Goodreads Authors/Readers discussion
VII. Support GR Authors
>
Are 1 star reviews really that helpful?
I would think that an author who goes around bashing other books would show themselves in a worse light than their competitors. It's easy enough to look at someone's shelves & tell if they're that type.I never judge a book simply by the star rating, but always sample a few reviews across them. I've found that the most helpful reviews, regardless of the star rating, are those that explain why, even if it is just a few terse comments. A 1 star rating is often due to the author hitting a pet peeve of the reader's. Sometimes I'll share that peeve, so it helps me make a decision.
I recently read a 1 star review that said the book was 'stream-of-consciousness, completely lacking punctuation & structure. Too much work to read.' Since these are all pet peeves of mine, I found that review quite helpful. I read a few more & decided the book wasn't for me.
Another 1 star review said a book was 'too much like Conan' & the reviewer made it clear that she didn't like that sort of story. I do, so the star rating had no effect on the book in my eyes, only on the reviewer. They don't share my taste in books.
Unfortunately, far too many people just give star ratings (yes, I'm guilty of this right now) without any review. I don't find that helpful unless I know the person & their taste.
I agree with Horace, if I'm checking out a book I ignore the star ratings without a text review. If you don't know the context of why the stars (or lack of stars) were given then the rating is useless to me as a reader.I also ignore obviously bias or spiteful reviews; they're not helpful.
I think that what is most helpful are *honest* reviews. Mere star ratings with no text tend to be disregarded by me.That said, everyone has a different methodology for how they review and rate. If I see a particularly scathing review, I will go look at the reviewer's "rater profile" or average here. Sometimes they review low on average. Sometimes they only review things they *didn't* enjoy.
I have long ago learned to ignore reviews of my own work, to be honest. Reviews follow a bell curve, with some people loving a given thing, some people hating a given thing and most falling somewhere in the middle.
Horace, A.F. and Sharon, Thanks for the reply. I find that Amazon's review policies are ridiculous. I saw the Kindle edition of Bernard Cornwell's newest book recently which has a couple of one star reviews. One of them because 1) the Kindle edition was too expensive, and 2) The editor's review was written by George R. R. Martin, and that was it! No mention of the book itself. That's a little unfair.
Keith wrote: "...(W)hat are your thoughts on this? How many legitimate 1 star reviews have you read, as opposed to snotty, self involved, conceited 1 star reviews?"No particular thoughts on it whatsoever.
"...because the reviewer themselves is an author and has a novel in the same genre as the reviewed book, and feels that the reviewed book is somehow encroaching on their 'territory'," however, has to be one of the most bizarre grammatical constructions I've ever run across.
Whatever happened to "his or her" -- or just "his"? Or just "her" if you're feeling so inclined?
Russell
I'm still awaiting my first negative review (I'm sure it's out there, I just haven't sold enough books yet!), but I don't pay much attention to scathing reviews when browsing as a reader. This is the Internet, guys. Whatever the book, someone in the world will be mad enough to be offended by it.
Keith wrote: "Hi guys,I find that many books (both self published and main stream) have 1 or 2 star reviews. When I read those reviews, most of them (not all though), simply sound conceited, jealous and quite ..."
Long before self-publishing was even a twinkle in Amazon's eye, the august publishing world inhabited by the likes of Martin Amis and Julian Barnes were no different. High brow review magazines and newspapers had some authors as their reviewers. They used these platforms to pay off old scores against other writers, or big up their author mates, depending on which it was they were reviewing that day. Martin Amis & Julian Barnes were tennis doubles partners...
Marc,'Tis true.
At the same time, I've often wondered (after reading a quite flattering Foreword or Intro written by a well-known author to another author's work) whether the former might well have been paid a little something for the flattery. This, when the work itself turns out (IMHO) to be quite mediocre.
Russell
I think you can be sure they haven't read the book! Probably going on past reputation, or something they've been provided with as the text to put their name under. I'm such a cynic!
are we saying that Julian Barnes' & Howard Jacobsen's recent Booker Prize wins were more like lifetime achievement awards than for those two particular books? I know I am...
Marc,I dunno. To be quite honest, I've never read either one of them.
I read Ian McEwan's Amsterdam not so long ago...found him to be an extremely competent writer, but found the joke to be a little long.
Russell
Andrew, Marc, Thanks for the response. Russell, I'm not looking to be critiqued mate, just interested in a discussion.
This:
"They used these platforms to pay off old scores against other writers, or big up their author mates, depending on which it was they were reviewing that day."
Does not surprise me in the least.
Keith,No offense intended. I hope none was taken.
I don't know whether this question of "their" versus "his or her" would interest you, but it has a long history -- and goes back at least to Jeremy Bentham (died 1832). I once wrote a paper on this topic for my English Lit class at university.
English -- unlike, say, French or Italian -- uses possessive adjectives to indicate the sex of the possessor and not that of the thing possessed. This really wasn't a problem in the pre-feminist days, and people would simply write things like "a ruler and his people...".
But then, feminism came along and reared their (sic!) belligerent head(s). "His or her" is, I grant you, clumsy -- especially when it goes on and on in the course of a sentence or paragraph.
Why can't we all just agree that the use of "he" and "his" refers to homo sapiens and not to vir? It would be so less cumbersome!
Russell
Russell wrote: "Keith,No offense intended. I hope none was taken.
I don't know whether this question of "their" versus "his or her" would interest you, but it has a long history -- and goes back at least to Je..."
I read an article from Writer's Digest recently that discussed that particular grammar problem. If you're interested in reading it, here's the link: http://www.writersdigest.com/whats-ne...
Just scroll down to number 11.
the notion of politically correct language has always amused me. All language is politically encoded, just people overlook this or aren't aware of it. For example our own beloved English tongue was forged in the crucible of the conquering Norman French and the conquered serf class the Saxons. Hence many words to do with law, property, cuisine, architecture are of French origin, whereas the more humble foodstuff ingredients grown in the fields are Saxon. A class divide at the very heart of our language.Human beings always look for patterns. Nouns are simply groups of objects felt to be so similar that they can all come under the same classification of the noun. Yet is an unassembled Ikea 'table' still in its flatpack the same as an upturned ammo box a soldier improvises to eat his rations from, the same as a slave asked to bend over so his master can dine from plates on his back - these are all functioning as tables, but clearly are not the same thing at all.
A.F. wrote: "I read an article from Writer's Digest recently that discussed that particular grammar problem. If you're interested in reading it, here's the link: http://www.writersdigest.com/whats-ne...Just scroll down to number 11. "
Those were interesting. Thanks for posting the link.
Why not agree that "she" and "her" simply refer to homo sapient, and not women? I agree that it's a problem with our language. I'm not sure I'm willing to go back to using the masculine as the norm and feminine as the variant from the norm. As for one-star reviews: they can be helpful, if well-written and given for a legitimate reason. I do look at them. But I can't bring myself to write one. Maybe after I've accumulated a few myself (so far all my reviews have been kind) I'll get tougher, because some books really do deserve a single star. Not that many, though.
I see a lot more mediocrity than outright awfulness.
I think it depends, sometimes the reader simply doesn't enjoy the book for no reason other they they didn't. Maybe they bought it for free or in a genre they don't tend to enjoy. I think it would have to be REALLY bad for me to give a one star review. I read a review of a product on Amazon earlier which was a one star- because the audio book wouldn't play due to some discrepency with the buyers equipment, that was hardly fair on the author. The reviewer did say it was a problem with Amazon but still was listed as a one star.
Reviews -- good as well as bad -- often say more about the reviewer than about the book.
As an author I want to stick up for ALL reviewers here. Us self-published authors would have zero visibility on Amazon without reviews. Therefore I am grateful to anyone who reads and reviews my books, even those who don't like them. Of course one would prefer someone to say why the book didn't work for them, but the writer has no god-given right to expect or demand that. Readers and reviewers are our customers. We have no right to load any burdens on them. They are the ultimate arbiters of our work.
Marc wrote: "As an author I want to stick up for ALL reviewers here. Us self-published authors would have zero visibility on Amazon without reviews. Therefore I am grateful to anyone who reads and reviews my ..."
Amen, and amen. I wrote a blog post a while back that deals a little bit with this: Responsibilities. The truth is, our readers don't owe us a thing.
As an author and a reader I agree with Marc, all reviews are good, even if they are bad. As an author I don't care if the review is bad, because the reviewer took the time to read my book and has the right to comment on how that left them feeling. No one has a right to challenge how you feel about something you have experienced. And although I do also try to respond to poor reviews by correcting any problems highlighted, I would never consider contacting a reviewer.
As a reader I often read both the five star and one star reviews to get a balance, so I value both.
Of course there are some reviews that may appear to be unimportant or frivolous, but these just have to be accepted as this is the internet and open to all. The only thing that might worry me are sock-puppet reviews or those deliberately aimed at damaging a book's success. These are unfair regardless of the high or low star score.
David
Russell,None taken mate, I was writing in that way so a Germaine Greer type didn't reach through the modem and back hand me.
Marc,
I don't believe English is a language at all. You can point at Japan and say "That's where the Japanese language came from." But not so with English, it is a bastardised conglomerate of many, many different cultures (far more than just Normo-Saxon).
The word English itself for instance comes from a Danish/Germanic tribe who migrated to the UK in pre-Roman times. They were called the Angles, and spoke Anglish.
Words like scald, kettle, thing, enthralled, are all derived from the Vikings, in fact you can read many of those words in 12th century Viking sagas today. The name Neil -> Nail -> Njarl (Nyarl) is also of Scandinavian origin. Every place name in England ending with 'by' (like Whitby) are all Danish in origin (most of those place names can be located within the old Dane Law of England).
Words like brigand or vandalism find their meaning in Roman propaganda (namely Roman Britain). The Romans used this propaganda against two tribes in particular, the Brigante and the Vandals.
This is only very briefly touching the surface of the origins of the English language, but it shows that English is simply a language (if it can be called that) which is a whole bunch of words placed together from many different cultures and languages across the northern hemisphere. It's probably why it's the hardest language to learn, too.
Sherry, Couldn't agree more.
David,
"As an author and a reader I agree with Marc, all reviews are good, even if they are bad."
Yeah, I'm not so sure about that. I had a review of my book, "The Forgotten Land" on Amazon.com recently which gave me 1 star. He stated that when the soldiers (modern SF soldiers accidentally trigger a time portal) went back in time he was surprised that the Vikings spoke English! If he had read the book properly, instead of skimming, or whatever the hell he did, the Vikings spoke Anglish (as mentioned earlier in my post), not English, and most very falteringly, and some not at all. He then went on to give a blatant plug for Tor Publishing and then proceeded to attack me personally. Being my first 1 star review, this really stung.
Then I received another 1 star review here on GR only a day maybe 2 later (I don't think, however, that it was written by the same person, I'm not certain though). This person complained about the writing style. Out of all of this, I learned my biggest lesson, it's not my writing style, it's not the story (without blowing my own trumpet, I know both are sound), it's that I made my book free.
So the reviewer on GR downloaded it without sampling the writing style first, because, hey, one doesn't need to pay for it, so who cares? And then complained about the writing style. The Amazon reviewer was simply an idiot, and in my opinion has (for some reason) a vested interest in the book's demise.
So having said that, I would suggest that not all reviews (good or bad) are good. In addition, one piece of hard earned advice, if you are considering making your book free, think very carefully, because you will attract people who may not necessarily read your genre of book, for no other reason than it is free.
Having said that though, I also have far more excellent reviews (most from people I have never met, which was particularly pleasing) to counter those two abysmal reviews.
Keith wrote: "...I don't believe English is a language at all. ..."LOL! It's a wonderful language. If you like complete chaos, it's actually a lot of fun. Look at all the fun Shakespeare had making up words & people still do to this day. As a communication tool, it obviously leaves a lot to be desired, but look at how far Esperanza (sp?) has gotten after all these years. I guess it doesn't have enough flavor.
;-)
None. They are usually written by people that don't care for the genre at all, and felt coerced to read this work - perhaps from pressure by friends. I think that if you dislike something enough to give it a 1 star review then you do a better service by NOT reviewing it, because it obviously struck you so badly that you aren't able to give an objective opinion about it.
Thanks, A.F.!Not only was #11 interesting, but so was the whole damned article!
Russell
Marc wrote: "As an author I want to stick up for ALL reviewers here. Us self-published authors would have zero visibility on Amazon without reviews. Therefore I am grateful to anyone who reads and reviews my ..."
I agree with this for about 90% of reviews. However, there are people out there with axes to grind. Although 1-star reviews always sting (one reason I no longer read reviews if I can help it), I don't mind them from legitimate readers--my books are not to every taste for sure. But just as there are fake 4- and 5-star reviews, there are fake 1-star reviews out there, especially on Amazon it seems. One self-published writer I know from Kindleboards had the unpleasant experience of receiving a whole slew of 1-star reviews over a short period. After some investigation, she discovered a group of rival writers had targeted her book--the fools had commented about their plans on a blog, so it was pretty easy to find. She sent the link to Amazon, and the reviews were removed.
I used to write book reviews before I self-published. Not anymore, though. I consider it a conflict of interest for me to review books, especially those by other self-published writers. I still rate trad-pubbed books here on Goodreads, but only if I really liked them. Some folks can navigate the inevitable gray areas of reviewing other self-published books and do well, but I'm not one of them.
I would be loathe to review a book a didn't consider to have at least some merit. If a book is really awful, I simply wouldn't finish it, and therefore would not be in a position to offer a genuine review.By the way, I'm a self-published author.
Unfortunately, a lot of people get satisfaction by complaining. I have found some bad reviews to be very useful, and others to be completely worthless. I wish I could say that every review is revealing, but some are just a waste of time. You can tell who cared enough to complain and who just wants to be provocative. Eric Quinn Knowles
Keith I agree English is a magpie language, but then its penetration into so many other languages today could be said to render them the same. It is still a language, with richly diverse origins as you say, which is why it always forms an important part of my writing, in considering which word to use when several are on offer. I love using words in such a way that they have secondary meanings as an echo behind the main one. I love words that mean two contradictory things, such as 'cleave' and 'fast'. For me, language has a greater importance than story. Simply because how characters use language, how they speak or construct their thoughts, determines their voice.
I accept that there are some 'reviews' targeting mischief against the author, but then they are not really reviews are they? If you can prove the ill-intention then you can get them taken down. I am still grateful for ANY person who reads my books, even if they then go on to rate me low. And yes, the freemium model and the £0.85p for a book that probably took at least a year of your life to write, are utterly the wrong economic models for authors. I hope they have run their course and books compete on an equal economic footing and therefore are judged on their content.
Marc wrote: "I accept that there are some 'reviews' targeting mischief against the author, but then they are not really reviews are they? If you can prove the ill-intention then you can get them taken down. I a..."Hear, hear!
Since most of the comments here are from authors, I thought I would weigh in as a reader and reviewer. I personally write reviews with ratings 1-5 and even DNF reviews. I have a 3.76 avg for 347 ratings, athough I prefer to look at a breakdown of the number of each star rating. I keep my reviews about the book, and what I thought of it, trying to be constructive at all times. Obviously not all reviews are written like this, but I think that is the nature of reviews. You have to learn to ignore the unuseful and concentrate on the useful.
When I consider reading books, I look at both good and negative reviews. Often negative reviews tell me more about the book and what I can expect. I have read books because of negative reviews, because I want to see for myself if I agree with what the review concluded.
Looking at reviews, I think in general, Goodreads reviews are more helpful than Amazon reviews, simply because reviews here are from people who purposefully joined a book website.
Sarah wrote: "Since most of the comments here are from authors, I thought I would weigh in as a reader and reviewer. I personally write reviews with ratings 1-5 and even DNF reviews. I have a 3.76 avg for 347 ra..."Yours is a most enlightened attitude, Sarah, because clearly you are keeping an open mind. We are all individuals, and we all perceive and construe things in our own way. It's therefore quite possible that you could see positive or negative aspects that others may miss, or have an overall impression at odds with that of someone else.
The most useful reviews are those with quite specific points; on the other hand, overall impressions can also be valid. If one can find a reviewer on the same wavelength as oneself, well that's fantastic!
Sarah wrote: "Looking at reviews, I think in general, Goodreads reviews are more helpful than Amazon reviews, simply because reviews here are from people who purposefully joined a book website."Sarah,
Agreed.
Just out of curiosity, I've occasionally followed threads in various forums at Amazon for a couple or three days. While a given book or topic may start the thread out, the participants all too often take that topic far afoot. And nine times out of ten, it all comes back to ME! ME! ME!
Russell
I think most reviews (good and bad) come from sincere reviewers like Sarah. I suspect that a lot of the discontent on the part of us authors occurs when we differ with the reviewer as to whether reviews should be a technical critique vs a statement of opinion. I keep reminding myself that both are valid.Eric Quinn Knowles
Marc wrote: "I accept that there are some 'reviews' targeting mischief against the author, but then they are not really reviews are they? If you can prove the ill-intention then you can get them taken down. "Having a malicious review removed is actually harder to do than you might expect.
I agree with Sarah, largely. As an author, I appreciate any review and the attention it gives me. But as a reader, I want to see reviews, whatever the rating, that are well-written and informative. So however many stars, some reviews are worth having/reading, and others are not. It's been a bit humbling as a writer to realize that I have a ways to go in learning to write really good (i.e. helpful) reviews. Every genre is a new writing skill!
Reviewing is sometimes challenging, though less so for those books you really love.
Marc wrote: "As an author I want to stick up for ALL reviewers here. Us self-published authors would have zero visibility on Amazon without reviews. Therefore I am grateful to anyone who reads and reviews my ..."
I agree with you Marc. Like so many authors, I am not a well-known name, and I am always grateful when a reader takes the time and troulble to post a review. How else are other readers going to find our books without reviews? And how are we to know if our work is regarded as good or bad? Good reviews give us the confidence to continue writing in the same manner, but I would never be averse to reading constructive criticism. I for one I just wish all readers would post reviews, whether good or bad.
I think it depends on who we are trying to impress, Kate. If it's all and sundry, then every review needs to be taken on board, irrespective of the credentials of whoever posts it. But the problem I see in that is that we can become in danger of trying to please everyone, and lose our own identity.
Kate, well said. Constructive criticism is always well received, but when a reviewer has a vested interest in bringing a book down or using a review to personally attack an author, then it becomes quite destructive.One of my favourite authors is David Gemmell. With regardsa to the Kindle edition of his book Legend on Amazon.com the book has been given several 1 star reviews. I found this interesting as Gemmell was (he died in '06 unfortunately) an exceptional author. When I did some looking into these reviewers every single reviewer who posted a 1 star review of Legend were all 'new' reviewers to Amazon, and the 1 star they gave to Legend was the only review they ever wrote. Nor did they review any other product afterwards. Coincidence? I think not.
You can see what I mean here:
http://www.amazon.com/Legend-The-Dren...
98% of reviewers are giving their honest opinion, which is great, and helpful, but it's always that 2% that leaves a foul taste in my mouth.
I've never had a one star review yet, but I have a friend whose reviews run from one to five stars. The one star reviewer made it plain that he'd paid nothing for the work, and then gave quite detailed and very negative observations that starkly contrasted with the positive reviews. What is going on? Is the problem the book has landed in the hands of someone who, if money was involved, would not have chosen this novel? How credible is this review? I cannot say for I have not read the book, but for the small number of poor reviews, my friend received so many positive ones. Who does she take notice of?
Margaret wrote: "I've never had a one star review yet, but I have a friend whose reviews run from one to five stars. The one star reviewer made it plain that he'd paid nothing for the work, and then gave quite deta..."Maybe it's not for the author to take notice of a review so much as other potential readers who are considering buying the book. If reviewer says that a part of the novel didn't work for them, or a character's action didn't ring true, then that really only ought to confirm something for the author rather than be a bolt out of the blue complete surprise for us. We may already have known that we struggled to get that part right in the writing and if we are honest with ourselves, when a reviewer or several comment on it, we must face up to them being right.
Marc wrote: "Margaret wrote: "I've never had a one star review yet, but I have a friend whose reviews run from one to five stars. The one star reviewer made it plain that he'd paid nothing for the work, and the..."If the author is analytical and already suspects that something's amiss, then, when a reviewer points it out, it would tend to cement focus on the problem.
I guess a competent review carries benefits for both readers and authors. If the book is well written, I think the review's content can become a question of personal taste.
A Good case in point is the FIFTY SHADES OF GREY. It is almost all five stars or all one stars. What is confusing sometimes, is when you get a three star review for example, and then the reviewer gives you a fantastic review in print.
Margaret,All you can do is ask yourself if there is anything in that review that can make you a better writer and forget the rest. Also, your friend can have his/her friends vote that bad review down as unhelpful so that it gets buried. :)
Eric Quinn Knowles
Johnny wrote: "A Good case in point is the FIFTY SHADES OF GREY. It is almost all five stars or all one stars. What is confusing sometimes, is when you get a three star review for example, and then the reviewer ..."
I have seen the books where everyone either loves it or hates it, and many seem to be books that have gotten a lot of hype. That may cause a lot of people to read it just because "everyone's reading it" which in turn may result in the bifurcation. I have read a lot of reviews of"Fifty Shades" and concluded that it hit a nerve for a lot of folks. They either enjoyed the sexual fantasy or it wasn't to their taste. Since it appears not to be very well-written, that one aspect may make it or break it.
I can't imagine going and deliberately trashing an author's work in a review just for meanness. But, I'm so naive I have trouble believing people throw trash out their car windows on purpose, too :p
Goodreads Authors/Readers
Books mentioned in this topic
To Kill a Mockingbird (other topics)Complete Plain Words (other topics)
Shōgun (other topics)
The Disney Way: Harnessing the Management Secrets of Disney in Your Company (other topics)
The Hopeless Christiantic (other topics)
More...
I find that many books (both self published and main stream) have 1 or 2 star reviews. When I read those reviews, most of them (not all though), simply sound conceited, jealous and quite narrow minded. Someone once said to me that it is probably because the reviewer themselves is an author and has a novel in the same genre as the reviewed book, and feels that the reviewed book is somehow encroaching on their 'territory'. The other options are that the review may be written by someone who is not fond of the author, and, of course, the last option is that it is a legitimate review (and some of them are exactly that).
However, what are your thoughts on this? How many legitimate 1 star reviews have you read, as opposed to snotty, self involved, conceited 1 star reviews?
Thanks.
Regards,
Keith