So, You Got Negative Comments

[Adam]

Becky wrote: "I, as a white person who has read just about everything this author has written, and used to this particular author either writing other white people, or very clearly describing when people are not white, automatically pictured them as white. There was literally nothing to imply otherwise until past the halfway point.

I am with you 100% on this, Becky (and the rest of your post, just too much to re-quote!).

[Becky]

Thanks Adam! That book wasn't great for a lot of reasons, but that particular aspect still rankles 3 years later. Sigh.

[Adrian]

I do wonder the extent to which a proportion of readers are unable to distinguish the author from his/her characters...

I had a novel published by a very small publisher about ten years ago, who disappeared into insolvency about 6 months after my book came out. Naturally, the book also disappeared without trace.

Ever since, I've been toying with the idea of sending it back out again, even though publishers will only rarely republish what's been done before. The other alternative is to self-pub.

Interestingly, the novel is a sci-fi satire with a side subtext on gender and includes some fairly extreme characters (on all sides), but I think the resolution neatly transcends the conflict to give the main characters (and maybe the readers) a satisfactory conclusion.

I've been re-reading it over the last few days and I suspect I'd be utterly crucified if I tried to publish this now - even though there are numerous levels of epiphany towards the end. I doubt many readers in the present day would even get halfway before a parade of burning torches started heading for my door.

Which is a shame because the book means well. And it's the characters saying and doing appalling things - not me - but how can I write a book that champions gender neutral reality without having some ignorant characters saying and doing ignorant things on their journey to enlightenment?

I suspect this book will have to be entirely reconceived if it's ever to see the light of day (again).

[Becky]

Satire is tricky. Unless the reader knows, or can clearly tell, that it's satire, you run the risk of those torches for sure. Flatland got me like that because I generally don't read book descriptions. I loathed it, and DAMN the horrible comments I got for hating-slash-not-getting that book. I eventually deleted the review and the book from my shelves. This was before I earned my Troll-Fighter certification.

So, your question is a fair one, Adrian, because I absolutely would have thought that the author was a complete misogynist.

Gender identity is a sensitive topic at the moment, and a satire on that topic could be taken very poorly if misunderstood or misinterpreted, as it's sure to be by someone. I did it with a 100 year old book, so... Definitely not impossible.

I do agree with you that there needs to be conflict, not only for plotting, but for a level of realism. I think it's a fine line to walk between having your characters be horrible but readers understand your intention. You must make that clear in your narrative voice. I recently DNF'd a reread of IT by King for the unending fat-shaming in his narrative. I specifically called out that it wasn't the characters behaviors that bothered me, it was the narrative, the AUTHOR'S voice.

Anyway, good luck with whatever you decide to do with it. :)

[Beth]

The only authors I can think of off the top of my head who were (and in some cases, are) excoriated online, it happened not because of their fiction but because of their behavior or expressed opinions in a non-fictional context online: being a sex pest, or a transphobe, expressing explicitly racist or sexist opinions on their blog, etc. In one of those cases, the author is doing just fine and is still sitting on the hundreds of millions they earned from their multimedia empire built off of children's books.

I think authors can count on readers knowing the difference between THEM and their books. It's a fact though, that an author's work has only one chance to make a good first impression, and if that impression on any given reader is strongly negative, that's that. This isn't to say authors need to make nice with their books, or plead their case for the book outside of its own context. Just the opposite. "It is what it is" and an author's better served trying to attract readers who will appreciate their work, than trying to appease the ones who don't.

[Becky]

Beth wrote: "The only authors I can think of off the top of my head who were (and in some cases, are) excoriated online, it happened not because of their fiction but because of their behavior or expressed opini..."

Completely agree, Beth. I figured Adrian was referring to reviews, and so my comment was about individual readers and how they may perceive the book and react to it. I definitely agree that a controversial book is unlikely to start that kind of campaign action against him.

I generally prefer to know as little as possible about authors as people for that exact reason. If I see homophobia or racism or sexism or whatever in their books, it has plausible deniability as being the author's true feelings. I can think it, but I don't want to KNOW it. Because once I do know it, I can never unknow it. (No matter how much I would love to.)

[Andres]

If your fine with the backlash and that's your niche you can aspire to be the next Piers Anthony.

[Michelle]

Andres wrote: "If your fine with the backlash and that's your niche you can aspire to be the next Piers Anthony."

Piers Anthony! He's something. I don't think he cares what people think. I grew up reading his books, and now that I look back on them...hmm.

[Adrian]

Becky wrote: "Gender identity is a sensitive topic at the moment, and a satire on that topic could be taken very poorly if misunderstood or misinterpreted, as it's sure to be by someone. I did it with a 100 year old book, so... Definitely not impossible."

Ben Elton had a go - a fairly gutsy go - at a satire on identity but got it badly wrong (I think) mainly because he forgot to tell a story while shouting from the pulpit. Here's my review https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

Your point about people needing to know from the start that they're in the land of satire is important, and I think it's obvious in the book (my book) but I'm a subjective audience of one. I suspect that there are readers out there who insist on perceiving every story through a narrow political lens and see only what that lens shows them. Satire is entirely wasted on them and is likely to get them riled.

I have plenty of other books (already out or in the pipeline) so it's not an immediate project. It's just very timely given the current climate. I'll continue editing and see what can be salvaged.

[Ed]

Adrian wrote: "... but how can I write a book that champions [whatever] without having some ignorant characters saying and doing ignorant things on their journey to enlightenment ..."

There will always be some readers who can't see the difference between an ignorant/bad character and an ignorant/bad writer. I've met some reviewers on this site who can't tolerate even one unlikable character in a book, even in a minor role.

But, if every character in your book is a perfect human it will probably be boring.

There is a fairly popular and award-winning SF series from recent years that makes that mistake, IMO. I read and enjoyed it, but felt something was missing. After reading I realized it was completely lacking conflict between characters.

[Adrian]

My most popular book is populated with a real bunch of scumbags - especially the MC. (Although there is much karma and some redemption.)

It is a crime thriller though so I guess there's a bit more scope for appalling characters. I've enjoyed reading reviews from people who really struggled with the characters but couldn't turn away from their alarming antics and wound up loving a book they hated for most of the journey.

Far less room for bad characters in political satire - especially when the satire deals with gender politics.

[Allison, Fairy Mod-mother]

I feel like if I, as an author, read something I've written and go "man, I don't think this is gonna fly without a lot of flak," then that's a pretty good indication it needs work. That's intuition saying something is wrong and should be reconsidered, and that should be listened to, because at the end of the day the people I need to find this good are me and my immediate friend group/family. If I feel I unsure that I am writing something I would find acceptable, or think "oh no, [my dear one] would think I'm an absolute trash bag for this," then...why would I let it go out the door?

Things change. What worked 50 years ago, 30 years ago, 10 years ago and 4 years ago are all different, and part of the work is to account for that. If your audience is all folks who want stuff from 50 years ago, writing stuff for today is going to be a leap, and vice versa. And you're never going to get it right for everyone, so I feel that focusing on getting it right for the people whose respect is socially important to you is probably not a bad way to go. The second addition is how to mitigate harm to others, for me. I AM an advocate, and I think the devil's pretty well represented already. He (idiomatically) is an uninteresting POV these days, IMO.

[Becky]

Adrian wrote: "Your point about people needing to know from the start that they're in the land of satire is important, and I think it's obvious in the book (my book) but I'm a subjective audience of one. I suspect that there are readers out there who insist on perceiving every story through a narrow political lens and see only what that lens shows them. Satire is entirely wasted on them and is likely to get them riled."

But you're not the audience, you're the creator. You're always going to see it differently from the audience. You have all of the context and intention, and nobody else does. They just have the end result and THEIR subjective experience to go on. Maybe they'll get and even appreciate the satire and still just not like the book. Unless they explicitly say so, that's as difficult to know as what an author's intentions were in writing it.

[Adrian]

Allison wrote: "I feel like if I, as an author, read something I've written and go "man, I don't think this is gonna fly without a lot of flak," then that's a pretty good indication it needs work. That's intuition..."

Agree with all that, which is exactly why I'm re-thinking the novel.

It may just wind up in the too-hard basket because, despite the fact I think it makes a positive contribution to the current debate (for want of a better word), I suspect there will be too many missing the message because they don't like the messenger.

It's a cracking yarn too, which heightens the tragedy.

[Becky]

Maybe the solution is to add an Author's Note or something, Adrian?

Edit to add: Or even better (since there are heathens like me that don't actually read those either) maybe throw "a satirical novel" or something on the cover.

[Beth]

Becky wrote: "You're always going to see it differently from the audience. You have all of the context and intention, and nobody else does. They just have the end result and THEIR subjective experience to go on. Maybe they'll get and even appreciate the satire and still just not like the book. Unless they explicitly say so, that's as difficult to know as what an author's intentions were in writing it."

I suspect that cultivating this understanding is pretty important for any author. The best that can be expected is that a reader has a parasocial thing where they think they and the author are on the same wavelength, and that's part of the joy of reading, but part of being human is knowing that a perfect 100% wavelength match is illusionary and impossible.

[Adrian]

Becky wrote: "Maybe the solution is to add an Author's Note or something, Adrian?

Edit to add: Or even better (since there are heathens like me that don't actually read those either) maybe throw "a satirical no..."

Yes, worthy of consideration and the cover should always try to capture something of the tone. My most recent novel has a cartoon crocodile leaping out of the water on the cover with a quote from a reviewer (a 50yo female lawyer) saying: "This darkly comic political thriller is as astute as it is riveting."

You'd think that would put people on notice as to what they were dealing with but I've been staggered at some of the complaints in reviews. Not one person has commented negatively on the satirical content but a few have complained about sexual assault.

There is no sexual assault in my book. There are one or two very unusual situations but no sexual assault - and I am a lawyer so I do understand the definition of sexual assault (in Australia at least).

I was absolutely horrified as comments like that could kill a book stone dead (one such reviewer had 40-odd likes from people who presumably hadn't read it).

But even then (feeling rather defamed) I restrained myself and did not respond publicly. In three cases I personally contacted the reviewer and thanked them for their interest and input, while gently saying, as a PS, by the way...the definition of sexual assault is XYZ so if you think about it, there isn't actually any sexual assault in the book. Two of those contacted then changed their reviews (I did not ask them to) to delete or de-emphasise the sexual assault reference, which was nice of them.

My point is, if a book as tame as my last can inspire seriously negative responses (from people who don't seem to get the point of the satire) then heaven help me if I published the book I was talking about above. Again, there is no sexual assault, but there are plenty of unusual situations and some very challenging opinions.

I am very much "once bitten", which I detest, as its an article of faith with me that writers must write what they want to write unhindered by fear of unpopularity.

[Becky]

Adrian wrote: "But even then (feeling rather defamed) I restrained myself and did not respond publicly. In three cases I personally contacted the reviewer and thanked them for their interest and input, while gently saying, as a PS, by the way...the definition of sexual assault is XYZ so if you think about it, there isn't actually any sexual assault in the book. Two of those contacted then changed their reviews (I did not ask them to) to delete or de-emphasise the sexual assault reference, which was nice of them."

If multiple people mentioned the same thing, maybe there's something to it. "Unusual situations"? I'm not a lawyer, but perhaps the legal definition falls a bit short of modern definitions (like surrounding giving or withdrawing consent, for example), and those reviewers felt those situations met their criteria even if that's not the exact letter of the law.

Personally, a review mentioning sexual assault isn't likely to send me running for the hills. Honestly, I would be far more bothered by being contacted by the author, whether publicly or privately. I feel very uncomfortable with authors watching their book reviews like that, unless they've asked me to review it directly. Contacting the reader to challenge or "correct" their definition of assault is really problematic for me, no matter how gently it was done. Just my opinion on that.

I agree with your last point though. You should write what you want to write, and let it stand. It'll either work for people or it won't, but ultimately it'll be the book YOU wanted to write.

[Adrian]

I can't begin to tell you how much I agonised over those contacts. It goes entirely against my grain to do that but I agonised even more over accusations of sexual assault.

I could easily have put myself into a flame war by doing it - so phew - and the fact that two of the three revised their reviews is indicative I feel that I was in the right.

But it would have to be something very extreme to tempt me away from my anonymous author's shell. Given that sexual assault is just about the last thing anyone wants to be associated with - that did it.

But I do agree with you Becky - it should not be done and I do regret it. That said, on what bizarro world would authors not read their reviews? I've got less than 150 (on GR) so of course I've read them all. It'd have to be several thousand before I lost track of them all.

[Adrian]

And now I'm feeling pathetic reading back over all that, so feel free to move on with other discussions.

[Becky]

Adrian wrote: "I can't begin to tell you how much I agonised over those contacts. It goes entirely against my grain to do that but I agonised even more over accusations of sexual assault.

I could easily have put myself into a flame war by doing it - so phew - and the fact that two of the three revised their reviews is indicative I feel that I was in the right.

But it would have to be something very extreme to tempt me away from my anonymous author's shell. Given that sexual assault is just about the last thing anyone wants to be associated with - that did it."

I'm very confused by this. I went and looked at this book and the reviews on it, and there is only one (the remaining one that didn't revise?) that mentions anything about sexual assault, and it's very clearly referring to the book characters - yet your comment comes across as though you personally were accused of sexual assault.

I cannot imagine anyone seeing a review that mentions specific things regarding the book, the characters, or the plot (as this one did) and thinking that you, the author, were guilty of those things. There seems to be absolutely no confusion about the book being fiction, so I don't get why you'd feel "associated" or "accused" of anything. It seems that you may be conflating comments about your book with comments about yourself as a person. That's not the case at all - those comments have nothing to do with you, only about the book you wrote.

I disagree that you were right (regarding whether there was sexual assault or not in the book). I think, more likely, these readers felt uncomfortable with your contact, and found it easier to revise their reviews than potentially get into a pissing match with an author who feels that they were wrong about their book. Things absolutely have gone that way in the past between authors (and their fans) and readers, and there's no way to know which way an interaction like that will go, which can be real-life dangerous - so author comments on reviews/statuses can definitely have a chilling effect.

Which brings me to my comment about feeling discomfort with authors reading their reviews, which I'll clarify. I don't mean that authors should never read their reviews, but in my opinion, they should not read them with an eye to contact reviewers - especially to defend or justify their writing or "correct" them.

I dislike knowing that authors are reading every review or status update because, unless the author specifically requested a review (which means I know they'll be involved), the interaction that I have with their book literally has nothing to do with them in their real-person persona - only as the theoretical person behind the book I'm reading. Once the book is published, it's simply a product for sale, and I no longer need or want any input from the maker of that product. If I am contacted (as I was recently, which caused me to STOP reading that book) it feels like an invasion of privacy. The author wasn't invited into that situation, they inserted themselves.

Knowing, intellectually, that authors may read their reviews is fine. But knowing that they are absolutely going to read them, and contact me about it, is not. I very much want that level of separation, and feel that unless specifically asking for reviews/reviewers, it should be up to the reader to initiate contact with authors.

[Michelle]

I agree with Becky in that I am not a fan of personal author interactions with respect to a review. That makes me want to either second-guess my review, or not review at all. This happened with a duology I had read. I absolutely hated those two books. They were relentlessly depressing, hopeless, etc, and contained torture for a good 3/4 of the books. Nary a ray of sunshine in either one. GRRM looks like Mr. Rogers in comparison. Unfortunately, I had some interaction with the author via a blog. This author asked me if I had reviewed the books, because the author couldn't find mine. That was alarming! So I chickened out and didn't post reviews for either of the books. I really like this author as a person, so I didn't want to hurt any feelings. That said, had this author never made this comment to me I would have posted an honest review.

[Anna]

I keep thinking of this video discussion Marines uploaded a couple of months ago: review spaces and authorial intent

[Andres]

Becky wrote: "Knowing, intellectually, that authors may read their reviews is fine. But knowing that they are absolutely going to read them, and contact me about it, is not. I very much want that level of separation, and feel that unless specifically asking for reviews/reviewers, it should be up to the reader to initiate contact with authors. "

It's very difficult for a self published author to begin gathering reviews in the first place. I would be fearful of chasing away the four people that actually read my books lol.

If a person actually took the time to leave a review and I contact them, it could lead to an argument. This would be a negative on taking chances reading self published small indie books. They are more likely to contact you.

The best action here might have been to pay for the services of a Vblogger where they could interview you and you could further define that questioning moment in the book.

What if that reviewer was in a similar situation where they believed they were assaulted? If you didn't ask why they felt it was a sexual assault so you could better revise that part, it may have interfered with their personal recollection of events.

[Becky]

Anna wrote: "I keep thinking of this video discussion Marines uploaded a couple of months ago: review spaces and authorial intent"

This was excellent. I'm definitely going to check out more of her videos!

Andres wrote: "What if that reviewer was in a similar situation where they believed they were assaulted? If you didn't ask why they felt it was a sexual assault so you could better revise that part, it may have interfered with their personal recollection of events."

Parts of this were along the lines of my initial reaction on this aspect. If the reader commented on whatever scene or situation in the book they took to be sexual assault in their review, it could very well be due to the fact that they experienced it or something similar - so commenting on that, however gently, could actually be discounting or dismissing their real-world experience, even though it would be unintentional. I find that very problematic and troubling.

Anyway, I feel like I'm getting a bit into the weeds on this one. I firmly believe that once a book is published, it is no longer the author's and must stand on its own. It is not going to work for everyone, but nothing does, and it's impossible to control reactions.

[Adam]

Allison wrote: "I feel like if I, as an author, read something I've written and go "man, I don't think this is gonna fly without a lot of flak," then that's a pretty good indication it needs work."

I agree with this. I think the important thing also is really to do the best you can. Learn about what issues may be sensitive and do your best to avoid stereotypes. If someone calls you out on something, just apologize and say you're always learning and will try to do better. It's worse to put up a fight (see JK Rowling).

With my last novel, which happens to be sci-fi / political satire, I tried to include a diverse cast both in terms of race and gender. I received some praise by a few reviewers for doing that, but one reviewer warned that my book contained fat-shaming that could be a trigger for some people. It's because the protagonist is a trifle overweight and has bad eating habits such as a penchant for jelly donuts ... but that hadn't even occurred to me.

So, I guess you're not going to get everything right, but it's still worth putting forth the effort.

[Becky]

Adam wrote: "I received some praise by a few reviewers for doing that, but one reviewer warned that my book contained fat-shaming that could be a trigger for some people. It's because the protagonist is a trifle overweight and has bad eating habits such as a penchant for jelly donuts ... but that hadn't even occurred to me."

As the self-appointed fat-shamer-shamer here, I wouldn't consider just having overweight characters with poor eating habits to be fat-shaming. If being fat is part of who they are as a fully-formed and human (or non-human?) character, then it's part of who they are, and there's nothing wrong with writing them as fat, fluffy, overweight etc. In fact, I would appreciate it if done well. But if being fat is literally their entire character, and they only serve as a target for ridicule or bullying from characters, or if everything about them negatively pertains to their weight or physical attributes, then maybe. But just a fat character? No, not shaming to me.

[Adrian]

Becky wrote: "I'm very confused by this. I went and looked at this book and the reviews on it, and there is only one (the remaining one that didn't revise?) that mentions anything about sexual assault, and it's very clearly referring to the book characters - yet your comment comes across as though you personally were accused of sexual assault."

There are lots of other review spaces, besides GR. And no I wasn't at all suggesting that I was being accused of sexual assault - but there is none in the book. I do not want my book associated with the words "sexual assault".

Otherwise I agree entirely with you and regret what I feel to be a bit of a loss of judgment. I disclosed this in the spirit of the thread and the dangers of writing satire.

[Adam]

Becky wrote: "Adam wrote: "I received some praise by a few reviewers for doing that, but one reviewer warned that my book contained fat-shaming that could be a trigger for some people. It's because the protagoni..."

Appreciate that. It certainly is not the focus of the book, it's just one detail about the main character. But yeah, I guess my point is that someone is going to find problems with every book no matter how hard you try to avoid them. But it's usually not productive to get into an argument about it with the reader.

[Becky]

Indeed, everyone's experience will vary, and we always bring our own baggage along for the ride. We also change up our baggage along the way and sometimes forget what we packed and have to sort through a whole mess. Fun!

[Andres]

Adam wrote:"It's because the protagonist is a trifle overweight and has bad eating habits such as a penchant for jelly donuts."

You wrote about Homer Simpson didn't you?