. I'm a bad person..."I don't think being turned off by bad covers is totally superficial. If a cover shows a complete lack of effort (I saw one recently where a word in the title was misspelled), it doesn't bode well for the book.
Sarah (Warning: Potentially Off-Topic) wrote: "I don't think being turned off by bad covers is totally superficial. If a cover shows a complete lack of effort (I saw one recently where a word in the title was misspelled), it doesn't bode well for the book."I agree. I too have seen mispelled titles, etc. The ones that totally baffle me though, are the ones that don't even bother with a cover, just a picture. Even if it's a cool picture I'm a firm believer that it does't qualify as a cover if it doesn't have the title and author on it. Those will drive me away, because I can't add them to my shelf and browse to pick up a book. Poor covers don't. I won't pass up an interesting sounding book just 'cause the cover is amateurish or ugly. However, covers are a large part of what prompts me to read a blurb in the first place and if the cover doesn't attract me I'll probably not bother reading the blurb and never know if the book would appeal to me or not.
Sadie wrote: "Sarah (Warning: Potentially Off-Topic) wrote: "I don't think being turned off by bad covers is totally superficial. If a cover shows a complete lack of effort (I saw one recently where a word in th..."I agree. Case in point: Ben Brown writes contemporary science fiction. We published his first book with a great cover on it. He became, understandably, impatient with our pace and wanted to write/publish more often than we could handle, so he went independent.
He's put out several books, most with so-so covers (self published).
His first book, Enhanced sells quite well (especially in Great Britain), but his other offerings (equally good) aren't measuring up to his first book's numbers. I suspect the marginal covers are responsible.
That being said, along comes a book with a really bland cover on it that rockets off the charts. Yes, I refer to the original short story, Wool by Hugh Howey. Go figure.
The cover topic is not really on topic and could do with its own thread. It is good to mention Wool, as there is a lot of fluff talked about this topic. Especially, when people use the Smashwords example given here http://www.slideshare.net/Smashwords/... .
People often cite this evidence for how a cover change helped to move the author into Apple's eye and after Apple promoted it, to 1000 sales per day. They then follow up with the unwarranted point that no-one will buy your book if it has a crap cover. What those people don't tell you is that the original cover (simply the title and author name on a blank page) already had sales in the 100s. The book in question was selling at a level that many indie authors would be pleased with, when it still had the crappy cover.
You're right. We've wandered off topic.As long as we're on Howey, I'd like to note that he always strokes his readers. One reason I think they like him so much. In fact, Hugh seems to like just about any civil person and that makes him a likable guy as well.
I've told our authors at AKW Books to NEVER pick fights with critics. You can't win. You'll just call more attention to the bad review and make yourself look like a whiner. If you absolutely MUST respond to a bad review (and I never advocate doing so), it's easier to thank them for reading your book and taking the time to post a review and express your sorrow that they didn't like your book.
Then go back to writing a much better book without the shortcomings (if any) of the previous one.
This applies even more to "Indie"s.
I'll go one step further and suggest that if a book gets mostly bad reviews, you might want to remove it from sale because it's poisoning your name as an author.
Goodreads Authors/Readers
Books mentioned in this topic
Simple Jess (other topics)Infinite Jest (other topics)
A Prayer for Owen Meany (other topics)
The Star Of Jolanest: Tales From Tamara (other topics)
Pogo (other topics)
The argument I would give you is such is the nature of language"
To which I would just point out... OT, anyone? :)