Ceilidh > Status Update

Ceilidh
Ceilidh added a status update
Hey guys, we may have another "Be Nice" situation on our hands.
Sep 15, 2011 02:08AM

8 likes ·  flag

Comments Showing 1-30 of 30 (30 new)

dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Kat Kennedy (new)

Kat Kennedy Oh really? Who?


message 3: by Lucy (new)

Lucy This author had a particularly bad way of stating it too. Four stars aren't good enough because there's no steak dinner involved.


message 4: by Kat Kennedy (new)

Kat Kennedy Ugh. Does anyone know what books she's written so I can put them on my Not-To-Read list? She can go there with Diane Peterfreund.


message 5: by Kat Kennedy (new)

Kat Kennedy Nevermind! Found it!


message 6: by Ceilidh (new)

Ceilidh Nothing's a bigger turn-off for a potential consumer than such attitudes, yes?


message 7: by Kat Kennedy (new)

Kat Kennedy Pretty much. I refuse to financially support someone who cares more about hiding free opinions from consumers (and uses bullying tactics to do it) than they do about good literature.


message 8: by Lucy (last edited Sep 15, 2011 03:50AM) (new)

Lucy What's most off-putting is that they're so pro-censorship when it suits an ego. You'd think writers would be on the extreme opposite. Second most off-putting was the steak thing. Most of the world doesn't have the resources necessary to feed themselves, but readers who want to write for a living should learn how to keep "negative" thoughts to themselves so that authors who are paid (by those same readers) to write can have a steak instead of a Big Mac. It's gross.

Edit: Kat said it better and shorter than me!


message 9: by Kat Kennedy (new)

Kat Kennedy Hi, there! I posted on twitter something that went a little like this: "PSA to aspiring authors: Do not rate books on review sites unless 1)the author is dead or 2)you like things to come back to bite you in the ass".

I got a lot of comments for that one. People asked, "Positive reviews?" and to that I say, well, positive reviews are okay, but DO NOT RATE THE BOOK. If you have to give the book stars, it had better be 5 STARS. Or else.

"Why?" you say. "Four stars means I liked it a lot. Three means I liked it. Those are positive things."

No, they are not. And I will tell you why.

Most authors hate goodreads. And with good reason. There are many trolls out there who can anonymously rip apart books with mean-spirited reviews, and they seem to thrive upon finding the most creative and amusing ways to slam a novel. They love to get comments from other trolls, agreeing with them. It appears that there are gangs of these people who enjoy crafting negative reviews, complete with funny pictures and whatnot, which must take so much time it begs the question, "do these people have lives?" A good portion of the site, which is comprised of serious reviewers, is being overshadowed by these people, which is sad. Because of this, most authors say that they never visit goodreads. Ever. I, in fact, never go there. Usually. But every once in awhile, I will be dragged to it, like a moth to a flame. And something on the site will usually burn my retinas.

Authors tell you that they don't care about reviews. They don't care what the haters think. They are liars. Because really, what sells a book is word of mouth. And if enough people are hating their book, that translates to... lack of word of mouth, which translates to lack of sales, which translates to lack of ability to pay one's bills. And all authors care about that.

Anyway, back to why a four star review is not a good thing for an aspiring author to give. Because it creates a comparison. Authors are insecure. Like I said, if you don't like one, it could mean that they don't have steak for dinner. And so, if you say, "I liked this book" and rate it 4 stars... many authors, especially the ones who have a lot of time on their hands, will check to see what your average review is. If it is 4.72, and you rate her book 4 stars, she will be upset, because it means that you liked her book LESS than most of the books you read. She will check all the books you read and see which ones you rated 5 stars and wonder why you didn't like hers as much. Negative feelings will ensue. No, she may not remember you, especially if she gets thousands of reviews. But she also won't remember you as one of her "die-hard fans" either. So when you publish your book and ask her for a blurb, she may say, "Sure..." but then again, she may say, "I'm too busy."

You're probably thinking, "You are not serious. No writer is that ridiculous or obsessive."

But I have spoken to hundreds of published authors... and this is what I have discovered. It's a secret we writers keep, but ratings systems play mind-games with us. They make us go insane, to the point of obsession. I, after a couple years of torment, have learned to opt-out of the insanity... but sometimes, every once in awhile, it does call me back. I'm getting better. With every book, my shell hardens, and I care less. But because it pays my bills, I still care.

You may think I'm crazy. I mean, even as I type it, it sounds crazy to me. But it's the truth. If you're hoping to be published one day and love Goodreads and sharing your opinion with the world, if you want to say, "whatever, that's nuts," feel free to go on rating books as you wish.

But don't say I didn't warn you.



message 10: by [deleted user] (new)

Spare me...


message 11: by John (new)

John Egbert My personal opinion,

description

I mean, seriously? This is worse than "Be Nice". This lady is actually saying rating a book four stars is insulting. Really? What the hell is this?

Besides that fact, she's wrong. We've been over this, YA authors -- the worse people say your book is, the more likely others are to read it to see if it really is that bad. I've read a bad received book over a good received book any day of the month, hence my not reading Battle Royale but spending five days trudging through Angel Star. That is complete bullshit. Saying things like this is what will get nobody to read your book. I outright have never even looked at the cover of The Magnolia League after what the authors said.

Any author whining about a four star review is an author I'll never be able to take seriously. Even if you're complaining about a one star review, at least that makes sense to a certain extent. But four stars? What is wrong with people?

As for ruining my chances with publishing...whoa, thanks, another scare tactic to make me mindlessly rate books five stars. And she can't seriously expect me to believe rating a book four stars will get me enemies in the publishing industry, right?


message 12: by [deleted user] (new)

Hey Mello! Apparently we're "in a gang" on top of being "trolls". Souldn't we find some secret gesture or something?


message 13: by Ceilidh (new)

Ceilidh The entry has since been locked or deleted so I'll post my response and Balog's reply to it here for you to read.

My reply:

Hi there. I feel like I have to step in and say something here.

I'm a blogger. I review YA books and I frequently do so on Goodreads (I also occasionally review plays.) Sometimes I am sarcastic and ranty, other times I am deeply analytical, although I personally do not feel that the two things are mutually exclusive. However, sarcasm and snark are subjective so of course this is a touchy area for many. My intentions, along with those of my many friends there, are simple: we are consumers. We want to know what books out there appeal to us and how effective they are in achieving their objectives. Yes, some of those reviews are creatively written, full of gifs, jokes and references. Sometimes these reviews can be seen as cruel but no more so than an extremely detailed and in-depth analysis of the same book. Sometimes we like to entertain each other. Yes, it's true that the snarky reviews are often the most popular. I myself have written a few in my time. For me, Goodreads is by consumers, for consumers. I know many authors frequent the site but I think it's important that a level of safety is given to the reviewers there, many of whom are aspiring writers.

I've written positive 4 star reviews as well as 3 star ones. The star rating is inherently flawed but it gives a good indication of a book's quality for many. I think it's extremely insulting to say one didn't like a book as much if they give a 4 star review instead of a 5 star one, or that the reader isn't going to be remembered as a "die-hard fan" by the author. Are you saying that authors will only appreciate the fans who unquestionably worship the ground they walk on? That's very unfair to readers. Books are expensive and the market is changing so rapidly. Any reader who decides to give their money to an author has the right to give their opinion on it, as do reviewers who receive advance copies, as I sometimes do. I think to refer to these groups of reviewers as trolls is extremely unfair. Do you have the same opinion of those on GR who give a book 5 stars without leaving a review? Or those who rate a book 5 stars before it's even released? Or the reviews comprised entirely of incoherent squealing, devoid of true critique?

The warning you gives reminds me a lot of Becca Fitzpatrick's "Be Nice" post, which I thought was an insulting piece that borderlined on blackmail. "...don't say I didnt warn you", you write. I don't feel that this is very professional. You have every right to refuse to give a cover quote to someone who reviewed you negatively, although I would hope you would take that author's book on its own merits (what is your opinion on authors who give their friends cover quotes? Do you feel that this is nepotism or is it acceptable?). But please do not issue this sort of 'warning' to reviewers and aspiring authors. It reeks of scare tactics. Goodreads isn't perfect but it's something reviewers need.

Anyway, that's all I have to say. I wish you nothing but the best but please reconsider what you've blogged about here today.


Their reply was:

Hi, friend! (I say that because that's what you are, regardless of whether we disagree):

I am taking it that you are a writer as well? Okay. I guess maybe I could have been clearer. Really, there are two types of people I'm talking about. First, it's those aspiring authors who might rate books using the star system. They may give a book 3 or 4 stars. That is perfectly fine, if that's what you want to do. BUT, I am not being insulting here, I am just being honest. Authors act strangely. You can not post anything in a public forum, just as I did here, without anticipating some sort of negative backlash. And I am just telling all aspiring authors that this MIGHT be the backlash they may receive. If they wish to do it anyway, the accept the possible consequences. And honestly, I am not speaking of my own experience. I have far too many 3 and 4 star (and lower!) ratings out in the world to care what those people think. But some authors, especially new ones, do talk about this. I'm stating a fact that I've learned among the authors I speak to. I'm sorry if you were offended; it was not my intention to insult. I'm just offering a friendly warning. Okay, warning may be too harsh. Let's call it a tip, because I want you to avoid any problems I've seen other new authors experience.

The next group of people are putting themselves in far more danger. They're the ones who are snarky and insulting. I gather from what you've written, in such a nice and inoffensive way, that you and your friends are NOT the kind of "trolls" I am referring to. I have seen some really horrid posts that go beyond poking fun at the book (which is fine and sometimes quite humorous), but aim more toward insulting the author's intellect. Now, that's just unfair. Part of being a reviewer is understanding that your review is subjective, and that if you don't like a book, there are bound to be many others who will appreciate it. But these reviews are just plain nasty. Now, if someone wants to write something like that, I liken it to having a facebook picture of one half-naked on a Vegas bar when you're up for a high-profile job. Kind of not a good idea, considering that prospective publishers DO Google. And publishing is a very small world. If a person is going to trash an author and their work, and then they end up requesting a blurb from that author's friend or on submission at that same publishing house... Things might get sticky.

I'm all for freedom of speech and an arena for friends to trade info about books... but when you do it publicly, you never know who is watching. Anyway, good luck to you! And thank you for opening up the discussion!! :)

XO, Cyn

P.S. I would never turn down any request for a blurb and would always read the material first and judge it on its own merit. But that's just me. That's not every author. I never pay attention to blurbs, though. So many of them are written by an author's "buddy". :)


message 14: by John (new)

John Egbert Alkyoni ~ Kingfisher of books wrote: "Hey Mello! Apparently we're "in a gang" on top of being "trolls". Souldn't we find some secret gesture or something?"

Hey Alkyoni! Woo hoo, secret handshake! Like this;
description


message 15: by John (new)

John Egbert I have seen some really horrid posts that go beyond poking fun at the book (which is fine and sometimes quite humorous), but aim more toward insulting the author's intellect. Now, that's just unfair. Part of being a reviewer is understanding that your review is subjective, and that if you don't like a book, there are bound to be many others who will appreciate it. But these reviews are just plain nasty. Now, if someone wants to write something like that, I liken it to having a facebook picture of one half-naked on a Vegas bar when you're up for a high-profile job.

I was all with her on the insulting the author's intelligence part (even though, to be honest, I think I have done that before) but wtf does a subjective review have to do with that? And then she compares writing a snarky review to uploading a half-naked picture of yourself on facebook?

Publishers do NOT spend a good thirty minutes making sure you've never written a snarky review before they publish your book. Saying otherwise not only sounds stupid, but it is stupid. Do publishers really give a fuck about a few snarky negative reviews? I really, really doubt it.


message 16: by Lucy (new)

Lucy I'm impressed Ceilidh response and underwhelmed by the author's answer. Blanket warnings that say 'or else' are not friendly advice outside of mafia movies. I'm lucky to have a career unrelated to all this hypocrisy. Maybe aspiring authors should just write reviews annoymously to avoid the repeatedly threatened backlash since even a three or four star rating, reviewless, will handicap you according to this woman.


message 17: by Kogiopsis (new)

Kogiopsis Katya: "Where is the line between a trollfest and constructive critisism?"

My guess: it's when someone takes Balog to task for one of her books. OMG TROLLZ.

Yeah, the rest of her books are going on my 'not with a ten foot pole' shelf. It's sad, because she did actually have potential IMHO, but if she can't respect her consumers (especially the aspiring authors, since she's litrally living their dream) I see no reason to spend time on her work.


message 18: by Ceilidh (new)

Ceilidh Thanks Lucy.

Katya wrote: "Oh, wait, I figured it out! It's because of this: http://theswivet.blogspot.com/2011/09...

Apparently, now that a liberal-minded author was WRONG we can all r..."


Wow, this could get messy. I don't have all the details on this case, but neither does anyone else it seems, but this may turn into a major he-said-she-said. Sherwood Smith is a highly respected author with a big fanbase & many series to her name. She's been a part of the industry for many years now and I do not for one moment see her deliberately spreading misinformation for publicity. That's a skeezy thing to say. At best I think there may have been some miscommunication between authors and editors. These things happen. If so, the issue should have been resolved privately without this mud slinging. And look at how many people were so quick to uncritically accept this other side of the story without questions. What is wrong with us? Have we lost the ability to ask questions?


message 19: by Kogiopsis (new)

Kogiopsis This is sort of a tangent, but I'm curious - is the behavior that Sherwood Smith alleged the kind that could get an editor on the wrong side of SFWA or another writers' organization? If so, I become veeeery suspicious of that second article.


message 20: by Ceilidh (new)

Ceilidh I'm not entirely sure, to be honest. Considering Smith never named the agent (she made a point of not doing so because she didn't want any one person to be the enemy in this case, like with Trisha Telep) it feels even more shady.


message 21: by Lucy (new)

Lucy She deleted it off her goodreads feed now too so the only copy I'm aware of is the one Kat posted here.


message 22: by Beth (new)

Beth Okay, this might come back and bite me on the ass (hey, Cyn!), but I want to say it, so I'm just going to come right out and say it:

I really could not give a fuck. And now I will proceed to spew my hater-haterade all over the blogspot, because I don't have a life and I am proud of it.

"Most authors hate goodreads. And with good reason. There are many trolls out there who can anonymously rip apart books with mean-spirited reviews and they seem to thrive upon finding the most creative and amusing ways to slam a novel. They love to get comments from other trolls, agreeing with them."

Let me just clarify here: "trolls" translates not as "people who give drive-by one-star ratings or blatantly did not read the book"...it translates as "anyone with an even SLIGHTLY negative opinion and dares to express that opinion in a vaguely creative way"? Does she have any idea how pro-censorship this sounds?

"It appears that there are gangs of these people who enjoy crafting negative reviews, complete with funny pictures and whatnot, which must take so much time it begs the question, "do these people have lives?"

No. No, we do not. But we like this. We ENJOY this. We like writing reviews and hearing fellow Goodreaders' opinions. Very few reviewers set out to hate a book. Sometimes I've started a book convinced that it's not for me, and come away with my MIND BLOWN. Sometimes I'll read something I'm convinced I was going to like, and come away bitterly disappointed. Books are emotive things -- why the hell shouldn't we have a place to discuss our feelings? (Hahaha, I'm making GR sound like a therapy group. Group hug?)

And now I am going to make a very cruel comment: Balog is a writer. I love writers. I personally want to be one. But -- writing isn't exactly microbiology or physics. We're not curing cancer. You could very well ask the same question ("do these people have lives?") of writers, too. What are they doing, sitting in front of a PC and fantasising instead of living? Yes, I'm playing devil's advocate, but I'm sick of all these writers who think that this is som touchy feely arts and crafts groups where we're supposed to clap and laud praise upon a work we think is a piece of shit?

No, it does not work that way. No world works that way and I think, the sooner we learn to view the publishing world the same way that we would view, say, the law or medical world, the better. As soon as a paper is published in the law world, people set out trying to tear it apart and argue about it. The literature world isn't so cutthroat, but I can't help but strongly dislike these writers who think they have a God-given right to five star reviews across the board just because they are BEARING A PART OF THEIR SOUL!!! Grow up.


message 23: by John (new)

John Egbert I really could not give a fuck. And now I will proceed to spew my hater-haterade all over the blogspot, because I don't have a life and I am proud of it.

;___;

So much win...


message 24: by [deleted user] (new)

Mello wrote: "Alkyoni ~ Kingfisher of books wrote: "Hey Mello! Apparently we're "in a gang" on top of being "trolls". Souldn't we find some secret gesture or something?"

Hey Alkyoni! Woo hoo, secret handshake! ..."


Man this is the coolest secret handshake ever!
If authors get so damn hurt from bad reviews then maybe it's THEM who should get a life. And an other job too while they are at it.


message 25: by [deleted user] (new)

Hmmm, hadn't considered that.
Then maybe they should get more sun. Maybe then they'll even sprout braincells.
I... hope?


message 26: by Misty (new)

Misty I think my favorite piece of bs in the crap mountain is that she first questions whether "these reviewers" have lives when they spend all this time finding funny images for their reviews, but then goes on to say that an author who sees a 4 star rating for their book is going to click on the reviewers shelves and pour over them, comparing what got 4 stars and what got 5...

Which group was it that had no lives, again? Snarky reviewers or neurotic stalkers authors?


message 27: by Katie(babs) (new)

Katie(babs) Again, why would someone post something and then delete it? if you post it, stand by it and take what comes your way.


message 28: by Kat Kennedy (new)

Kat Kennedy Well, the answer seems to be that she is categorically incapable of keeping her foot out of her mouth.


message 29: by Jill (new)

Jill Sorenson I wish authors would stop saying Be Nice or Watch Out!! It's insulting to those of us who CAN handle criticism like mature adults.


message 30: by Kate (new)

Kate Copeseeley I'm with Cillian, Beth- that was probably the best summation ever. I'm so tired of these authors that can't get over themselves. It's a freaking STORY for gosh sakes. I mean, do we put that much weight on music? No. Geez.


back to top