Cliches and tropes, and Self-Review questions

[Mstanyamatt]

Sorry, could not accept that the cat characters could have human characteristics, which is because of the lack of a deft hand in the writing. Mainly the clichéd, tropes which have been so many times before (and better). And I agree with previous reviewers, this was juvenile and self-aggrandizement (but the author is a gymnastics coach as a profession so that might explain how this is perhaps a hobby). I was taught to keep one's ego out of one's writing if it will circumvent the narrative being able to unfold naturally. I wish I passed on this!

I see the author has reviewed his own work and has given it 5 stars! In his review he said "It was amazing"! I agree with Teddy et al, in the blog entry, "Authors rating their own books on Good Reads." Thank you Keta, for your insight here as well (" from a reader's perspective, this inflates the overall rating of a book. . .I firmly believe that readers have a right to honest reviews/ratings since they're spending money on the books."


Nicholas Checker

[Abbie]

Cannot escape the self-promotions as someone pointed out whenever my roommate opens her email or when I venture into my favorite coffee shop.

[Abbie]

Nicholas CheckerMstanyamatt wrote: "Sorry, could not accept that the cat characters could have human characteristics, which is because of the lack of a deft hand in the writing. Mainly the clichéd, tropes which have been so many time..."

Keta et al, "Authors rating their own books on Good Reads"--from a reader's perspective, totally inflates the rating, totally not fair to the reader (who lives out of the area, and is not in-the-know).. Readers and volunteers have a right to honest reviews and ratings since they are spending money on the books.

[Abbie]

In my opinion you nailed it Tonya, D, ladies. So I take it, this one is not going to Jamms for chat group in May?

[Candeeray]

Abbie wrote: "Nicholas CheckerMstanyamatt wrote: "Sorry, could not accept that the cat characters could have human characteristics, which is because of the lack of a deft hand in the writing. Ma..."

I don't usually do these types of discussions or reviews (actually not at all) but a recent post confrontation by the author made me go to the keyboard. An engagement to someone, I don't know who: the reviewers or the Goodread people (I understand it was viewed by reviewers as an attack).

"Please eliminate these deliberately negative reviews on SCRATCH which I recognize as nothing more than personal attacks. Check Amazon.com for legitimate reviews on this very book, mots from people I don't even know. Can you do this?"

Well, first, I would like to add that I don't know this author, at all (I'm from Dayton, OH) and so I have very little awareness of why he chose to lash out. From what it appears here and elsewhere the ahuthor apparently had called for his readers at a now defunct bookshop to go forth and applaud his work with animals and to recognize his efforts in his writing (is Prowler supposed to be some kin of alter ego--man, what an ego). So it baffles me as to why he can't take the heat which is what all pros usually understand (he is a former gymnastics coach?). Reviews can be a cause for celebration or for recognizing that your words don't always make everyone happy.

Again, nothing personal, but in my opinion I believe an author ought to try to acknowledge his or her influences (trying to be gentle here), and to allow the reader to see if you are doing an homage. And by all means, do not call out to your readers and reviewers in a local bookstore (not sure where it was, Connecticut?)to do pr for you by stating that you liked your work and recognize all that you are doing as told through the protagonist.

As someone else pointed out, the author needs to proof his work prior to submiting (friends cannot do all damage control), see the use of language in the author's response here on Goodreads ("Please eliminate these deliberately negative reviews on SCRATCH which I recognize as nothing more than personal attacks. Check Amazon.com for legitimate reviews on this very book, mots from people I don't even know. Can you do this?").

"Mots"?

In regards to having friends and vanity press publishers do a glorious review, can that not be acknowledged? And I agree with one of the other commentators, "Authors rating their own books on Good Reads--from a reader's perspective, totally inflates the rating, totally not fair to the reader. . . Readers and volunteers have a right to honest reviews and ratings since they are spending money on the books."

[Juniorreyes]

So, if I write my owb book (ha), give myself a 5 star review, then have a friend do another 5 star review (or is it a friend/burgeoning "publisher), then message the people who did not do the same with extreme vitriol, I can call myself an author?