Fantasy Aficionados discussion
Discussions about books
>
Why I sometimes no longer want to review books
date
newest »
newest »
MrsJoseph wrote: "I can't promise I wouldn't show up at her house...wherever she may live. I surely can say I believe that physical chastisement would be in order."Totally not worth it. I absolutely think it was wrong what she did, but I don't see anything of a level of danger that would inspire that kind of retaliation.
She released the reviewer's:
- full name (which had been put out online voluntarily before)
- city
- blog email address (which is presumably on her blog)
- husband's name & Twitter account
She put together various info that is available online separately. (I found her husband's name and Twitter info easily in a google search.)
I DO NOT think the author should have done this, but I just don't see the imminent danger you seem to, MrsJ.
Just to be clear, I am GR friends with the reviewer and see her updates all the time. I also follow her blog. I do not feel that she has ever been anything other than courteous regarding her opinions of the books she reviews and did not deserve this in any way, but it is a good reminder to us all to be wary of the info we post online.
Regarding putting yourself in a position for (whatever) to happen, that's something you'd have to weigh. People can be irrational and quick to anger, obviously, but I think that letting someone like that prevent you from reviewing books is letting them win and giving them far, far too much power over you.
I will continue reviewing. I will also keep track of these authors behaving poorly, and will not support them.
Becky wrote: "MrsJoseph wrote: "Regarding putting yourself in a position for (whatever) to happen, that's something you'd have to weigh. People can be irrational and quick to anger, obviously, but I think that letting someone like that prevent you from reviewing books is letting them win and giving them far, far too much power over you..."^^^
Becky wrote: "Regarding putting yourself in a position for (whatever) to happen, that's something you'd have to weigh. People can be irrational and quick to anger, obviously, but I think that letting someone like that prevent you from reviewing books is letting them win and giving them far, far too much power over you.
I will continue reviewing. I will also keep track of these authors behaving poorly, and will not support them. "
I could be overreacting, its totally possible. I've seen too much of this lately. I'm from an environment where the kind of stuff that gets written on GR is considered tame. Where the goal is to impress the critic, not to stalk them.
It depresses me.
On a happier note: I think I've fallen in love with Stacia Kane.http://www.staciakane.net/2012/06/01/...
MrsJoseph wrote: "On a happier note: I think I've fallen in love with Stacia Kane.http://www.staciakane.net/2012/06/01/..."
She had some great posts back in January when this had exploded back then. I love her books, but her posts like this make me lover her more.
I just read Kane's blog post, that is amazing.
That's a great post. I love the way she went all subtle and then BAM! Just dropped the veil and pulled no punches.Made my day.
Kane's blog is great. Mrs.J, I hope you don't mind me posting the links in a forum for reviewers. This is significant to what they had to deal with.
I think it should be posted everywhere.
Aloha wrote: "What do you think of an author sending in cronies to dislike a review. Amazon has a "Was this review helpful to you" with a "yes" and "no" button. When I was reading PNR, I reviewed a werewolf b..."I'm nobody's crony, but I have clicked "no" to the helpfulness ratings on reviews (on Amazon and elsewhere) where I found the lengthy and analytical review to have totally missed the mark.
Often, this is not so much that I disagree with the review (i.e. they disliked it and I didn't) but that the items they call out as negatives are the opposite for me. Therefore, their review was not helpful to me.
I can see how some might feel this is not fair on my part, as everyone has the right to an opinion. And I would certainly find it reprehensible if swarms of authors' friends were gaming the system.
But in general, the helpfulness voting, if not abused, is an additional layer of reader feedback that can help other readers choose a book. Layer 1: the review. Layer 2: multiple readers agreeing/disagreeing with that review, without having to post their own reviews that basically say, "me too" or "I disagree."
I rarely go just by reviews anyway, but that's a different discussion.
Robert wrote: "I'm nobody's crony, but I have clicked "no" to the helpfulness ratings on reviews (on Amazon and elsewhere) where I found the lengthy and analytical review to have totally missed the mark.Often, this is not so much that I disagree with the review (i.e. they disliked it and I didn't) but that the items they call out as negatives are the opposite for me. Therefore, their review was not helpful to me."
Personally, I think this is a valid use of the "not helpful" option, and is completely appropriate.
I'm glad that Goodreads doesn't have a similar negative option, though. I like reviews for a variety of reasons, even if I disagree with what the reviewer is saying, but said it well, etc, and the ones I don't like I just move past. It saves all the negative aspects and "retaliation voting". If someone "retaliation votes" with a "like" - well, that's exactly how the system is designed. LOL
I doubt I would encounter a psycho-author not liking my review. The type of books I'm into nowadays most likely would have an author too cerebral to worry about reviews, or long buried. Since becoming a member of Goodreads, I'm exposed to so many great books, I don't have time for books written by infantile authors. I doubt an author with the maturity and talent to create a terrific and thoughtful book would find the time or the inclination to stalk reviewers.
In the case of disagreeing with a reviewer on Amazon and marking the review as unhelpful. In a way it was helpful. If I read a review by Aloha, cause you brought this up, and all her points against the book were ones I enjoy, I would just figure we had opposite tastes and read it anyway. Imo, an unhelpful review is one that doesn't argue their case at all.
When I read a review, I don't have to agree with it. It has to be a thoughtful review about the book. For example, if a review was negative because it's a YA book and the person doesn't like YA, I find that unhelpful. But if the review is about the structure, character and ideas of the book, whether I agree with the reviewer or not, I would find that helpful. The review I wrote about the PNR book was about the structure of the book and that it did not make sense in some parts, or was trite. Being soft toward emerging authors, I gave it a "C" rating.
Aloha I agree, I enjoy reading reviews by reviewers that I may disagree with, if the reviews are well written and thoughful.
I've only been "soft" on one author: She was/is a teen and the book would have been shredded. I told her my thoughts and gave her some advice. Other than that...how am I being helpful to the reader by being soft? Why? I'm not a beta reader. I don't request ARCs. What purpose does it serve to the people (if any) that are my audience. (And my audience is 1) me, 2) my mom, 3) my friends...then the rest of the world).
Eeeh, I'm over thinking this in public. I have to ponder for a while.
I don't believe any reviewer has to be "soft" on an author. After all, as has been pointed out a number of times, a published book is in the public domain and as such will be critiqued by a great many people with a great many opinions as to what constitutes a good read for them. An author has to take that into account and understand that not everyone is going to find his or her book amazing. In other words, even though it's not easy, an author has to develop a thick skin and learn to roll with the punches as well as with the praise.Speaking for myself--and I'm sure there are a lot of other authors out there who feel the same way--I welcome honest feedback from readers. It won't help me to improve my writing if all I received was false praise and inflated 5-star ratings just because a reviewer didn't want to hurt my feelings. Less than flattering criticism may indeed hurt my feelings, but I definitely wouldn't bash the reviewer and indulge in a war of hurtful, disrespectful insults. That would only serve to earn me a thread such as this one! :)
Authors need readers and reviewers, and the kind of behaviour displayed by this blogger and other authors certainly doesn't help our cause one bit.
With an emerging author, a book does not have to be perfect. If I see a lot of talent and potential, then I will up the rating to encourage and draw attention to the author. I know the book isn't perfect, but the underdog needs a little boost that well-established authors already have, with their faithful fan base.
So I've been talking to my husband about this (sue me, I tell him everything). He, not being a reader by nature, has an interesting view:He feels that we[readers] are all suckers for reading indie books. He thinks that anyone who learned to read and write can publish a book now and so they [indie books] are all not worth it. He chortles at me whenever I pick up an indie work and find it a struggle. He feels that the Big6 are going no where.
When I bring up people like Suzanne Collins he says that he'll read it when it goes mainstream. If I bring up the sucess of that 50SG he says "If I wouldn't get sued by Disney I'd be in the same position with Winne the Pooh or Mickey Mouse."
My husband thinks that readers should just stop buying, reading and reviewing indie works and the whole mess would go away. As he puts it "Authors who have someone to answer to won't act like an unemployable ass."
He also thinks that - in the meantime before indie publishing goes bust like the Dot Com bubble - that authors need to police themselves. He says that the lack of policing in the indie author world is hastening it's demise.
Then he tells me that he has to go back to work and to stop bothering him with silly BS I could avoid if I didn't read bad books. *sigh* Well, he's my non-reader and I love him regardless. :-P
What do yall think? Should authors (especially indie authors) should police each other?
Cheryl, I know authors love feedback but I find reviewing books from people I actually know from this site is difficult. Really horribly like impossible difficult. So I guess I want to ask you, just hypothetically. Would you rather a reader remain silent? Rate it without a review? Or send you a personal message about what a reader liked or thought needed work.Now, when the writer is a complete stranger the gloves are off. I don't have too many snarky reviews but there have been a few.
I think fans are part of the problem, and authors don't have control over the fans. In the cases mentioned above, authors were particularly egregious in egging on the fans, but most don't go to that extent. I think it is a human nature problem as well, and better authors--and people--will say, I don't condone you harassing that reviewer. If you want to support me, do this instead --MrsJ, I think your husband is right in that indie authors are more mixed in quality. A little more like panning for the gold nuggets in a stream. But some people really enjoy that, and trying to find works of originality, or be the one on the curve to find 'the next big thing.' It happens in all the arts, whether it's a band, a visual artist or a video game. I won't say that's a waste of their time, if that's what they enjoy. It's just not my thing. Self-policing is a concept that doesn't work very well, when the usual problem is the fringe--by their definition, nutjobs aren't listening to common sense or decency-- or when the way of doing business is so entrenched but unethical at it's heart--which is Wall Street finance, imo.
Traci wrote: "Cheryl, I know authors love feedback but I find reviewing books from people I actually know from this site is difficult. Really horribly like impossible difficult. So I guess I want to ask you, jus..."I sympathize with your dilemma about reviewing books from authors you know on this site. It is difficult and I have the same problem.
But, I also try to approach all of my reviews in the same way, whether it's for a well-known author or an indie author I just discovered here on Goodreads. If there is something that disappointed me or took away from my enjoyment of the story, I will mention it, but I will also try to point out as many positives as I can, too. I've been quite fortunate in that I have not come across any real stinkers so far that have caused me to pan desperately for those gold nuggets.
And, as to your hypothetical question, I would not want any reader to remain silent unless that was his or her choice. If they want to be snarky about my books, that is their right. I may have to drown my sorrows in a bottle of wine, mind you, but I still wouldn't bash the reviewer! :D
Personally, I've had a mixed bag when it comes to indie (and not indie) authors. I read and reviewed one book by Ben Galley, and gave it two stars. He was so gracious about it, that I feel good about following him on twitter and will probably read the next book. The sample on his website is much better than the first book.On the other hand, I have given another book a two star review, and while the author didn't harass me, she definitely responded in a overly defensive tone. I have read excerpts of the next book, and it's a bit better, but I'm not going to spend money on it.
I'm sure both of these authors love their books equally, are equally devoted, spend equal amounts of time pouring over details to get things "just right," spend time trying to find creative ways to spell names, etc., but one acted with much more grace than the other. I believe the key is knowing that once your book is published, it isn't fully yours anymore. It now belongs to the readers, in part. We invest time, money, and effort into reading things within our favorite genres. We GR users are even more vocal than the normal reader in our views, as well.
In response to MrsJ's husband, I think Carol's right' it's a mixed bag. I didn't expect The Emperor's Edge to be as good as it was, but other indie books I've read definitely wouldn't see the light of day without Amazon and self-publication.
The industry is changing and authors are moving away from the publishing houses for many reasons. Many indie authors use editors, beta readers, etc. similar to what happens in traditional publishing houses. Several of my current favorite authors are self published or do a combination of both self and big house publishing. This does not mean I am asserting all indie authors are great, I am not. Just that it is hard to generalize to the entire group.I am guessing one of the reasons we see more ridiculous responses from indie publishers is because they do not have a wall of publicists to consult with. However, the incident that sparked this entire controversy was not from a self-published author but a author conversing on twitter with her publicst (or was it agent ...?) -- anyway it was a mainstream published book/author.
There is always going to be a negative experience or extremist in every group, but I personally am not going to let those outliers limit how I enjoy my free time. I like many indie published books and I will continue to take a chance on them. I enjoy reviewing books and sometimes I write negative reviews - - here on GR, Amazon and a blog. It is what I do for fun and I am not going to stop it. I also have never ever had a negative experience in doing it. In fact, I have interviewed quite a few authors for my blog -- both indie and big house published and they have all been very polite, generous with their time and very excited to participate in the process. I would say that my experience in doing reviews and blogging has given me a greater amount of respect for authors in general and indie authors.
Now, I haven't finished/published any books yet, but I really don't see the point in an author (indy or otherwise) "defending" themselves against individual bad reviews. Seems like a waste of time & energy that could be better spent writing and promoting the book.If a book has sparked issues or widespread controversy, I can see maybe writing an article/blog post about it. E.g. reviewers are pointing out a high level of graphic violence in your YA novel, and you write a blog addressing why you decided to include that element. I can't see calling out, by name, anyone who has poorly reviewed my book.
On the other hand, if someone attacked me as a person or my family/friends, I might feel the need to comment if the offense was egregious enough. You can cr@p all over my work, but don't bring my family and friends into it.
Sure, feedback can hurt. But if you're going to put your work out there, you have to have a coping mechanism that doesn't involve being a jack#ss.
Carol wrote: "I think fans are part of the problem, and authors don't have control over the fans. In the cases mentioned above, authors were particularly egregious in egging on the fans, but most don't go to that extent. I think it is a human nature problem as well, and better authors--and people--will say, I don't condone you harassing that reviewer. If you want to support me, do this instead --MrsJ, I think your husband is right in that indie authors are more mixed in quality. A little more like panning for the gold nuggets in a stream. But some people really enjoy that, and trying to find works of originality, or be the one on the curve to find 'the next big thing.' It happens in all the arts, whether it's a band, a visual artist or a video game. I won't say that's a waste of their time, if that's what they enjoy. It's just not my thing. Self-policing is a concept that doesn't work very well, when the usual problem is the fringe--by their definition, nutjobs aren't listening to common sense or decency-- or when the way of doing business is so entrenched but unethical at it's heart--which is Wall Street finance, imo. "
I do agree that fans can be an issue. I'm a fan of quite a few authors and not a one has ever done something like this. While I never agree with people attacking each other - and I'm a firm believer that the reviewer's space is their own - it's a bit easier to deal with than with a public persona attacks a private one. It's like Madonna calling me out. There is no level field to start with.
I agree with the "panning for gold" idea. I don't have as much patience as some (I know one guy who only reviews indie books) I do enjoy finding a new gem. But I see my husband's point in having someone to answer to.
There is no excuse for a so-called writer to behave in this way. Even when a reviewer puts me down personally and says bad things about me, I don't respond. Hopefully no one will ever again agree to review that person's work again.
I've really thought about this long and hard. It's hard when your favorite (dare I say only) hobby is inundated with such nastiness.One of the things that has helped to clarify is Stacia Kane's blog and my friend Becks. ;-)
In thinking about this, I realize that my issue is not the [possible actions of an] author so much as myself. I'm not scared of what will happen - I'm scared of my reaction. In a sense, it goes back to temper. I haves it.
But I'm an adult and I need to get over it. I can't control the craziness of others. I have always tried not to live my life based on the actions of others. So I need to do it in this sphere, too.
So, yeah I would be pissed. OOC pissed. But I know enough
Fantasy Aficionados
Books mentioned in this topic
The Emperor's Edge (other topics)Authors mentioned in this topic
Ben Galley (other topics)Stacia Kane (other topics)
Catherynne M. Valente (other topics)
Maybe so. But these people are crazy.
Here's my thought: I can't say how I would react if some jackass thought it would be ok to do this to me and my family. It's one thing to send harassing emails and the like...it's quite another to screw with someone's family. That's a line even most politicians won't cross.
I can't promise I wouldn't show up at her house...wherever she may live. I surely can say I believe that physical chastisement would be in order.
And knowing this about myself. Knowing that I would freak out and try my best to kill that person...
...should I even put myself in a position for that to happen?