What else are you reading? (June 2010 - May 2013) *closed* Showing 5,451-5,500 of 13,523

[Josh]

Lou wrote: "Goodreads wouldn't be the same without periodically one author or another going bats hit over a review. To be fair, this guy seemed unhinged to begin with. Too bad; he's only shooting himself in the foot.
..."

You have a point, Lou. Maybe this kind of thing is just part of the weird new interactive reader/writer culture.

[[deleted user]]

Eve wrote: "Yeah, I basically made a policy with myself of never commenting on reviews. I've broken that rule twice, I think. Once to someone I already knew (Kate Mc) and that was to beg more input because she..."

Well, I just kind of want to read my book, write my review and discuss it with my friends. I don't want to feel like the authors are watching, you know? I mean I appreciate the fact that in this genre authors are so accessible (this group being a perfect example) but at the same time, I feel like too much socializing does affect people's abilities to write objective reviews. You don't want to make someone feel bad, or whatever and that kind of takes away from the value of a space like Goodreads.

It's not like I won't tell an author I loved their book, and my reviews are pretty expressive. But I want the interaction be my choice. Not the other way around.

Anyways, that's just my opinion.

[Kaje]

Lou wrote: "Lauraadriana wrote: "I have gotten so many friend requests from writers..."

When I send friend invite to a reviewer, I do it so I can follow their reviews as a reader. GR has a weird setup - you h..."

yeah, might be interesting to have a reviews-only option for everyone (some readers being better and more frequent reviewers than many authors.)

[Oco]

Lauraadriana wrote: "Eve wrote: "Yeah, I basically made a policy with myself of never commenting on reviews. I've broken that rule twice, I think. Once to someone I already knew (Kate Mc) and that was to beg more input..."

Actually, well put. I think I agree with everything you said, and you said it better than me.

To be clear. I'm NOT saying this is the way it should be; those of y'all who disagree with that stringency, *please* don't think I'm at all saying what others should do. Just sharing my position. Not sure I believe there's a perfect solution, since not everyone wants the same thing from GR.

Certainly, being an author and reader both makes for some weirdness there.

[[deleted user]]

Eve wrote: "Lauraadriana wrote: "Eve wrote: "Yeah, I basically made a policy with myself of never commenting on reviews. I've broken that rule twice, I think. Once to someone I already knew (Kate Mc) and that ..."

Thanks Eve, objectivity in reviews is something that I've been talking with a lot of my friends here in GR for a while now. Specially with M/M books.

To be honest there are reviewers I can no longer take seriously, because I know they are not being objective. Which stinks to be honest.

The M/M fans are so enthusiastic and so awesome and supportive, but I think we also need to be honest about what we think of books and it's hard to do with a friend's book.

@Lou It really is totally a personal thing. I'm sure a lot of readers are totally happy to be able to interact with authors and get to know them. I just prefer to be the one to reach out.

[Josh]

Eve wrote: "Maybe that's okay (there's no black and white here), but to me, I'd rather believe that the reviews are honest opinions by readers that are written to inform other readers. That's been a topic of lots of discussion in forums here and there, and lots of people would disagree with me.
..."

Intimidation is never a good thing. I agree that writers bullying reviewers is wrong -- and ultimately unproductive (if that's a consideration).

Different people have different reasons and certainly different criteria for writing reviews, but in a strange way all reviews are ultimately honest. Even the reviews left by loonies who haven't read a word of the book. The hostility might be unsettling, but it's an honest reaction to something the author or the book stirs up inside.

Which is just my way of saying I think these flare ups are inevitable and unpleasant (especially for poor KZ!) but I don't think they ultimately have much impact.

[Josh]

T.j. wrote: "OoOo and this is my first post in this group, so hey! I'm halfway through Mexican Heat and having a blast with it!
..."

Thanks, TJ. And welcome!

[Cleon Lee]

Josh wrote: "Lou wrote: "Goodreads wouldn't be the same without periodically one author or another going bats hit over a review. To be fair, this guy seemed unhinged to begin with. Too bad; he's only shooting h..."

Ah well, what's life without a bit of drama. I almost want to mention that writers/readers interaction is very common in fandom and since most of the writers in this genre start there, maybe it's natural for them to be interactive with reviewers.

Then I remember that this writer hasn't been in fandom, at least not that we know of.

I remember in the M/M group anniversary chat room, many reviewers want authors to thank or acknowledge them for the positive reviews. Only Jen, the mod, who doesn't want to be contacted. So, I decide to thank every positive reviewer I know, unless I know they don't like to be contacted.

[Kari]

When you get these occasional Authors Behaving Badly, like the writer being a jerk to KZ, I think it does have an impact, though. There are authors I've struck from my buy list because they did stuff like this. I don't care how brilliant a book may be. If an author is mean-spirited or exhibits a complete lack of integrity (professional or personal), I vote my dollars elsewhere.

[[deleted user]]

Cleon wrote: "many reviewers find it rude that authors never thank them for the positive reviews. Only Jen, the mod, who doesn't want to be contacted. So, I decide to thank every positive reviewer I know, unless I know they don't like to be contacted. "

You authors just can't win, can you?

I'm with LauraAdrianna and I definitely like to be the one reaching out to an author rather than vice versa. I was stunned the other day when an author interjected herself while some friends and I were commenting on her book. She was very friendly and was really just clarifying a question that one of us had raised, but it felt vaguely stalkerish and uncomfortable to be in the middle of a conversation and have her pop in.

[Oco]

Josh wrote: "Different people have different reasons and certainly different criteria for writing reviews, but in a strange way all reviews are ultimately honest..."

That is actually an excellent point, and one that an adviser in school hammered into me. It also reminds me of a quote that I really like by Neil Gaiman: number 5 on a list he wrote up for an article on '10 rules for writing fiction'.

5 Remember: when people tell you something's wrong or doesn't work for them, they are almost always right. When they tell you exactly what they think is wrong and how to fix it, they are almost always wrong.

(I suspect he's referring to readers more than editors, btw)

[Oco]

Cleon wrote: "I almost want to mention that writers/readers interaction is very common in fandom and since most of the writers in this genre start there, maybe it's natural for them to be interactive with reviewers."

I agree. I post fiction on LJ, and there, the rules are entirely opposite. I thank and respond to each and every comment, positive and negative, and if I didn't, I think that many readers would be miffed. It was a little weird coming here from there, but not too weird. I was able to pick up on the essential difference pretty quickly. At LJ, they are communicating with you, on your blog. Here, they are communicating (mostly) to other readers. Even so, the difference can be confusing if an author isn't really thinking about it.

[[deleted user]]

Kate Mc. wrote: I was stunned the other day when an author interjected herself while some friends and I were commenting on her book. She was very friendly and was really just clarifying a question that one of us had raised, but it felt vaguely stalkerish and uncomfortable to be in the middle of a conversation and have her pop in. "

Yeah...That sort of stuff makes me a bit uncomfortable. Even when it is just a nice comment...Just saying

[Josh]

Lauraadriana wrote: "I seriously don't understand why authors need to hover on people's reviews."

Well, there's no one more interested in your review that the subject. ;-D

I have gotten so many friend requests from writers and messages from authors about books I read, my reviews...Seriously it's very off putting.

I don't request frienships on Goodreads. Very rarely do I decline a friendship request, but I don't make them because to this very day I'm still not exactly sure how Goodreads works or what it's real purpose is.

I mean, I understand that it's a place for readers and writers to interact, but it has the most fragile dynamic and possibilities for missteps of any social media site. I think it's because of the ratings factor. One minute you're chatting pleasantly with a "friend," and then the friend has given you a negative review -- that always feels odd -- then if you try to express that feeling (I'm speaking hypothetically, by the way) your "friend" can get bent out of shape that you're questioning the review and even report you. The new rules of social media are tricky.

Or this: authors are absolutely encouraged to friend everyone they can (you're urged to open your email address book, etc.) and yet you're right, Laura. I've seen many people hostile at the idea that writers are requesting friendship in an effrot to influence reviews.

This is a terrible and unfair interpretation of an author's motives. What authors really want is for you to BUY their books. :-D :-D :-D

Heh. Anyway, I solve that problem by sticking strictly to my own private handful of Goodreads groups. Now and then I'll do a review -- or more likely go through and lazily rate a bunch of books all at once. That's basically it. I'm not comfortable with any other aspect of GR.

[Cleon Lee]

Kate Mc. wrote: "You authors just can't win, can you? "

Yeah... we need some hugs. *sniffle* Just kidding. :D

But yeah, sometimes it feels like being trapped between rock and hard place.

[Oco]

Josh wrote: "Lauraadriana wrote: "I seriously don't understand why authors need to hover on people's reviews."

Well, there's no one more interested in your review that the subject. ;-D

I have gotten so ..."

I'm with you on that, Josh -- i.e., in that the GR environment is a tricky one for the author, full of places to trip and piss people off when you didn't want to.

My solution: I rarely friend first (although mostly that's because I feel socially awkward and get worried they'll say "NO", *lol*) and I stripped all ratings from my m/m list. I simply won't rate. Makes me feel like a jerk when other authors will rate me, but...I don't know -- it just feels like a solution I can live with, even if it isn't perfect.

[Josh]

I kind of suspect that the people who put Goodreads together didn't expect it to take off quite the way it did. I think it just exploded and so some things were never really worked out. But it wouldn't be nearly as much fun if writers and readers had to be segregated or couldn't interact except under strictly controlled conditions.

PLEASE DO NOT FEED THE AUTHORS!!! ;-D

[Becky]

Kate Mc. wrote: " I was stunned the other day when an author interjected herself while some friends and I were commenting on her book."

Context is everything. If I were in this group talking about one of Josh's books, or a book by one of our author/members, like KZ or Kaje or Kari or Anne, I wouldn't have a problem with it at all. An author commenting on my personal blog about a review is startling. (Not least because my traffic is so low. How did they find me?) Basically, if you're somewhere I expect you to be, cool. If you show up out of the blue? Not so much.

I had an author respond to one of my reviews here on GR. The review was basically that the author had skill, but after reading two of her books, she just wasn't to my taste. This wasn't anyone that I'd chatted with before, and she's a recognizable name in the genre, so getting a response from her was a bit of a surprise. She asked me about what didn't work for me, and after getting an idea of what I look for in a story, offered me a free copy of one of her titles I might like better.

The whole interaction was pleasant. And I got a free book out of the deal, which is always a good day. But then I felt a good deal of (probably entirely self generated) pressure to read it and give it a positive review. If I do read anything else by this author in the future, I'll likely feel a little paranoid about posting a review.

I wouldn't say that I have negative feelings about this author, but I don't feel any better about her, either. As Josh said, she probably would have been better off just letting it lie.

[[deleted user]]

Josh wrote: "Lauraadriana wrote: "I seriously don't understand why authors need to hover on people's reviews."

Well, there's no one more interested in your review that the subject. ;-D

I have gotten so ..."


I agree the dynamics are fragile, and I very much agree it's hard to tell lately on Goodreads.

That's why I like to reach out first. I love this genre, and I write my reviews with a lot of care, so I like to feel like I can always be objective.

@Lou I agree with you totally one of the greatest things about Goodreads is that you can share what you think about a book. I've found many authors I love from reading a review.

[K.Z.]

I offered to delete my non-review ("if it will make you feel better," I told the author), because I sincerely sympathize with this man. That apparently was enough to cap the volcano. He rather curtly informed me he was "a big boy." (Okay. That's it; I quit. Can't win for losin' with this guy.)

I think I'll read in the closet from now on and only come out when I can sincerely praise something to the skies. Too many writers fret and even agonize over comments and star ratings. It's a neurosis I don't want to contribute to, however inadvertently.

(Hi, Tj!)

[Josh]

Becky wrote: "I wouldn't say that I have negative feelings about this author, but I don't feel any better about her, either. As Josh said, she probably would have been better off just letting it lie.

I think the kind of interaction we have here in this group is ideal for authors. Anyone who is here came of their own volition. I enjoy chatting about my work in this context. I feel comfortable like this. Even when someone brings up a critical point, it doesn't feel negative in this context. We're just chatting --and we're not always chatting about me.

It's this kind of reader/writer meshing that does work well on Goodreads.

[[deleted user]]

Josh wrote: "Becky wrote: "I wouldn't say that I have negative feelings about this author, but I don't feel any better about her, either. As Josh said, she probably would have been better off just letting it li..."

Agree 100%

[Josh]

Lou wrote: "I have a related conundrum. I've never posted about reviews on my blog. I just don't see the point. But sometimes I wonder if reviewers get miffed about not being mentioned or thanked."

Some of them most certainly do. Which is why, in my opinion, it is better to steer clear of them entirely. I can't keep up with the reviews, let alone keep track of who wants to be thanked and who prefers I keep my distance.

The exception is if someone sends me a link or copies me the review, well then that's different. Then it's easy. But the balance between looking properly grateful and eerily stalkerish is a fine line. ;-)

[Cleon Lee]

Josh wrote: "It's this kind of reader/writer meshing that does work well on Goodreads. "

With the correct bunch of people, of course. :)

Until one of us forget our meds and go berserk. Just kidding, I would totally never go berserk. Really. I swear! What, you don't believe me? How dare you! :D

[Josh]

Cleon wrote: "Josh wrote: "It's this kind of reader/writer meshing that does work well on Goodreads. "

With the correct bunch of people, of course. :) Until one of us forget our meds and go berserk."

That's right. It's all fun and games until someone loses an eye!!!!

[Oco]

Josh wrote: "I think the kind of interaction we have here in this group is ideal for authors..."

I fully expect a long round of 'hear, hear!'s.

KZ -- rolling my eyes. Sounds like he figured out (on some level, anyway) that he was being a little boy. :/ Drag you had to deal with that (maybe you are cooler than me, but crap like that can bring me down, even when I know it shouldn't). But at least it started a cool discussion here! :D

[Josh]

K.Z. wrote: "I offered to delete my non-review ("if it will make you feel better," I told the author), because I sincerely sympathize with this man. That apparently was enough to cap the volcano. He rather curt..."

Yep. You did what you could. You did the civilized thing and the kind thing. And that's more than a lot of people would have done.

I feel for him too.

But if I've said it once, I've said it a million times, if you cannot handle bad reviews, DO NOT LOOK AT THEM.

[Ayesh]

Wow the wind is so serious around here :P

[Kaje]

So define piquorist already (nag, nag.)

[Emanuela ~plastic duck~]

Kaje wrote: "So define piquorist already (nag, nag.)"

Could it refer to "picaresque"?

[Kaje]

Emanuela ~plastic duck~ wrote: "Kaje wrote: "So define piquorist already (nag, nag.)"

Could it refer to "picaresque"?"

Don't know. Kyle came out with it about a zillion posts back and I can't find it and it's bugging me - not obsessed with words much, eh?

[Emanuela ~plastic duck~]

It's the qu in the word that throws me off. Could it refer to Pickwick? I'm going by sound more than by spelling...

[Emanuela ~plastic duck~]

I tried to google it, it gives me the den of the picorist but doesn't define. But maybe it's because I start from the Italian google.

[Emanuela ~plastic duck~]

Different spelling for Piquerist?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piquerism

[Josh]

Holy moly. Okay. Let's get back on track. WHAT ARE YOU ALL READING? ;-D

[Kaje]

OK, Kyle I tried that in addition to my trusty giant paper dictionary, and I got the same as Emanuela. So you either need to fess up to a spelling variant or give us another definition.

[Emanuela ~plastic duck~]

Josh wrote: "Holy moly. Okay. Let's get back on track. WHAT ARE YOU ALL READING? ;-D"

LMAO!!! You learn something new everyday...

[Tracy]

Josh wrote: "Holy moly. Okay. Let's get back on track. WHAT ARE YOU ALL READING? ;-D"

I am not! I have....ummm...6 hours(ish) to make a moth costume! Must NOT allow myself to be sucked in to books or internetz....well, not too much, anyway! I'm not planning on sewing anything (I can do straight lines, but a moth's wings are too curvy for me to handle) so it should mostly be a matter of cutting. And then, after that....well, we'll see what catches my eye. I still have the last couple of Charlie Cochrane's Cambridge Fellows Mysteries that I've been wanting to curl up with.

[K.Z.]

Josh wrote: "The exception is if someone sends me a link or copies me the review, well then that's different. Then it's easy. But the balance between looking properly grateful and eerily stalkerish is a fine line. ;-) "

So true. I prefer interacting with readers in chats and forums and on my blog. I don't peer over their shoulders at GR or Amazon or wherever.

[Josh]

I am going to resist asking about the moth costume.
;-P

Favorite Halloween or spooky scary stories? What's your favorite scare fest for this time fo year?

[Kaje]

Reading After Midnight http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/11... which for some reason the add book function won't find for me. I'm not sure why I had it on my Nook, someone's recommendation. I was looking for something short in my unread books and there it was.

[Kaje]

Josh wrote: "I am going to resist asking about the moth costume.
;-P

Favorite Halloween or spooky scary stories? What's your favorite scare fest for this time fo year?"

Rick Reed has some good stuff, although scary is not my favorite mind set (and why won't the look up work for me? I tried Add author with his name and got some technology writer as the only Rick Reed.) Rick R. Reed - figured it out - it won't find him without the middle initial - talk about picky.

@ Tracy - good luck with the silk moth! Did you get the antennae feathers?

[Tracy]

Josh wrote: "I am going to resist asking about the moth costume.
;-P

Favorite Halloween or spooky scary stories? What's your favorite scare fest for this time fo year?"

just...he's 6, he was looking at pictures of moths, decided he wants to be one. So.

I'm not big on spooky stories, although I love stories about ghosties and ghoulies and long-legged beasties and things that go bump in the night (but my favorites tend to be funny ones, like the movies Hocus Pocus or Monsters, Inc.) I *am* giving some consideration to hauling out my Complete Poe, though. Wonder if 11 years is too young to appreciate "The Tell-Tale Heart"...

[Tracy]

Kaje wrote: "Josh wrote: "I am going to resist asking about the moth costume.
;-P

Favorite Halloween or spooky scary stories? What's your favorite scare fest for this time fo year?"

Rick Reed has some good s..."

I got some feather, but my attempts to turn them black were a miserable failure, so we're going with a really dark blue & hoping they look black in the twilight. :D

[mc]

Sorry for your experience, KZ. By the way, I've read a few of your books recently and liked them quite a lot, so thanks.

After a lot of recommendations, I've started reading The Dresden Files by Jim Butcher. I can't say that they're very deep, but they are enjoyable, quick reads, humorous, and I'm finishing the third one in the series (thank you public library ebooks!). I figure if I'm already looking forward to book four, there's something to be said for it.

On a separate topic, Josh, I appreciate that you won't be forgetting about those of us with Nooks (eg, having pdfs/epubs when you begin ruling your evil self-publishing empire.)

I've also been seeing a lot of theatre and getting a few ideas from that (yes, I know I say this a LOT, and never follow through, and by virtue of saying it again, I am self-sabotaging), and I may have a tendril or two to follow upon and maybe write a short piece, but I need to do some research first.

Ah, also read some Michael Connelly. How can you not love a hard-boiled detective?

What else? Muscling Through, which I liked very, very much. I thought the humor was quite well-done, as well as the perspective from a non-traditional protagonist.

And finally, finally read the Art of Dying. Really enjoyed that by two favorite authors, but boy, I zipped through that too quickly!

[Kaje]

Oh, I love the Dresden files, and I had to wrestle my two daughters for the first read when each new book came out. And Michael Connelly - also great.

[mc]

Kaje, I'd never read either before, if you can believe it - given my appreciation of both genres, it's kind of sad.

I hope that when wrestling your daughters, you won first dibs. With respect to Dresden, I really like his world-building, which is easier said than done in that genre.

I've now read the first three Harry Bosch's. Look forward to the rest.

By the way, I feel kind of guilty that most of the books I'm naming are not m/m - is there a rule against that here? :)

[Tracy]

Well I'm working my way through the latest Petit Morts and loving them! Jordan really kicked things off on a high with Happily Neverafter.

For scary books--I don't typically read many, but recently discovered Joshua Scribner's short stories, which have been free on Amazon. Many of these are pretty scary or just plain strange which I like. He has turned into a pleasant surprise for me from the freebies.

[Cleon Lee]

mc wrote: "Kaje, I'd never read either before, if you can believe it - given my appreciation of both genres, it's kind of sad.

I hope that when wrestling your daughters, you won first dibs. With respect to ..."

It's OK, mc, as long as you balance it out with pictures of hot naked men. ;)

[mc]

TracyG, are they 'horror' scary? Or ghost scary? Strange is very good, however.