SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion
Members' Chat
>
When you write a negative review...
It seems like you can split the reaction to some of this into two general camps. Those who read and are new / struggling/ emerging writers tend to walk on eggshells (like myself) or- at least- are more interested in softening the blow by explaining why- technically- the book didn't work- while those who fall more into the reader/ reviewer camp are less likely to use kid gloves.
Experiment BL626 wrote: "Students majoring in literature do it all the times. Aren't most thesis a dissection of the work and the author's life in a particular perspective? I'm assuming here. "Agreed. Do you know how many times I've read The Awakening? Do you have any clue how much I abhor The Awakening? I could rant about that book for days and I haven't read it since sophomore year.
I think that it's all become a power struggle. You don't think I should do "A" because you don't like it. I think that I should be allowed to do "A" because I do like it.
This is also what happens when we assume. You have the ability to stop reading a book/series once you realize it's not for you. Why do you then assume that someone else has that same ability?? Ever heard of OCD?
I used to be a horrible serial completest. If I started a book I finished a book...no matter how much I hated it, no matter how much it made me cry. If the book was in a series? I finished the series. Period. It took me years to learn how to stop that habit. Years and quite a lot of experience. And even with that...I still occasionally force myself to finish books I don't like. It helps to not assume that everyone is the same.
Also, it feels like you are saying "If something does not fit within the boundaries of how I was raised or what I believe - is rude and shouldn't happen."
I'm saying...stop coming into my house and complaining about what my library looks like. It's my library and I was being kind by letting you see it. The more you complain, the more likely I am to kick you out.
Experiment BL626 wrote: "Students majoring in literature do it all the times. Aren't most thesis a dissection of the work and the author's life in a particular perspective? I'm assuming here."Well I've many years till I get to that stage but I knew that those friends of mine who have done theses did write about dissecting poetry or particular texts from a perspective. But I'm yet to meet someone who wrote about a text that they did not like. Now there's an idea...
Jonathan wrote: "Well I've many years till I get to that stage but I knew that those friends of mine who have done theses did write about dissecting poetry or particular texts from a perspective. But I'm yet to meet someone who wrote about a text that they did not like. Now there's an idea... "I haven't...but a friend of mine told me that by the time you're done you hate the text regardless. She said by the time she finished she wanted to dig Austen up and give her a fat lip.
MrsJoseph wrote: "I think that it's all become a power struggle. You don't think I should do "A" because you don't like it. I think that I should be allowed to do "A" because I do like it. "I agree, though I think this is, in some ways, inevitable. And its not really an author vs reader thing, either. I think almost everyone secretly thinks, at least at some point in their lives, "The world would be such a better place if everyone could just realize that my way is the best way and stop being so stupid!" ;)
Aside from that, I think there's also some issue because of the overlap of public personas and private feelings.
Many readers don't see authors as people, per se. Oh, sure, some readers do latch onto their favorites and follow their blogs and their lives and things but, by-and-large, I would say that we focus more on the books as a product and not on the authors as people. They are producers of art. As Experiment BL626 says - they are professionals and we are customers.
But with the rise of places like goodreads, more and more authors and reviewers are interacting in ways that they never really would have in the past and authors don't want to be seen as invisible producers of books, but as people with feelings who poured their heart and soul into their books, so on and so forth. And some of these authors might feel chagrined at the fact that some readers don't care so much about their feelings as much as they care about whether or not they enjoyed the book.
But before you think me totally heartless, this isn't exactly the only sphere in the world in which someone might care more about your work product than your personal feelings. As a semi-rebellious zombie entrenched deep in Corporate America, I would say this is pretty par for the course, actually.
My bosses, by-and-large, neither know nor care about my persona life. The only time they would need to know would be if it impacted my work in some way and, even then, I'm sure I'd only get so much latitude because, at the end of the day, you're there to be an employee. (And, in fairness, I don't give a toss about their personal lives, either.)
And, at my job, if I work really hard on a project but screw it up, then I might get some A for effort type credit but, ultimately, I'm going to be held responsible for effing it up and it probably won't be none too pleasant a fall out.
Because when you release a work product you are judged on the product... not on the time, energy, effort, heart or soul you put into it.
It might not be fair, or nice, or kind... but it's the nature of the beast.
± Colleen (of the Crawling Chaos) ± wrote: "I agree, though I think this is, in some ways, inevitable. And its not really an author vs reader thing, either. I think almost everyone secretly thinks, at least at some point in their lives, "The world would be such a better place if everyone could just realize that my way is the best way and stop being so stupid!" ;)Aside from that, I think there's also some issue because of the overlap of public personas and private feelings.
Many readers don't see authors as people, per se. Oh, sure, some readers do latch onto their favorites and follow their blogs and their lives and things but, by-and-large, I would say that we focus more on the books as a product and not on the authors as people. They are producers of art. As Experiment BL626 says - they are professionals and we are customers.
But with the rise of places like goodreads, more and more authors and reviewers are interacting in ways that they never really would have in the past and authors don't want to be seen as invisible producers of books, but as people with feelings who poured their heart and soul into their books, so on and so forth. And some of these authors might feel chagrined at the fact that some readers don't care so much about their feelings as much as they care about whether or not they enjoyed the book.
But before you think me totally heartless, this isn't exactly the only sphere in the world in which someone might care more about your work product than your personal feelings. As a semi-rebellious zombie entrenched deep in Corporate America, I would say this is pretty par for the course, actually.
My bosses, by-and-large, neither know nor care about my persona life. The only time they would need to know would be if it impacted my work in some way and, even then, I'm sure I'd only get so much latitude because, at the end of the day, you're there to be an employee. (And, in fairness, I don't give a toss about their personal lives, either.)
And, at my job, if I work really hard on a project but screw it up, then I might get some A for effort type credit but, ultimately, I'm going to be held responsible for effing it up and it probably won't be none too pleasant a fall out.
Because when you release a work product you are judged on the product... not on the time, energy, effort, heart or soul you put into it.
It might not be fair, or nice, or kind... but it's the nature of the beast. "
QFT.
Exactly. Nothing is different for you (authors) than me. Except I get my nasty feedback face to face. And I don't get to use words like "creative" or "expression."
Jaq wrote: "The only time I've objected to shelves (quietly to myself, didn't say a word to any of the parties) was when a rash of people all friends with each other shelved me as 'antagonistic towards reviewers' based on an argument I'm having with a woman who has been stalking me for over 5 years and making a point of slagging off my projects, including unreleased stuff.":-( That makes me sad, Jaq. You haven't read/reviewed any of my stuff but I've read some of your reviews. You're pretty fair and egalitarian in your liking and disliking. Speaking as an Author, I don't see any reason to bully you (not that there is EVER any reason to bully ANYone.)
Regarding the hilarious bad review of 50 Shades, if it's the one I think it is, it's actually pretty viral on Facebook. If you haven't read it yet, OMG sooooo worth reading. Or just looking at the pictures.
hilarious review by Katrina Lumsden
Just put down drinks and swallow food first. You could injure yourself or your keyboard otherwise ;-) Katrina's review has over 6200 "likes" and over 2500 comments - it's rivaling the book,itself. I read it a few days ago and she only had 5000 likes and 2100 comments so it's still gaining momentum. It's just too much :) Even though it's scathing, I actually found it to be a very useful review (speaking as a reader AND author). She repeated herself just for the laughs but she made a lot of great points.
± Colleen (of the Crawling Chaos) ± wrote: "But with the rise of places like goodreads, more and more authors and reviewers are interacting in ways that they never really would have in the past and authors don't want to be seen as invisible producers of books, but as people with feelings who poured their heart and soul into their books, so on and so forth. And some of these authors might feel chagrined at the fact that some readers don't care so much about their feelings as much as they care about whether or not they enjoyed the book."I think the corrollary here is that Indie Authors are taking the brunt of the abuse for "all authors" even those who are turning out crap and getting it published through "traditional" publishers. And don't get me started on how many printed, traditionally-published books I've read that have soooo many typos and outrageously ridiculous statements "of fact" (misconceptions about computer use being one of the worse offenders never caught by copyeditors).
Authors have an obligation to turn out a professional product. I spent 8 months -- long hard, brutal months, especially when after 4 months I lost Every. Freakin. Thing. and had to start AGAIN. delaying release by 4 months, missing the Christmas rush of sales and utterly losing all of the 10 months of advance promo work I'd done.
Too many Indie Authors just write a book, wait a week, read it again (themselves) and upload it figuring it's "ready for prime time," when in fact, it's barely ready for an editor. These people give ALL of us a bad name.
Even with all that in mind, however, I stress again the need to separate the person from the problem. I totally agree that readers are following a product, not a person--erego, the reviews which turn into personal attacks are not only rude but inappropriately aimed.
Jaq wrote: "The only time I've objected to shelves (quietly to myself, didn't say a word to any of the parties) was when a rash of people all friends with each other shelved me as 'antagonistic towards reviewers' based on an argument I'm having with a woman who has been stalking me for over 5 years and making a point of slagging off my projects, including unreleased stuff."I think I missed this before. It isn't right that you get stalked. That shouldn't happen to anyone. And the response from those readers goes back to assuming again. They assumed one thing when in reality it ws something different.
*sigh*
There has been so much going on lately. So many fights between authors and readers. I'm trying my best not to allow the dismay, disappointment, depression and anger that have been bubbling around inside of me to color my interactions between myself and other authors.
Its really hard.
Sometimes - as I've been telling my husband - I feel slightly sick to my stomach and I feel...embarrassed. That my primary hobby has been infected with this...mess.
*sigh*
MrsJoseph wrote: "What I do disagree with is the exception that you take to shelves. Why should it matter to you what the book is shelved as? It does not affect your book's rating whatsoever. "Actually, it does affect a book's marketability. It appears on the book's public page as a label some mean and nasty person wrote, like graffiti written on a billboard with no means of removing it as easily as soap and water.
When an Author's book is trashed via shelving with nasty names, the person usually (FWICT) has not read the book nor have they any intention of reading the book. They are attacking the Author, the person and not the book (product). They are doing precisely what you and a few others on page two of this thread said NOT to do. Treating the Author like a person with feelings which they maliciously intend to hurt, as their nasty labels serve no other purpose than to "send a message" which obviously the Author will see; we see everything that happens on/to our books here. (note: an author doesn't need to "obssess" over a book page--we are NOTIFIED BY GOODREADS whenever activity occurs connected to our books. By default.)
Edited to add: Colleen, shelving "abandoned" or "did not finish" is definitely NOT what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the mean and nasty names "never in this lifetime" or "you couldn't pay me enough to make me read this" or worse, the extremely personal ones I've seen, naming the author in the shelf!!
I've only had one of these (well, two, technically but only one that was overtly nasty and malicious) but I've seen DOZENS of bullying shelves on other authors' books. It's mean and hateful behavior. There's no need to be mean and hateful. No one is forced to read anything around here. Readers sometimes act as though Authors are forcing you to spend money or time to read their books.
That's especially absurd when you are given the book for free and plenty of rude shelvings have been for free giveaways. In fact, those are where I see this bullying the most (in groups for "free ebooks" or "giveaways"), when readers "collect" hundreds (or thousands) of free books just to trash them, not read them.
I need to stop following this discussion because you're all quite correct. I'm arguing and that's not being a professional public figure. MrsJ - it's VERY sad that this site and the reading and book-club activity has become so infected with this sickness of meanness and hate. I am and always have been a voracious reader and I love to talk about books with others. I've definitely read well over 10,000 books in my lifetime, all genres all styles all levels of "goodness." It would NEVER occur to me to "hate" on one of those Authors (except maybe Dickens who wrote deliberately bad prose because he was paid by the word, not for quality). It's just not how I was raised to be rude like that. I guess I'm from a different era. I'm only 51. Is that really a different era already?
So sad that this is what the 21st century is like. I remember being a kid and thinking about "in the 21st century, I'll be...." and eagerly anticipating when stuff like "The Jetsons" world would be mine too. So much for the Skyways and Rosie the Robot. Then again, Rosie would'a beat up the bullies for me (LOL)
Marjorie wrote: "MrsJoseph wrote: "What I do disagree with is the exception that you take to shelves. Why should it matter to you what the book is shelved as? It does not affect your book's rating whatsoever. "Ac..."
Let me see.
While I understand that you don't like it, it's far from "bullying." I feel that the word bully/bullying have been pounded to death. Now it seems bullying means "you were not nice to me! waaaah!"
And here's the thing...those shelves do what Colleen and I meant. Lets take Chick-fil-A. The company made a public statement that customers don't like. Does that mean the customers are bullies now?? They are saying all sorts of stuff. And the MAYOR of Boston wrote a scathing letter. Is he a bully now, too?
The thing is the author - by becoming a public figure - is a brand in addition to being a person. The brand is being boycotted...thats the shelves.
And BTW. I am NOT a Marketing Opportunity!!! I am not here to market your book. Why do my shelves have to reflect your marketing needs?
I do agree that an author should not be personally attacked... but I also wonder where the line is drawn. What constitutes a personal attack?Is saying "I don't want to read any of Orson Scott Card's books because I disagree with his anti-gay stance" a personal attack, or is it a statement of the fact that I, a consumer, do not want to give my money to a brand who might use that money to further a cause. (As in the Chik-fil-A example which was used earlier.)
Is shelving something as "will not read because of bad author behavior" a personal attack, or a response to the actions of said author? (If an author, for instance, does have a reputation for responding to negative reviews, then do I want to read that book and risk not liking it and writing a negative review and having to deal with the author because of it? I don't feel like I have to defend my support, or lack thereof, for Chik-fil-A, so why should I have to defend my support, or lack thereof, of an author?)
There also seems to be more assumptions about the intentions of people shelving things certain ways. Honestly, I didn't even know that an author is notified whenever there is activity on their book (and, quite frankly, I would wish goodreads didn't do that, but, ah well).
But *most* people who are shelving things, whichever way, are doing so for themselves and for other readers. For many people, it probably seems no different to them to say "avoid this author because they have gone batshit on reviewers" and saying "avoiding Samsung products because their customer service is shit".
Am I personally attacking Samsung because I recently wrote a scathing review about their craptastic customer service because of a recent issue I had with them?
Marjorie wrote: "Edited to add: Colleen, shelving "abandoned" or "did not finish" is definitely NOT what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the mean and nasty names "never in this lifetime" or "you couldn't pay me enough to make me read this" or worse, the extremely personal ones I've seen, naming the author in the shelf!! "
Then I apologize for misunderstanding this statement of yours:
"I didn't shelve it on a "did not finish" or "could not finish" or "not in this lifetime" shelf. I think THOSE are more rude than scathing reviews!!"
I took that to mean that you did consider the "did not finish" shelf to be included in the 'rude' shelf-names.
And, again, said shelf names aren't really always meant personally. There are books that I've considered shelving "could not force me to read", and it's not because I have a personal issue with the author... it's because I've read excerpts of them which I found painful, but I don't want to review it, since I only read an excerpt, but want to remind myself that I had, indeed, checked it out and wasn't impressed.
I'm not going to say that some reviewers/shelves aren't trying to make a point. Yes, they are, sometimes, seeking to punish the author for behaving badly and trying to get people to pull support from said author. Again - the same way that people are asking those who support gay rights to not support Chik-fil-A because of their politics.
And maybe I see personal attacks along the lines of "so-and-so is an ugly, fat cow" and less "so-an-so is not a person you should support because they've acted like ogres towards reviewers".
I can see how some would take that as a personal attack - but can you see how others would see it as something akin to reviewing customer service?
ETA: I also wanted to say that I can see how authors might feel this is a bit unfair and a double standard. "I'm not a company/brand/service department - I'm a person!"
But, in this Feedback thread (WARNING - DRAMA!), there is an in-the-works revision to the author guidelines.
Per Patrick:
In addition to our review guidelines, we'll be simultaneously releasing a revision to our Author Guidelines. The main purpose of that revision is to make it clear to authors that they are using Goodreads in a professional capacity and will be held to a higher standard than our other users. If an author doesn't conduct his or her self with the utmost professionalism, they will be removed from the site. It's as simple as that.
So:
Authors = Professional Capacity
Reviewers = Casual Capacity
And, yes, they are held to different standards. It might not be nice, or fair, or whatever, but it's a recognition, imo, that, well, we're coming at this from very different places.
Marjorie wrote: "I need to stop following this discussion because you're all quite correct. I'm arguing and that's not being a professional public figure. MrsJ - it's VERY sad that this site and the reading and ..."
You know, I'm not trying to argue. At least, not really. A good argument is priceless and should always be respected. (sorry, eng lit major, I relish a good argument. I don't like fights, however.)
Please don't get the feeling that I feel you shouldn't have your opinion or that you don't have the right to speak your opinion.
But I am feeling rather surly lately. All the drama is taking its toll.
*sigh* I wasn't going to comment, but since Jaq brought my name into it... Reviewers started shelving her book after Cuddlebuggery picked up the story of the takedown notice she sent me, accusing me of "slander" and "extreme copyright violation" and demanding my personal information "for purposes of potential prosecution." When my proxy registrar didn't hand over my information, she got a friend to dig it up. Then she created a web page associating my real name with my handle, and her friend/sockpuppet Pam Mandeville posted my name and the link to the web page on negatively shelved reviews of Dance of the Goblins. (Pam's comments are gone, but the other side of the conversation is still there.) Jaq continues to believe that I'm an old enemy of hers from Myspace named Vanessa, and not even seeing my real name has convinced her otherwise.Obviously, I'm very much on the side of allowing "author attacks reviewers" shelves. It's important for other potential reviewers to know--are you stepping in a bear trap if you leave anything other than a glowing review? Links to the reason the author was shelved that way are also valuable. Maybe the author's offensive views are ones I find just and reasonable. Maybe readers really are making a mountain out of a molehill. Or maybe I'd like to avoid giving money to someone who advocates ideas that hurt me or people I love.
As for the climate on review sites nowadays, we're seeing the start of a perfect storm. Authors and readers are coming into far closer contact than the traditional model of book discussions can support; authors increasingly rely on contact with readers to promote their books; and the entire culture, inside and outside the book world, has been increasingly thin-skinned and resistant to criticism.
Now turn the presence of self-published and indie authors up to 11. There's no barrier to entry, no editor or publisher with the ability to talk an author out of fighting with reviewers, an absolute dependence on word of mouth to sell books, and no immediate economic disincentive to stop fighting. If anything, most authors find that their book sales jump when a fight goes viral. (The trainwreck effect doesn't last, which sometimes encourages the crazier authors to attack again in the hopes of getting it back.) Add an online culture that has different rules than face-to-face culture, mix in authors who are often less than perfectly web-savvy, and BOOM!
What I find most ominous is that some authors have started developing their own rules, which run counter to the way books have been reviewed. "Remember that the author will read your review, and write accordingly," for example. Or "Reviews are author feedback, and should be written according to the rules for other types of personal feedback." On one hand, better for authors' feelings, and also better for people who want more authorial involvement, or who are hurt by bad reviews of books they loved. (I'm not saying this to be snarky. There are a lot of people like that out there.) On the other hand, bad for the lively discussion of books as books.
I can see book culture moving toward the authors' camp. There's already a small but noticeable group of reviewers who believe that not taking the author's feelings into account is mean. As authors get more involved, and people get sick of fighting with them, reviewers are going to be less and less inclined to review as we used to. The "cult of nice" is going to snowball.
And I'm going to stand on street corners in a trenchcoat, whispering, "Psst! Want to read an unbiased review?"
Jaq wrote: "But students read stuff they hate to earn grades. There is no 'reward' for reviewing books on-line unless you find a paying site."You just proved my point why reviewing is so unappreciated and underrated. It's like the red headed stepchild in the family of writing.
Jaq wrote: "That's the one. Had my daughter in fits. I found it a bit funny until i saw the bit about her going through the series, then I just shook my head and wondered what was wrong with this woman. Maybe I just value my reading time more. The last book I thought was dire I put down after half a chapter."
Maybe that woman found entertainment in reading something so bad it's laughable. Maybe that woman was pseudo-OCD and is unable to leave a series unfinished. Maybe that woman find it relaxing to review a bad series. Maybe that woman wanted to please her friends and followers by continuing to read and review that bad series. Etc.
There are many reasons. Everyone have their reasons for reading and reviewing. We shouldn't be so presumptuous to think their reasons are the same as ours.
Jaq wrote: "See? Perfect example. The assumption that it's true tars the author. As I said in my post above, I've had no contact whatsoever with these girls and have never attacked a reviewer, so technically it's slander."
Doesn't matter. Readers are allowed to shelve books however they want. If Chick-Fil-A wrote a book, I'm allowed to shelve theirs as dont-support-bigots. Feel free to continue thinking the practice as slander (far be it for me to force my belief on you), but thankfully GR doesn't agree.
Experiment BL626 wrote: "Doesn't matter. Readers are allowed to shelve books however they want. If Chick-Fil-A wrote a book, I'm allowed to shelve theirs as dont-support-bigots. Feel free to continue thinking the practice as slander (far be it for me to force my belief on you), but thankfully GR doesn't agree. "Well, in legal speak, it couldn't be slander. Maybe libel, but not slander. ;)
Issendai wrote: "I can see book culture moving toward the authors' camp. There's already a small but noticeable group of reviewers who believe that not taking the author's feelings into account is mean. As authors get more involved, and people get sick of fighting with them, reviewers are going to be less and less inclined to review as we used to. The "cult of nice" is going to snowball."Nah, the book culture has always been like that. The internet and GR only made it easier and faster for authors and readers alike to catch wind of the drama llamas.
Those reviewers have always been there, but hardly anyone follow them. You will not see a top reviewer on GR that review "nicely."
Actually, I'm seeing more reviewers refusing to review indies (a twitter bird told me). Haven't heard any blogger stop reviewing altogether.
Before reading this thread it never even occurred to me that an author might read my review. Interesting thought. I never write my review with the author in mind. I always write with other readers in mind - I'm either telling them its worth reading or not. As for the author - I've always just assumed they have a thick skin for reviews. If not, they shouldn't have published their book in the first place. After all, out of the thousands of books out there about "how to be a writer", approximately 100% of them tell you to not get hung up on reviews.
Steve wrote: I always write with other readers in mind.....After all, out of the thousands of books out there about "how to be a writer", approximately 100% of them tell you to not get hung up on reviews.That's exactly right. Reviews are for readers, not for authors and authors really shouldn't be reading them anyway, it serves no useful purpose. Reader reviews aren't beta readers and shouldn't be treated as such.
I'll write a negative review, but usually only on a book I've agreed to review as an ARC or a book where the ending so badly disappoints me that I've wasted a lot of time getting to that point. Otherwise, I'm probably going to abandon the book.
Nothing infuriates me more than when an author releases a work as a finished product and then continues to "revise" it. Whether I pay for it or waste my time reading it in exchange for a review, the author has broken a trust when they do that. They have given me what was supposed to be a finished product and then changed their mind. One particular giveaway book here still rubs me raw. After reading and reviewing a nearly 700 page book, the author decided to extensively revise and trim it, offering previous reviewers the "opportunity" to beta read his revisions and review the new work. It makes me sick to see some reviewers lap it up and fall over themselves praising him and how "wonderful" the new changes are. Really? You compared what turned out to be the first draft to Tolkien and Sanderson, and now it's gotten better?
What it has led me to do is avoid indie and self-published books in the giveaway program like the plague. Reviews that are more concerned with sparing the authors' feelings than alerting other readers to the actual reading experience they may be looking at is a disservice to all readers and authors, particularly indie authors who have enough difficulty being noticed above the dross as it is.
Armand wrote: "Wow- Trike- now I might have to look up those reviews!"They were on rec.arts.sf.written, I believe. Years ago. I'm not sure if they still exist since Google took over Usenet and ruined it.
On the general subject of authors and reviewers clashing, nothing surprises me. There are as many types of reviews and responses as there are people. The only thing that I *do* find surprising is that anyone would think these sorts of interactions would be different from any other type of interaction on the net.The web is lawless. It's a street fight, a bar brawl, a cage match. Thunderdome. You don't bring a knife to a gun fight, you bring a nuke. The only other option is to take the high road and not respond to slights and slurs.
Tad wrote: "Steve wrote: I always write with other readers in mind.....After all, out of the thousands of books out there about "how to be a writer", approximately 100% of them tell you to not get hung up on ..."You know I disagree about indie authors revising their books. I've read so many books by bestselling authors that seemed totally unedited. They could have done with a revised edition, but it will never happen because bestseller writers can sell anything with their names. They have no incentive to revise. An indie writer may be inexperienced rather than lazy. I give them points for recognizing their mistakes and improving. It's not a ploy to get more money. If I obtained the original edition on Amazon, Amazon will give me the revised edition for free.
BTW, I never over-praise indie writers. I tell them what their strong points are and what their weak points are. If that leads to a revised edition, I figure that it's all to the good.
Shomeret wrote: "You know I disagree about indie authors revising their books. I've read so many books by bestselling authors that seemed totally unedited. They could have done with a revised edition, but it will never happen because bestseller writers can sell anything with their names. They have no incentive to revise. An indie writer may be inexperienced rather than lazy. I give them points for recognizing their mistakes and improving. It's not a ploy to get more money. If I obtained the original edition on Amazon, Amazon will give me the revised edition for free."I think the problem is that more than a few authors have taken to using their paying customers as beta readers. That's going a little too far. Why should I pay you to work for you? That makes our relationship backwards.
Colleen & MrsJ, i'm right there with you. my reading a book does not start me into any type of social contract with an author. i shelve stuff according to my own organizational idiosyncrasies, not according to approved marketing corrals, and i have both an "unfinished" and a "wow wtf" shelf. if someone chose to take that last one as catty, well, that wouldn't concern me in the least; i use that one to flag books that had genuinely amazingly surprising moments, good or bad, and the shelf title represents that to me. "personal attack" and "bullying" are pretty hot-button words that mean something specific - both of them indicate an intentional interaction with another person with the goal being to make that person's life just a little more crappy. as Steve said upthread, i write reviews with fellow readers in mind, not as either critique space nor slings and arrows thrown at authors; i have no intention of sending my review to the author to provoke a confrontation. even if a review said something like, "the author was apparently too lazy to hire an editor," that's still not an invitation to tell me otherwise. if i walk out of a movie theater ranting about how the director must have been on crack, that's likewise not an actual allegation of drug abuse that the director needs to defend themselves from. if the artwork (book, movie, painting...) has been released out into the world, it is out of the creator's hands having a life of its own, hand-holding is no longer possible or necessary.
While I've been on GR a while, I'm still new to the social-interaction part of it. Up until now I've always used it simply as a convenient way of keeping track of what I've read, as well as for posting my reviews on Facebook. So maybe I'm naive, but it never really occurred to me that my "shelves" were public. I don't think it'll change how I use them, though. They're still primarily for me, not for others. Having read this thread, the devilish side of me is tempted to create a "waste of space" shelf just to offend the authors who have the audacity to pay attention to reviews.
Speaking as a GR author, can I just say, misquoting Oscar Wilde, that there's only one thing worse than being reviewed unfavourably, and that's not being reviewed at all. If you're reviewed unfavourably, at least it means someone read your book.
another thread becoming a war zone :p*sigh*
to answer TS questions:
1. What if you want to give a negative review but also want to encourage the author (because- say- they are your Goodreads friend)?
I'll just point out the parts that i feel lacking, and my general feeling of his/her work, and say goodluck to their next project.
2. Do you leave really long reviews for the books you hate, or really short ones.
some short, some long.
3. Do you ever feel like you missed something when everyone else gives a book 4 or 5 stars and you just have no interest in it?
sometimes, but usually no. every person has their own taste.
4. Do you ever have the urge to bash a book only because it's popular? (I get that urge sometimes, usually I resist, but I feel it)
nope.
5. have you ever written a negative review and then immediately felt bad about it and gone back and changed it? And- as related question- have you ever given a book a break (and an extra star) because you feel bad for the author?
so far, i only edit my reviews for typos and rephrasing sentences for a clearer meaning. never because of feeling bad. but on the other hand i had not (yet) wrote a review so harsh or using foul language either.
as for giving extra star because of feel bad for the author...not yet.
MrsJoseph wrote: ...I used to be a horrible serial completest. If I started a book I finished a book...no matter how much I hated it, no matter how much it made me cry. If the book was in a series? I finished the series. Period."I am sorry to hear about this, Mrs. Joseph. The pressure must have been terrible. While I'm not OCD, I used to long periods of avoiding books entirely because I felt obliged to finish them regardless of whether I enjoyed them or not (mostly because of school where you must complete each book). It's only been in the last few years that I've given myself permission to put a book down after 30-40-75 pages. It really is liberating.
For myself, I use what I call the "bus-test". I ride a bus to work and basically, if I'm on the bus and a can't wait to open the book that I'm reading (and- in fact- I hope the bus ride lasts longer so I can read a few more pages!) then I know I have a winner.
On the other hand, if I'm on the bus and I basically find myself forcing my own hand, dragging the book out of my bag because "it's the right thing to do", then I start to consider that it's not the right book for me.
If I get a couple of poor choices in a row, I sometimes get a little bummed out, but eventually I find a good read again and my faith is reaffirmed, and then I'm like: "I knew there was a reason that I love to read"
typing quickly here- sorry for typos!
I always kinda figured that a one star rating pretty well indicated a large dislike of the book WITHOUT any need to post a bad review. After all, reviews are (mostly) purely personal taste. If the book was that bad (ignoring that there are now a lot of self-published books), how did the editors and agents let it get into print to begin with? Why would I want to waste (valuable) words to trash the author (whose stuff I will probably never buy again anyway). There are authors out there who have written multiple series with different characters. If I don't care for the primary character in one series, I won't buy any more of that one, but that isn't any excuse to trash the book (or series).A five-star rating? I will say that it must be a truly exceptional book, i.e. I did not and could not put it down no matter what. Three and four-star ratings from me are both quite good and will probably be read again some day. Two stars might stay on my shelves, but will never be reread.
Assuming that everyone uses the rating system the same way - which they don't, 'cause I've seen some people say things like they'd give a book a 1-star to indicate they've read it one time, or something, but, for the sake of argument, let's assume that 1 star definitely means you really didn't like the book - what it doesn't tell anyone is why you didn't like the book.Sure, reviews are mostly purely personal taste, but that doesn't mean there aren't other people out there who share your tastes. And if you have people who follow your reviews, or something, it's often because they do share your tastes and might use you as a metric on which books they might like or dislike.
And negative reviews can also be helpful for other people to pick up the book because, since our tastes are different, what bothered some people won't bother others.
For instance, in my review for Divergent I went on about how the world-building just doesn't make a lot of sense and didn't appear to be thought through very much at all. But there are a lot of people for whom this sort of thing is less important, and so they might know that they might enjoy it where I didn't.
Similarly, I've seen some 1 or 2 star reviews for books which complain that the protagonist is too cynical, or that there's too much cursing and/or violence. But as these things don't bother me, I'll know to ignore their low rating for my own consideration.
Which isn't to say that people should have to write reviews or anything, but reviews can be - and often are - very helpful for others when deciding whether to read a book or not.
And if someone picks up a book and just hates it, then, yes, they have every reason to trash it. Sometimes it's just cathartic.
So there are many reasons why people might decide to write reviews, reasons that they don't see as a waste.
I have never considered an author when I've written a review, not once. Just like I don't consider the director when I leave a bad review on movie sites. What makes reading any different? Authors need to get over themselves and develop some thicker skin. We are allowed to review, shelve, bash, throw, delete any books that we buy in any such manner we choose. We are the consumer, the customer, and "The customer is always right" policy is usually the best policy. It's your job to do absolutely nothing other then thank a customer for taking time out of their day to review your work, and hope that the next review is more favorable. I also don't like some artwork, tv shows, music, clothes, ect.. and I don't see them commenting back saying I'm a nasty and mean person because I write a post on my facebook complaining about ABC's latest show. Same thing.. pure and simple. So basically authors, GET OVER IT!!
Just out of curiosity - am I the only person a little weirded out when an author thanks me for my review?I mean, I get it for the few instances when I've been asked by the author to read for review but, outside of that, I always feel a bit odd. Partially because I feel obligated to say something in return, but it feels weird to just say "you're welcome".
But, then, I'm just a socially awkward penguin, so it probably is just me. ;)
Colleen wrote: "Just out of curiosity - am I the only person a little weirded out when an author thanks me for my review?I mean, I get it for the few instances when I've been asked by the author to read for revi..."
Yeah, it weirds me out a bit. I feel better if they don't want to have a long conversation though.
Colleen wrote: "Just out of curiosity - am I the only person a little weirded out when an author thanks me for my review?"I think that's only happened once to me, from Kurt Busiek. More recently Warren Fahey sent me a message about my spoiler blurb about his book Fragment, but he wasn't mad about it.
Since I have a reputation as the Guy Who Hates Everything (which is totally undeserved -- I only hate MOST things), I usually get the opposite reaction.
Trike wrote: "Since I have a reputation as the Guy Who Hates Everything (which is totally undeserved -- I only hate MOST things), I usually get the opposite reaction.":-D
Colleen wrote: "Just out of curiosity - am I the only person a little weirded out when an author thanks me for my review?."nope, you're most definitely not alone on that one. i've had a few indie authors post a comment on reviews i've left on amazon that were basically "thank you for your review" and they left it at that. i was a little surprised, but not *quite* taken aback at the author communication, but that was it, so no biggie. ANYTHING more than that, though, positive or negative, and i'd feel strange about it.
longest author conversation was when i sent a note to amazon informing them that the kindle version of the book had broken links where a handful of illustrations were supposed to be. the author emailed me a day or two later, thanking me for pointing out the glitch, and letting me know that a corrected (not edited!!!!) copy was now available on amazon's site. all of which was very polite, and totally ok, and had nothing to do with a critique of the book itself.
I'd like to point out that my weirdness only comes from interaction about the product. I speak to authors here on a daily basis who have been nothing but professional at all times.
Colleen wrote: "Just out of curiosity - am I the only person a little weirded out when an author thanks me for my review?I mean, I get it for the few instances when I've been asked by the author to read for revi..."
I've been called weird before so not sure it helps that I totally agree. Now if I wrote an absolute gushing love letter to the book and got a thanks that's one thing. But the ones that I have didn't call for it.
Well, I'm glad I'm not the only one. I was thinking about it some, and I wonder if part of the 'weirdness' comes from the fact that I feel like "I didn't do it for you".Like I said, it's different in the cases where an author asked me to read their book but, otherwise, I'm neither reading nor reviewing the book for the author's benefit.
Though I can see someone thanking you for a gushing love letter of a review. :>
@Trike - I also seem to have a bit of a reputation for hating things, just because I'm often meh about things that must people gush about. *sniffs*
From an Author's perspective, the only review I've ever commented on was my first one. The reviewer had rated the short story in question with one star, saying that while it was well written and entertaining, it was not appropriate for children. I thanked her for her fair review and asked her to please let me know why she thought it was intended for children. No response. A week or so later, I read it is considered bad form for authors to contact readers over reviews. I still have no idea why she thought it was for children unless she assumed that all folk tales are written for young audiences (it's an adaptation of George and the Dragon).Is it fair to give the story one star because it isn't suitable for children when it wasn't intended to be? Probably not, but because she left a specific review I really don't mind. Seriously, I don't. Wish she would give all the rest of my stuff one star, at least it's better than no reviews! Still, to my mind it is polite to recognize what other people do when it relates to you, no matter their motive.
I'd also agree that authors, in general, can be a thin skinned lot, especially after rubbing their neurons to the raw ends creating a new magnus opus.
However, what I find surprising is how thin skinned readers can be. By all means you are entitled to your opinion, but if you publicize it in a public forum (such as the internet)then everyone else is entitled to their opinion of your opinion! Whether it be the author, or a rabid fan (for interesting reading check out the negative reviews of the TV show Firefly. Boy are there some doozies!). Doesn't mean they should come out and try and start a fight with you, but it also doesn't mean that they shouldn't acknowledge your review or even read it.
When you come right down to it, reader reviews are essentially an author's most detailed form of performance feedback. Telling us not to read the reviews is like your boss telling you not to read your employee evaluations...
It's not so much 'entitled', Byron. Sure, we can comment on our reviews if we want to! There's no specific rule against it. But we have to remember that we are people trying to sell stuff to other people, who may feel a little uncomfortable if we pop our head up in the middle of their own personal conversation about our product, and start asking questions...Readers aren't leaving reviews as performance feedback to writers, and although we can use it that way, actively trying to gain additional feedback is...a bit like those annoying "Please fill out this survey!" popups that sometimes show up on websites.
I am amazed that there are authors who have TIME to conduct lengthy flamewars with reviewers. Are there enough hours in the day? In the words of the great Jerry Pournelle: Ye flipping gods, I have books to write! (And since the day is the same length for everybody, this problem will eventually solve itself. Flamers will run around flaming each other, and writers can go and quietly write.)There are Broadway actors who famously don't read their reviews. The concern of course is that it will affect their performance.
In the same spirit, I don't read my reviews either. Have at it; I will never see it. People can email me (I am easy to find, being the first 300 hits if you enter my name in Google). I may or may not reply, depending on whether I remember to check the mail box.
Byron wrote: "However, what I find surprising is how thin skinned readers can be."Nah, I think it's authors who are thin-skinned. Why else waste time fighting a reviewer instead of working on one's writing? I always see author complain about how difficult and time-consuming writing is, which is ironic when they use that excuse when they fight reviewers.
Byron wrote: "When you come right down to it, reader reviews are essentially an author's most detailed form of performance feedback. Telling us not to read the reviews is like your boss telling you not to read your employee evaluations... "
No, it is essentially not. Far from it. Authors may take review as performance feedback, but unlike performance feedback they are not intended for the authors at all.
Andrea wrote: "It's not so much 'entitled', Byron. Sure, we can comment on our reviews if we want to! There's no specific rule against it. But we have to remember that we are people trying to sell stuff to othe..."Andrea, darling, you are not following Auntie SpecialSnowflake's sage advice:
D. Worst of all, readers seem to not realize that their job is solely to love and promote your book–and by extension YOU. It’s like they think they’re totally separate people from us writers, like they don’t have some sort of obligation to us because we wrote a book. They actually don’t think they owe us anything at all, if you can believe that arrogance. They actually think, even, that we shouldn’t tell them what to do or treat them like we expect the deference we so richly deserve. It’s like they’re just walking egos thinking we should let them have opinions of their own or let them talk to each other about our books without us butting in or whatever. I’d as soon let my dog eat at the dinner table, I tell you that.Really, Andrea. Stop respecting us readersheeps.
Luckily, there are things you can do. There are ways to get around these cockroaches-in-human-suits called “readers.” It’s not even hard. Why? Because, like I said, readers are stupid. They actually write their opinions down, on the internet, which is like an open invitation for you to respond. Why, you’re really doing them a favor with some of these things, because otherwise they might go thinking they can make their own decisions about what to read, and we can’t have that nonsense.
—Be Rich and Famous! The Internet Way
;)
Andrea, I did not mean to imply that replying to reviews would be a good idea. It just surprised me that people are surprised to draw a reaction from authors (to me it is a very logical chain of reaction). Whether it's a good idea or not on the authors part, eh, I suspect that depends on the personal charisma of the author. Brenda, that is very interesting about the Broadway actors, I learn something new everyday :) Although, are those reviews written by critics or theater-goers? I see writing as a method of communicating ideas and stories to others. The reviews are a form of feedback on how well I put together the message. Perhaps you see it differently?
Back on topic, I try to keep my reviews fairly balanced, making note of what I liked and what I didn't. I do normally try and find at least one good thing to say, even it it comes down to an outstanding back copy and mind blowing cover art that convinced me to pick up the book in the first place!
Experiment, Your second point is well taken, though I still feel like you shouldn't post something online if you don't want some people reading it. As far as the first point, seems like everyone is thin skinned these days...
Brenda wrote: "There are Broadway actors who famously don't read their reviews. The concern of course is that it will affect their performance."There are some Hollywood actors, also, who don't watch their own movies.
As an actress, albeit in community theater only, I avoid reviews like the plague. Whether they're bad or good, they can muck up your focus if you put too much credence in them.
SciFi and Fantasy Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
Inferno (other topics)The Yiddish Policemen's Union (other topics)
Telegraph Avenue (other topics)
The Three-Body Problem (other topics)
The Night Circus (other topics)
More...
Voila, I give you Mein Kampf by Hitler. Reviewing is another form of writing, however unappreciated and underrated it may be compares to writing a popular novel or a literary masterpiece.
Jaq wrote: "Who forces themselves to read a whole series just to hate on it?"
Students majoring in literature do it all the times. Aren't most thesis a dissection of the work and the author's life in a particular perspective? I'm assuming here.