The Extra Cool Group! (of people Michael is experimenting on) discussion
Pertaining to the project
>
The Dysfunctional Relationship Between GR and Authors (at least in YA)
this is going to be a very active thread, i suspect
As an author, I have to weigh in.I find the abuse of goodreads by some/many authors intolerable. There are other (better) ways to publicize your book(s).
When I first joined the site, I had few freinds and went about requesting those whose reviews I admired. One such person turned down my request. A few months later, I tried again. Still rejected. So, I gave up on her.
Some time later I received an apology and a friend request from her. It was her standard policy it turned out, not to accept an author's request for friendship. She said she saw now that that was a stereotype she'd held onto and asked to be forgiven.
But I now understand this policy.
Again, in my innocent early gr days, I accepted a ton of friend requests from authors. After numerous pms and other stuff about their books, I tried to delete the lot of them.
Unwanted advertising is very annoying, even if it's from an overeager author.
It's always been pretty clear to me that authors and readers use this site for very different purposes, and for that reason, I almost never accept friend requests from authors. I feel a little bad about this policy, because I know it eliminates some cool people who use this site more like readers do, but from what I've seen, most authors - especially unknown authors - use this site for marketing. And I'm not here to be marketed to. If your book is something I'm interested in, I'll find it on my own - friends will recommend it to me, I'll see it in a bookstore, I'll hear buzz in other book media. What I will not ever do, is buy a book because the author friended me on goodreads and asked me to buy it. That kind of thing makes me irrationally pissed off - it's slimy, it's pathetic, it's just bad form.I just watched that blog you linked to, and yes, it's upsetting, but she's wrong. She tells readers we're all pawns in some authorial bullshit game, but I think small-name authors tend to think they have more power here than they do. Most people just ignore them and don't take anything they write here seriously - we know it's all in the name of promoting themselves.
Of course, all the blanket statements I've just made have exceptions - there are authors who use GR the way readers do, and they are often great people who write fantastic reviews. My author-vitriol is not directed at them. But waaaaay too many people on this site give authors a bad name.
I've now read the earlier part of your comment, Phoebe, about YA authors and their constantly positive reviewmanship. I find that very interesting. I know little about the YA world but many of my good friends on gr are active YA readers/reviewers.There are some really funny stories about authors suddenly popping up to weigh in on reviews of their books...some of you must have some?
On the other hand, it can be tricky reviewing a book on gr when the author is someone you know and not only know, but like. What if you're not so crazy about his or her book? How honest should you be?
I don't get why they are on a site like this if they can't take criticism of their work.
Mariel wrote: "I don't get why they are on a site like this if they can't take criticism of their work."These are the same people who want a kiddie logo on the site.
Most of the stories with authors popping in aren't so much funny as chilling. There's this one (not on GR, though the reviewer is on here--and great!--too): http://ceilidh-ann.livejournal.com/71...For my own part, on my Wings review, some personal acquaintance of the author came in and started threatening me and talking about how I must have been a talentless hack--he was doing the same on all the negative reviews, but then deleted his account. It was . . . creepy.
I've grappled with questions like the ones Jessica raises already. For example, that author who contacted me about Wings? I just won a review copy of her book in a contest. We're not quite "friends," but we've emailed quite a bit (though, of course, she's more than familiar with my review style!). My policy has been to disclose any relationship like that--any biases I might have--in my reviews.
But recently, I started an ARC by an author whose agent was reviewing a manuscript of mine. And it was terrible. Really terrible. And for the first time, I made a conscious decision not to finish a book for the sake of protecting "my career" (though, honestly, I'd rather not be agented by an agent who represents terrible books). It's something that I felt really conflicted over. Of course, my review policy specifies I only review books I finish--but all books I finish. For awhile, this pushed me to finish books that I wouldn't have otherwise--books I didn't like. But generally, now that I'm getting review copies (yay NetGalley!), I've been putting aside more books that don't thrill me. I'd rather spend my time on books I have some chance of enjoying.
Does that mean I believe authors who say they NEVER have time for bad books, or never finish a book and hate it? No way. For example, I read Delirium by Lauren Oliver through to the end because it had pretty prose and was well-written and I thought it might coalesce into something powerful. It didn't. I kind of hated it. And I think that's inevitable.
And by "conflicted over," I mean I've had nightmares about being confronted by the agent and told not to review her clients' books. Yes, reviewing really is that important to me! Yes, I'm also crazy!
I'm glad you linked to your press page. I was just about to.
But, on the other hand, I rate them as five-stars. Hey, why not?Mostly I don't think this is a huge deal, but I have heard readers roll their eyes about the practice. I have fantasies of giving my own book a four star review and innumerating everything that's wrong (and right) with it if it ever were published. But I realize that might just make me look like a nut bar!
(As it is, I actually approach editing like I do reviewing--what would I say about this if it wasn't my book, and how can I correct these problems?)
And, K.I., that's a pretty awesome press page. SO friending you now. ^_^
oh, that IS awesome. very funny...;-)
This is an interesting topic. I've had plenty of total fails with authors marketing at me in really spammish ways, but I've also had the good luck and happiness to read books from authors I otherwise never would have heard of - hi KI! - because we were friends first, as readers. This may be a bit of a prejudice, but I find that the worst of the author spammers tend to be self-published, because they are doing their own marketing. I'm not dissing self-pub totally, but it makes them more visible, because there's no publisher reining them in.
Also, I think I've posted this before, but it's a review by Montambo, with an author/reviewer collision. The thread ended up being a round up of other author/reviewer interactions.
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...
Also, I think I've posted this before, but it's a review by Montambo, with an author/reviewer collision. The thread ended up being a round up of other author/reviewer interactions.
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...
There seem to be authors who look at GR as a place to promote their work, but not as a community to join. They'll make an account, use it to recommend their own book to 100 strangers, and never be seen again. I think most GR citizens take that as a huge dis. I know I do.I'm an author too -- one of those small press authors who has to do all their own promotion. But I would never do it like that! It just seems douchebaggy. I'm still not recovered from the psychic shock of seeing the word "friend" redefined in social networking terms, and I still look at these online friendships in terms of how I like my real friendships to be.
If you are an author and you don't rate your own book at least a 4 or a 5, then WHY DID YOU PUBLISH IT IN THE FIRST PLACE? If you don't even believe in what you have written, why did you put it out in the world where there is enough garbage published already.As for author promos, I have only had a few actually try to friend me. I decline, unless I actually know them in real life. Also, I know a few friends on GR who are authors themselves. I usually try not to review the books, since it would be a conflict of interest.
As for honesty in book reviews: of course! Every dishonest book review not only hurts the author (by building up unreal expectations), but also hurts the reviewer's credibility and the Goodreads community as a whole.
If you are an author and you don't rate your own book at least a 4 or a 5, then WHY DID YOU PUBLISH IT IN THE FIRST PLACE? If you don't even believe in what you have written, why did you put it out in the world where there is enough garbage published already.Because there's room for improvement and growth in all art and it's actually healthy to acknowledge that? And because, if you actually follow the guidelines given by GR, a 3-star rating still indicates you liked the book? ;)
You're right Phoebe. I forget that 3 stars still means you like it. Usually 3 stars for me (personally) is "I feel so-so about this". If I felt so-so about a book I had written, I wouldn't publish it. But if I liked it, I would.
KI wrote: no, I really honestly just want to be your friend cause I think you're cool.You haven't asked to be MY friend. You don't think I'm cool?
Hey, wouldn't it be awesome if there were a special "flounce font" for sulking and getting in a huff? Ideally it would have a special ironic register for comedic use.
I first joined Goodreads back Feb. and have not been as active as I should have been. I find that, for me, it takes a while to examine a site and see if it's worth the time to invest in becoming part of the community before I dive into it. I do this in "real" life as well. I find myself pulled in so many directions that I get stretched too thin. In the last few months, I've been retracting, determining what's worth the time and what is a waste of time. I've come to the conclusion that GR is worth it to become more active in the community, especially after having met a few folks in person, like Mykle and Caris.
K.I. wrote: "Steve wrote: "especially after having met a few folks in person, like Mykle and Caris."Mykle, yeah, but Caris? I would think he would've made you run in the other direction.
Just kidding. He's g..."
I have a kinship with Caris, being both our books came out at the same time as part of the same series. And while his body odor was hard to get past at first, the content of his character masked his more odious traits.
Mod
That sounds like the press I got when I was trying to publish my first novel. (For anyone curious, it's still not out.)
When it comes to the YA thing Phoebe posted about, I haven't encountered many from that group, probably because I haven't read much YA since I joined this site. But, I've gotten in some arguments after saying very mean and nasty things about Stephanie Meyer--who is a shitty author--with people who insisted that, without a (published) novel, I had no right to critique a novelist's writing ability. This is only one of a string of nonsensical arguments for why I shouldn't say mean things about a book. What's the point of a book review if you have to be nice? Or mean? What's the point if you can't say what you really think?
without a (published) novel, I had no right to critique a novelist's writing ability.By that logic, 90% or more of GR members have no right to be critical of any book they read.
Jimmy, by the way, you have THE BEST PHOTO EVER.
Thanks! :) It makes me laugh.
I tend to try not to friend authors, at least knowingly. There are a couple people who are GR friends, but they published after we "friended". I'll fan authors, but if I am reviewing, I would feel werid being "friends". I always get upset when I look at author's reviews and they know each other. Are they being polite or do they really like the book?I don't mind author's promoting their work, as long as it's not too pushy. Most groups have seperate folders for book promotions, and that's fine.
I always hated that "You're not an actor/writer so shut up" thing. I'm a reader (both ways).Paul McCartney said being a musician took the magic out of listening to other's music. I think it is better to read and not pick apart every sentence. At least, if you are reading for any other reason.
Janny Wurtz came online last month in the Sci-Fi and Fantasy club and made a few thoughtful comments about reviewing. It made me realise that if I was going to put a book up on GR I needed to think carefully about what to say, rather than just whacking a 1 star or 5 stars on the book. (That's also why reviewing is a chore - stars are so much easier than thinking).I posted recently in one of the YA bookclubs with a specific request for some recommendations. Some people looked at my criteria for what I wanted to read in a book and responded accordingly. Some people just posted irrelevant suggestions, although well-meaning (it may have been an author's friend, but it wasn't the author, so no comment). One author emailed me privately to suggest his/her book, which I found refreshing, as the other authors had simply posted up their books in the thread, having ignored my criteria by which to make a suggestion. Or if not deliberately having ignored those criteria, demonstrating that either they didn't understand their book in terms of those criteria, or that I wasn't sufficiently precise as to discourage their suggestions.
No offense, but I don't understand this "Reviewing is a chore" thing. If you don't want to think, why read? Reading for me is an avenue to think deeper about different subjects and maybe to start a dialog with other readers about those thoughts that might lead somewhere new. Reviewing books is a way for me to do that.
I enjoy reading, and sometimes it's just an emotional experience. De-constructing my emotions is hard work (for me). I like reading other people's thoughts as that helps me work out my own. But writing a review when someone else has already said it better than I can express myself seems redundant.
Thanks for the clarification and perspective. I think for me that hard work is part of the fun, but I can understand where you're coming from too.
I'm currently writing my YA book and I actually considered creating a different page for myself as an author, solely because of the critical reviews I have written for some of the bigger YA books.But then, I also wanted to do that because I'm sick of getting emails from fans every damn week telling me how mean I am.
I've only had one encounter with an author bugging me about buying her book. It was incredibly crasse and annoying but the other authors that have friended me have been fantastic.
However, back to your original point - I have noticed that YA authors won't review or star anything under five stars which I find really, really bizarre.
You forgot to mention all the people bugging you to edit their books!:D
As long as they're as good as you I don't mind at all.
(bright red hot flush)...thanks, Kat....(stumbles deliriously off-line)
I recently saw this paragraph prefacing a review (http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...), a romance author reviewinga sci-fi book:"Note: this is an actual review for the book--which normally I don't post, as the community norm in romance is that authors don't review books. So don't assume I liked this book less than other books, simply because I say bad things about it. Which is fine--but this is not a romance, and scifi the norms are different. So this is an actual a review."
She goes on to write an excellent review, but felt she had to justify writing anything at all. I didn't realize that was a romance community norm, to write nothing. But the YA community norm is to only write positive?
That's really bizarre, Eh. "Please note: this review I'm writing is a review." I feel like there are all these mysterious subcultures around here I never knew existed...
Yup, that seems to be the norm in both romance and YA. I've heard speculation that it might have to do with the fact that they are communities dominated by women (both as readers and writers) and thus there's more pressure to keep up appearances than there are in male-dominated genres like SF and literary fiction.
Is it an older generation or all the same across the board? I would think there would be younger women who buck that pressure, like smokers by the school dumpsters.
No, because niceness has replaced morality as the chief social virtue.
Ha! No, as far as I know it's across the board, though the younger writers seem to be a bit more passionate about correcting those who trespass on the community's norms.
Phoebe! Shush! We don't say negative things in the comment thread! Sheesh. Don't question the system!
Hmmm. I believe in niceness but not at the cost of the truth. Neither one should have to be sacrificed for the other...it's like the admonition to "be nice" mutated and killed the value of the honest critique.
So how do you guys modulate your "niceness" in terms of tone while still being honest?I really enjoy the Dear Author review blog, and have been using them as a sort of model lately in terms of tone. They always seem to stay classy, even when they hate a book.
So how do you guys modulate your "niceness" in terms of tone while still being honest?I don't.
But I am also the minority.
Not being unnecessarily harsh? Giving a full statement of the things you liked along with the critical? I guess it changes with the situation, your relationship with the other, how you feel at the time, the alignment of the planets.
Mod
Okay, thinking back on some of my reviews, I might be deluding myself. I've been damned mean to Steinbeck and Marilyn Manson. A lot of it, for me, is how spontaneous the review writing process is. Since I don't revise (on any but a few occasions), being in a bad mood for the twenty minutes I'm writing can lead to a very harsh review if I wasn't impressed. That's something I try to rein in as I write, with varying degrees of success.
I think niceness is a virtue when interacting with people; I don't believe that when talking about books.(Which is why I'm very reluctant to read or review books written by people I know. I'm not good at faking nice, and it makes me feel icky inside to write a review I don't fully believe in, just because the author happens to be a wonderful person.)
Mod
Fortunately, I liked Caris's book a lot, so I didn't have any difficulty reviewing it honestly. And, I did explain my negative criticism more than I might've if I hadn't known the author.
Even so, I will understand if nobody ever quite trusts my 4-star rating of Caris's novella. If I were someone else, I sure as hell wouldn't trust it.
it makes me feel icky inside to write a review I don't fully believe inDorothy Sayers said something to the effect that she could lie about anything except whether someone else's book were good or not.
Here are some (rehtorical?) points that have sort of coalesced (for me, anyway)as a result of the discussion in this thread:1. Relationship to the author plays a part in whether to write a review, and if so, how that review will be written.
2. It's (maybe?) easier to write a review if there is a sense of anonymity preserved (by which I mean that GR is a big community, so most people's reviews are read small number of people, some people's reviews are read by a larger number of people, and a few people's reviews are read by many).
3. Being 'nice' can preclude being 'truthful' - is there no way to find something good in someone's work if the emotional/rational response is negative, which could function as 'nice' whilst still being 'truthful'.
I recently participated in reading emerging writings. Much of the writing was outside my comfort zone as a reader. However, to maintain my personal integrity, it was very important to me to respect the 'naked' aspect of the writers, their goals, and what they were writing. Allowing my emotional response to cloud encouragement was to me detrimental to the writers in achieving their goals. I learned something from this exercise - that I could read something I found emotionally disturbing and yet remain aloof from those emotions and look at the writing critically, as well as find a way to be constructive and respectful towards the writers. It wasn't (for me) about being nice, so much as about empathy. I'm not sure it will help make me a better reviewer, but if I have to read something outside my comfort zone and I have at least a passing acquaintance (online) with the writer, I'd prefer to be supportively critical (critically supportive?), at least in the emerging writing stage.
Once a book by an author unknown to me is 'live', I think I'd just rather not read it if I know it's going to be difficult for me to find something 'good' in all my 'bad' reaction to the book.
The Extra Cool Group! (of people Michael is...
Books mentioned in this topic
Diego (other topics)The Unincorporated Man (other topics)
Delirium (other topics)
Wings (other topics)
I'm glad Elizabeth invited me to this group, because this is something I've been itching to talk with GRers about, but I'm not really active in any groups and am lazy, so I guess this is an excuse. I also think it might be relevant to Michael's research, so, bonus.
So I write young adult fiction, which has a pretty active community on GoodReads. Ironically, I wasn't active at all in this community until I posted a review panning Aprilynne Pike's terrible (terrible terrible) Wings. I'd mentioned that I write in my review, and, amidst fans arguing with me that the author is SO NICE and I have NO RIGHT to dislike her book, another YA author, who has a book forthcoming in 2011, reached out and told me how brave and refreshing my review was.
Which was weird, because I thought I was just being honest. GR is filled with such honesty--it's what I like about it!
I've ended up becoming pretty active in the YA community, and as I have, I've started to notice how differently these authors use the site from other demographics. The vast majority of them don't post reviews, and they won't even post star ratings that are less than 5-stars. They often give their *own* books 5-stars (weird!). I've seen authors go after honest reviewers and lecture them on how they're ruining their careers and people will hate them at conventions. The undercurrent is definitely: all reviews must be positive. We all must Be Nice.
Ugh.
Ironically, my honest reviews have garnered me a pretty okay-sized readership both on my blog and on here. Not a week goes by without someone messaging me to tell me how refreshing my reviews are, and how helpful they are. I've had the opportunity to guest blog for some big-time YA book blogs on honest reviewing and how it can enrich the community. That this all isn't self-evident kind of hurts my head. The fact that some feel that I might be ruining my writing career hurts my head even more.
A few months ago, I saw this vlog by a YA author, and it really upset me: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQQz6C...
I can understand using GR for promo, encouraging people to add your book to their TBR pile, etc. But all of this blatant dishonesty and cheating the system is really odd to me, because it's something I haven't really seen when I review, say, adult historical fiction. Are you guys aware of this sort of thing elsewhere? How do you feel about authors gaming reviews, lying about their reactions to other author's books, etc etc?
Phoebe