Should self-published books be reviewed differently?

[C.M.]

Should a self-published book receive the same treatment as a book from a 'real' publisher?

I've seen quite a few spine-tingling reviews from some in the goodreads community. While not breaking the goodreads rules, it is quite obvious what they are: rants of venom.

I get it, sure. Where else in life can you throw something to the ground and kick it around?

Self-published books are fair game. Authors put their work on the shelf next to those pros, they should be expected to match quality, or go home. In other words, they have a responsibility to their readers.

But then, I also feel it's unfair to self-published authors to be so unkind. Partly because I know that behind those book covers there is no team of professionals who should be ashamed of shoddy work (e.g., copy editing, redundancies), but one individual trying their best to let their passion sing.

But there's another wrinkle here: in far too many cases, self-published writers are putting their stuff out with too little consideration. They rush it out the door without enough reflection or input from readers, substantive and copy editors, etc.

NOT SMART.

But when, as a reviewer, you sling your distaste with childish animosity at a self-published author, you are spitting nails at ONE, solitary individual standing there naked and vulnerable, not a TEAM.

Should reviewers be mindful of this? Hrm....

It's easy to be a critic. To get mad when the reading experience doesn't meet your needs. But when you put your words out there in public, it's not all about you. I think reviewers have a responsibility to recognize what they're looking at and treat self-published authors fairly.

It's not necessarily about being aware of an author's "feelings." It's about being aware that, despite a bad start, that writer might one day produce a work of brilliance. Unless we reviewers squash the living daylights out of their egos in our reviews.

Writing is about more than a commercial good. For the writer and for the reader, it's about a community of ideas, a journey to understanding that we're working on together. But if one side is slinging mud all the time, those on the other side of the fence might go home.

Thoughts?

[Karey]

Sometimes, you can just 'show up', and be the next 'big thing'. Most times, this is a dream from days gone by. No more taking a Greyhound bus to Hollywood and becoming the next Monroe/Dean.
Same with writing.
Once in a blue moon--like that? The forbidden cliche'--an unheard of author will appear and make it alllll the waaay to a farkin' movie deal. A BLOODY MOVIE DEAL!!!! Or, publishers will bid for her manuscript--The Historian (by Elizabeth Kostova) and pay her a million dollars. MILLION. DOLLARS. FIRST BOOK. Bitch. No, kidding. Sorta.
My take.
If you dare to try out for a Broadway production, you better make damn sure you have a leg to stand on--oh, darn, another cliche'. This is the only place I can get away with writing them, so I may drive you to the point of choking me.
And confiscating my keyboard.
Don't touch the whisky. THAT might get ye' bloodied.
Where was I?
Ah.
Reviews and quality.
I dare to dance with the professionals; hence, I do my damnedest to put out an equally good product.
How do you know an agent isn't reading your work?
Indie authors have begun to make a name for themselves, just as Indie movies have.
Agents are realizing there are some real jewels out there, waiting to be discovered.
Not to say I'm a jewel--one day, as God is my witness...wait, that line's been taken...
Nope, I don't have a team of editors, copy editors, line editors...but, BUT, I have readers.
Most are honest and fair.
Most ROCK!!
And then, there are the social media trolls. They vindicate their wretched little lives by attacking others--while hiding behind the safety of anonymity.
Bet they wouldn't say that to my face!
HA!
Their attacks are no different than cyber bullying. It hurts. It knocks us flat. And, at times, it's a bit difficult to recover from.
And then, we get mad.
Because of all the reasons you listed above.
I have a fantastic circle of non-writing friends who lift me back up.
I have a fantastic circle of writerly friends who share their own horror stories, making me laugh and laugh.
In this business, as artists, we're sharing our souls. Dress it up any way you wanna, but we are--we're sharing a deep part of ourselves by way of music, poetry, paintings, writing...
There are always going to be those who mock us, tear us down, point a finger and laugh...
And then, there are those who say just the right thing, lighting a fire of encouragement--the fan who 'gets' us, and loves what we offered, flaws & all.

[Roger]

C.M. wrote: "Should a self-published book receive the same treatment as a book from a 'real' publisher?
..."

I would tend to answer "Yes" to this question. Just because indie authors (I'm one) do not have a team of professionals polishing up a book, doesn't mean the book should be treated with kid gloves. Readers don't always know if the author did the editing or hired a professional editor. They don't always know if the author produced the cover or had it professionally done. I believe anyone who puts his/her work out for the general public to read should be expected to produce a good product, even if it is free.

Reviewers have the right to be disappointed in the quality of a book, indie or not. They have the right to not be impressed with the writer's style or the characters or the plot. They should be honest in their reviews and write them as their opinion.

I also believe reviewers should not attack indie authors personally. If a book is poorly edited, written, presented, etc., then simply state that. I think reviewers should strive to be as professional as they expect writers to be. Each person, writer and reviewer alike, is responsible for his/her own attitude, quality of work, and the presentation of that work to the readers of the books and the reviews.

As long as reviewers are honest and professional, they should require writers to be the same, no matter how the work is published.

[Charlene]

Roger, Karey, C.M what a very powerful topic. Sometimes it helps to pull a situation apart to see it in terms of parts, rather than its whole. So here for example, to pull the writer away from the novice/beginner/student. I believe that anyone who puts out their work prematurely (with all the mistakes and errors mentioned above for starters) stays in a category of novice/beginner/student. As an old English teacher, I treat a review of something by a writer in this category the same way I would in class: I try to point to the strengths, then offer suggestions about the weak points. But here's the deal—I send the review back to the writer and do not post it.
I post only reviews I believe to be interesting to read and possibly helpful to the writer. This means my commentary lands on their strengths, then the critiques take aim at characterization, narration, action, symbolization.
If a review needs work in terms of spelling, grammar and punctuation it is not a work I will publicly review. I will review, but send it back to the author. Only if the work passes, in my estimation, a standard of professionalism will I treat it as such, remarking on its strengths and weaknesses in public.
I wonder what you think about this approach?
As for those who delight in socking other writers in the face, their own pain and sadness dictates their attitudes. It hurts, but I agree Karey, as artists we put our souls on display and sometimes that can be painful. However as long as we make the distinction between needing reviewers to rate our writing, over and against our personal need for love, affection and attention, it becomes easier and easier to dismiss the trolls who grump openly over our lovingly created texts.
Thoughts?

[Roger]

Charlene,

I can see the English teacher in your comment even if you hadn't mentioned it. I think it's great that you review that way. You're an educator and obviously take pleasure in it. My daughter had someone like you in high school and that helped her get into a great university as much as anything else. I wish we had more like you.

However, most reviewers do not take that approach, and most of them would rightly argue that it is not their place to write a critique for the author but to write reviews for other readers. Writers who put their work out prematurely (me included) should be reviewed fairly. Stating that your opinion is that the work was released prematurely is fair. Blasting the author for doing it is not.

At least, a self-published author can remove the book from circulation, fix it, and re-release it. I think that's an advantage over traditionally published books.

I don't have a problem with a negative review as long as the reviewer is professional about it and doesn't make it a personal vedetta against me because he/she personally didn't like the book, especially since they can preview the first couple of chapters before buying it.

For that reason, I believe indie books should be reviewed in the same way as traditionally published books. Maybe that will force indie authors to put extra effort into producing a good product.

[Charlene]

Roger, yes I agree. There is no special "Get out of School" card for Indie Writers. Reviewers, critics have traditionally fallen into at least two categories: those who review the work because they love good writing, and those who hold a grudge against a particular author. The first kind are the professionals. What to do with the others? The same as in life: walk on. Or in this case, write on.

[Al "Tank"]

ANY writer is fair game. Horrified? You should be. Especially if YOU are a writer. I hope it scares you to the point that you NEVER put out anything that isn't the best you can manage.

I'll give you a "for instance".

I just finished a darn good 4-star yarn (SciFi) by a self-published author. When I reviewed it, I only gave him 3 stars on Amazon. WHY???? Because he made too many mistakes and allowed them to be published. Then he ran a sale on the book to promote it. All with the mistakes on display. It was obvious that he didn't get it edited before he ran to Amazon with his "darling".

Now, these weren't punctuation errors (thought there were enough of those). These were sentences that made no sense, choosing the wrong word to describe something, logic errors, and so forth. The kind of errors that yank the reader out of the story and leave him scratching his head.

Now, it seems that he finally got the hint and engaged an editor (or a friend?) and republished the book with a new cover and, supposedly, the errors fixed. But that original disaster is out there -- ruining his reputation. And the reviews of that OLD version are still trickling in, "poisoning the well" (cliche) as it were.

I had to write my review on what I'd seen, not the promise of something better.

And that, dear writer, is why you should be afraid. You're competing against books from publishers who have an editing staff, "indi" writers who hire (or have friends who are) editors, and some very talented folks who produce damned good stories. Yours need to be just as good if you want customers.

Customers don't give a hoot if you're an "indi" or staff author. They only care about the value they get for their money. YOU are in the business of satisfying CUSTOMERS. It's not their job to feel sorry for you just because you're the "little guy".

[C.M.]

Wow! What a great conversation! Thank you all.

What is interesting is how it's turned to the writer's responsibility. A few odd mentions of the reviewers responsibility, but not as much. It is a reviewer who posts comments such as these:

TO THE PEOPLE WHO DON’T PLAN ON READING THIS: You people are fucking smart. I wish I listened to you people. You’re not missing on anything grand here, but read if you want to watch a trainwreck (I do this sometimes). Make sure you stay away from china, as they will be promptly thrown when upset.

Other than the one expletive here, this sample is tame. The vitriol aimed at writers by some reviewers is quite chilling. Meanwhile, some of these reviewers are quite popular and people sympathize with them when they've had a 'bad read.' Poor things!

Ahem...

Just as the writer has a responsibility, I believe the reviewers have a responsibility.

Thoughts?

Colleen

p.s. I keep changing my profile and it still cites me as C.M. which is far too formal for me... but whatever...(sighs)

[Charlene]

Wow, great conversation. Al, I think a three star is absolutely the most a reviewer might give for what you are describing. I believe you were most generous.
I personally am not in the business of satisfying customers, but of creating the best writing possible. Writing requires technique, starting with sentence structure, verb tense and moving on from there.
Beautifully written sentences, sentences that contain compound and complex clauses create a subtle nuance to writing, a nuance much like the extra flavour added by, say mushrooms to a sauce. A dish may be tasty without the mushrooms but using them allows the gustatory tongue an increased sense of satisfaction.
I am interested in writing that satisfies. Why? Because as a writer it makes me feel good to know my craft, understand technique, apply the skills at my command when the thought demands. Writers stand between thoughts and the ears and eyes of others. Writers translate those thoughts. That's what interests me.
And Colleen, yes, although the paragraph you quote and I'm sure others, more extensive in their defamation flare up it is a universal truth that all such are written by those who do not hold the craft and the subtly of the craft within their grasp. All they can do is pant and grunt in negative response.
A negative review skillfully applied reaches us even without having read the original text, as an excellently structured piece of writing, subtle, skillful, demonstrating by its deft points the bluntness of the
book under review. Therefore review writing is also writing; it needs the same care, skill and precision as any short story, novel or article.
Those who are unable to write with such skill resort to blunt attacks.

[Candace]

I do not weigh all reviewers the same. I pretty much lump them into three categories: Readers, Literary Critics, and Authors.

Readers should express their criticisms as they see fit, so long as they are civil and justified. It should never be personal or mean spirited.

I consider both literary critics and authors to be professional readers/writers; and as such, I hold them (and myself,) to a different standard. We are more than consumers, our celebrity (if we're lucky) and reputations add more weight to our words, increasing their influence.

Since I'm an author, I may be viewed by others as a literary authority (even when I'm writing as a consumer.) As such, I feel ethically, a certain level of professional courtesy needs to be extended. I'm not saying we shouldn't express our honest opinions, but that we should go about it keeping in mind our professional standing.

If I come across a something, indie or otherwise that obviously wasn't ready for publication due to poor editing (Yes, I'm guilty of that one, and I'm grateful for all the constructive help my readers gave me,) I will usually send a private critique with specifics so it can be fixed, and then read it again before stating my honest opinion.

If I find the content is lacking: poor character development or plot issues, I will normally go ahead and say so in a review, but try to do so in a constructive manner.

[Charlene]

I like the clarity in what you say, Candace. And I agree.

[Leigh]

Charlene wrote: "Roger, Karey, C.M what a very powerful topic. Sometimes it helps to pull a situation apart to see it in terms of parts, rather than its whole. So here for example, to pull the writer away from the ..."

I am an "old" English teacher, too--but I don't know whether or not that actually affects my opinion; however, I am in full and total agreement w/ you. I have seen now on several review sites where anything below 3 stars will not be published and the author has the option to have the review sent privately. As Indies are building their presence, low ratings can crush them before they get a chance. It doesn't matter so much if the writer is getting 100's of reviews--- but if he/she is only going to garner 6-12...it matters a lot.
On the other hand, a book that is not ready for publication should have this pointed out by someone "in the know," and the writer given a chance to take the book down and fix it.
Unfortunately, the book will live forever, but the author can re-do and re-title...and stop an even worse disaster from happening--- readers who will read something not ready to be read and swear off that writer forever.

[C.M.]

You are all quite thoughtful, reflective and craft-minded. The kind of community I've always sought, which makes me ever so glad I asked the question.

Leigh: I like your idea of someone pointing out to authors their situation... I make a point of placing an honest but perhaps less thorough review (and always try to find something positive about a work, because there is almost always something positive), then sending a private note to the author with a couple points, asking if they want more. But why in the world should they trust me? And since I give feedback on manuscripts as a living, I have to keep in mind what I do as an "individual" and what I do as a "professional." Always tricky, since pleasure and profession intermingle so much.

And yet... even if I spout my credentials... what I'm sending is an attack on who they are. They're passion, their years of work. They may, in their hearts, recognize the true value of their work, while hoping, hoping, hoping.... (stars sparkling in their eyes).

I do hope, as a lover of literature, that those who want to grow will listen to what they can and grow from there.

I like the idea (building off a few thoughts offered above) of a writer breaking the reviews down according to categories. I won't define those levels, as I think it's up to each individual. Reading these reviews and categorizing them according to our pleasure and purpose is part of building up the skin of a writer.

With a site such as this, writers both benefit from and are open to reviews of all categories. It opens up the world to our work while also opening our work up to what some might refer to as "trolls."

It's important for us as writers to recognize which are which, and treat them with the respect they deserve.

[Roger]

C.M. wrote: "...Just as the writer has a responsibility, I believe the reviewers have a responsibility. ..."

I agree, C.M. Reviewers have a responsibility to their readers as much as authors have to theirs. Reviewers are given a certain amount of power. They can make or break an author's career. If an author consistently puts out garbage, reviewers have the responsibility to report that.

If an author rushes to publication and the book has glaring errors, the reviewers should point that out. However, if the style and the story is good, the reviewers should not blast the author only because of the errors.

Also, I think a reviewer's responsibility increases proportionately with the number of followers. The larger the audience, the more power you have which increases your responsibility to do a good and fair job. Please don't become a Jerry Springer.

Finally, I think reviewers should be able to write legibly. If you complain about the errors in a book, you should not have a review filled with errors. Write complete sentences and complete thoughts. Watch your spelling, apostrophes, and commas.

I've said my piece on reviewers. I don't have anymore to say about that.

[Al "Tank"]

Some people are just plain mean. We have to live with it. They're usually their own worst enemies because the meanness shows and people quit paying attention to them.

If a mean person trashes an author or his/her book and everyone else has a positive review, the meanness shows twice as much.

Authors just have to suffer through it and hope that readers will understand. Not much you can do about it personally and it comes with the territory.

If a mean person is violating the policies of the site they're posting on, you can at least point it out to the host and hope they do something constructive about it. But if it's just their opinion, there's not much you can do.

Expecting great writing from a reader is unreasonable. They're not required to have our skills any more than a football fan has to be physically able to play pro ball. Their job is to buy tickets and cheer for their team and boo the opposition. A reader's job is to read and hopefully post a review telling, as best they can, why they LOVED your book.

[Ubiquitous]

As an indie author, I appreciate it whenever a reader cares enough about my work to go to the trouble of writing a review. I love getting emails and/or posts from readers, even if they don't give a rating or write a review.

I write the stories I would like to read. In publishing them, I hope that others who have similar tastes will enjoy reading my work. Hearing from my readers helps me to understand their tastes a little better. When they tell me what they did or did not enjoy as well as what they found funny or confusing, that helps me to refine my next story. My books aren't perfect. My writing can improve over time. I can learn to be a better storyteller. It means a lot to me when a reader takes the time to say what's on their mind. Readers rock.

So do authors. When an author or critic shares their opinion based upon their wealth of experience, the feedback is invaluable. Their critique, even if it is brutal, is deeply appreciated because it is honest and sincere.

There is only one type of review that I do not value. When an author or critic uses the review as a platform to insult or demean authors whose style, genre, voice or approach differs from their own, I have no respect for their opinion. I'm not talking about a negative review. I'm referring to any review, positive, negative or in between, in which the reviewer claims that their perspective is the only valid one. When a critic is arrogant enough to demand that I bow to their demands, I disregard their opinion. I don't write to please them. It seems very doubtful that they would ever be pleased with anything that they did not write themselves.

That's why I love honest feedback from real readers. They don't have an agenda. They're not selling anything. They're not attempting to promote themselves at anyone's expense. Readers rock and I can't wait to hear from them.

[Roger]

Ubiquitous wrote: "...That's why I love honest feedback from real readers. They don't have an agenda. They're not selling anything. They're not attempting to promote themselves at anyone's expense. Readers rock and I can't wait to hear from them."

You are right. Readers are great. The only thing I desire is their honest opinion. I love to interact with them in discussing books, mine or anyone else's.

There are people though who create blogs and websites in order to post reviews. They try to attract as many followers as they can, even to the point of selling ads on their site. These are the reviewers who I feel have a responsibility to be honest and professional in their reviews. Some may attract a following of mean spirited people who like to read mean spirited reviews. I think that's unfair to authors, indie or otherwise.

Just like it's unfair for authors, indie or otherwise, to pay someone for a glowing review. Both practices are misleading to the readers we cherish.

[Lauryn]

I review self-published and traditionally published books the same. I'm reviewing the book, not where it came from. However, that said, all of my reviews are professionally written and only discuss the story. I never take personal hits at the author or publisher. I think reviews should be honest and objective. And, as an author I hope for the same from my readers.

Self-published authors are putting their work out there along side books published by big companies. For this they should be judged the same, and also given the same respect.

I think reviewers need to remember that reviews serve a purpose. They offer insight to other readers on whether or not they might like the book. They're not just a place to rant. When you write a review it is your responsibility to honestly and objectionably inform other readers of your experience with that book. And I think you should do that the same for both indie and trad books.

Below is a link to a blog post I made a while ago about how to write a good review. If anyone is interested, you can check it out. http://laurynapril.blogspot.com/2013/...

[Glen]

Reviews are fine, as long as they are reviews and not Grammar Politzei rants. Yes be critical but be constructive with it. As was originally posted, remember this is an individual, someone who has spent many hours creating something out of nothing for you to read. Maybe they didn't spend enough time on the rewrite or editing but undoubtedly they did spend a lot of time creating in the first place. To destroy that with a few well chosen venomous sentences reflects more on the reviewer than the writer. A few well chosen constructive sentences benefits both parties. The writer will learn from their mistakes and the reviewer will be taken seriously.

[C.M.]

Glen wrote: "Reviews are fine, as long as they are reviews and not Grammar Politzei rants. Yes be critical but be constructive with it. As was originally posted, remember this is an individual, someone who has ..."

The critic dissects, the artist unifies. It is very easy to be a critic. Being an artist takes integrity, grace and honesty. Not so easy. (And by the by, there are some critics who make their reviews into art... and everyone is better off for it.)