It's nice to be loved, but be prepared not to be.

[Jim]

A writer, like any other artist, must possess a strong ego. I do not mean conceit; there is a distinct difference. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines ego as "the self as distinguished from others".

One problem with a strong ego is that the possessor tends to be extremely sensitive to negative criticism.

The lesson to be derived from criticism, whether it be constructive, positive, negative or even hurtful, is that it is just an opinion; and one opinion is as good as another.

Never directly challenge a negative or vindictive critic. All too often, such a response incites a spitting match; the result of which is always the same - both sides end up covered in spit.

Let every criticism serve as an incentive to become better at whatever you do. This will drive your negative critics crazy.

[[deleted user]]

I think criticism of any sort, whether positive or negative, is ultimately irrelevant. The question to ask any writer is: do you enjoy writing? If so, don't let anyone's adverse comments bully you into giving it up. If not, then find something else that you do enjoy.

As for critics, not only is it unwise to challenge them - for the reason you give - but we also have it on good authority that we shouldn't attempt to ingratiate ourselves with them:

You say, as I have often given tongue
In praise of what another's said or sung,
'Twere politic to do the like by these;
But was there ever dog that praised his fleas?
- W.B.Yeats

[Timothy]

Well ultimately I think it is foolish to like everyone to like every kind of writing. We don't expect with music for everyone to like Punk music, hard metal and classical music, so why do we expect the same with writing? I personally hate Ulysses by James Joyce but I know people who would hold it up as the best work ever.

So I guess the best attitude is to just accept some people will hate your work; just hope enough people love your work for it to have been worth the effort.

[Brenda]

You know that actors on Broadway often say that they don't read their reviews. The reason is that reading one, during the run of the show, throws them off. Well you don't have to read your reviews either. If they do not do you good, then just say no.

[Deborah]

Jim wrote: "A writer, like any other artist, must possess a strong ego. I do not mean conceit; there is a distinct difference. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines ego as "the self as distinguished from othe..."

Couldn't have worded this any better - to me, you've covered all the salient points and appropriate responses - now if everyone will just take note....

[Caleb]

Receiving and processing reviews is hard, no doubt about it. I suspect this is part of why the publishing houses held so much terrain in the old days: they insulated the author from the feedback of the world, and created a relatively stable bubble from which the author could focus and produce.

But for me, I've never felt like I shouldn't engage my reviewers, even if they said something I thought was unfair. I think to 'challenge' a review isn't necessarily to invite disaster, but there is certainly a fine line you have to tread to keep from being offensive or belligerent in the face of a negative review.

Sometimes that interaction can yield some sweet, sweet fruit, though. I've recruited three stalwart beta readers by challenging their low-rated reviews; I honestly don't know where I'd be without their pre-launch feedback. But it's definitely not for everyone to actively engage on those terms; most of us should just focus on producing and try to tune the rest of the world out while we do so.

[Nicholas]

Negative reviews can be helpful sometimes. They can point out the flaws in your writing if the reviewers are honestly being rational. They can thus help you improve as a writer––more so than any positive review could. But at the same time, you shouldn't listen to everything those negative reviews say. You pick out what they proclaim is true, because you know it yourself to be true, and then you ignore everything else and trust what is there; going off positive reviews then.
You have to trust in yourself ultimately, because if you only trust in others, then the work is more of their creation and not your own. That's not what being a writer is about.

[Caleb]

You have to trust in yourself ultimately, because if you only trust in others, then the work is more of their creation and not your own. That's not what being a writer is about.

Well put. Whenever I edit a book for someone, the first thing I say is "If we only get one person/beta reader who makes a specific negative comment, we ignore it. If we get two or three to make the same comment, we look at it. If half or more make similar comments, we've got a real problem and have to address it."

I think the same thing applies to reviews, since they're basically the same type of feedback. If several people make a particular point independently of each other, then you've got to review it. If a significant portion of your audience did so, then you actually have something you need to address.

Just one person's opinion can, and usually should, be dismissed as noise.