The Farmer and the Cowman — by Josh Lanyon
April 12, 2011
169 Comments
/ 4,322 views
But the farmer and the cowman should be friends.
Oh, the farmer and the cowman should be friends.
The cowman ropes a cow with ease, the farmer steals her butter and cheese, but that’s no reason why they can’t be friends.
Oklahoma, Rodgers and Hammerstein
We’ve all seen the movie — no, not Oklahoma. The movie where the artist — sometimes an actor, sometimes a playwright, sometimes a painter, sometimes a novelist — is lying in bed with breakfast tray and newspapers…plumped by pillows like an invalid waiting to hear the doctor’s prognosis. Except in this case it’s the first night reviews the artist is awaiting. Depending on the film, the reviews are either the validation the artist has been slaving for — or soul crushing defeat (hide the sleeping pills). This iconic Hollywood image fosters the long cherished belief that reviews make or break a writer/painter/actor/concert pianist’s career, and it’s one reason artists occasionally (okay, often) grow unhinged on the topic.
Reviews are important, no argument there, but their role isn’t quite that cut and dried.
There has always been the peculiar dichotomy of the commercial success and critical failure. The film or book or, er, Thomas Kinkade — the work or artist that “people” can’t get enough of, and critics deplore. We’ve seen plenty of that in movies too. The tormented genius killing himself because the critics Just Don’t Get It. In Hollywood, it turns out the critics were always wrong and the deceased ultimately gets the accolades he deserves. Deserved.
In real life? Comme ci, comme ca. Reviews are subjective. Oh, sure, we all secretly believe that our subjective view is the correct and knowledgeable one, but we usually know enough to at least pretend we accept that our opinion is simply that. Equally subjective — as in sign me up for the Braille Institute — are the views of authors for their own work.
Two weeks ago the web was abuzz with yet another writer having a public meltdown over a review. This one got particularly ugly, affording much malicious merriment up and down the intertubes. It’s yet another volley in what increasingly looks like an ongoing battle in the war between reviewers and authors. Even I, who don’t get out much, can hardly fail to notice the increase in posts from both writers and reviewers whining that the other side doesn’t appreciate them enough, which made me think this might be a good, timely topic for a column.
* * * *
Early last year I decided to stop reading reviews of my work. That’s like trying to find the strength to walk away when you accidentally eavesdrop on someone talking about you. It’s not easy. The temptation is to listen in — especially when people are saying nice things.
But 2010 was already a stressful year and what I’d discovered was that even a stray negative comment in an otherwise positive review could be unexpectedly demoralizing — and positive reviews were starting to make me self-conscious about my craft. Either way, good or bad, I was finding the constant buzz of opinion, the white noise of the Internet, increasingly distracting — and influential.
That’s a bad thing for a writer. A very bad thing. Writers should not be writing in the hope of pleasing some imaginary audience. First and foremost, you write to please yourself, then you try to find the right publisher for the kind of thing you write, and then you promote in the hope of finding enough readers who share your same love of stories. (You’ll notice reviews come at the end of the process, not the beginning.)
I was also finding the role of this new brand of blogger-reviewer confusing. These days any goof with a computer and a credit card can call herself an Author, but so too can any goof with a computer and Internet access call herself a Reviewer. It’s all about the DIY. Way back when I first started publishing, reviews were formal affairs. Reviewers were paid professionals. Reviews appeared in newspapers and periodicals. They were flattering or unflattering, fair or unfair, but either way, they were most assuredly impersonal. Most of us (who weren’t part of the New York literary scene) never knew the reviewers. They were not “friends.” They were not even acquaintances. Okay, occasionally we bumped into each other at conferences and drinks and viewpoints were exchanged. The Internet changed all that. Everyone who has a blog or an Amazon or Goodreads account is now a potential literary critic. So it’s quite easy to find that an Internet “friend” has said something (maybe inadvertently) hurtful or (we fear) damaging in a “review.”
In fact, reviewers who are also internet friends are often the most hurtful and oblivious in their effort to avoid the dreaded “gushing,” to distance their reviewing from the friendship. Just as fiction writers desperately want to be taken seriously, so do writers of reviews. Plus we live in a society that places ridiculous amount of importance on opinions. My opinion right or wrong! is the battle cry of an uninformed generation be the topic health care or literary criticism.
And, strictly speaking, it’s true that we are all entitled to our opinion — and to share that opinion. We have a right to speak our mind without fear of being intimidated or bullied. Unfortunately, that’s sometimes interpreted to mean we have a right to offer our opinions and never have them challenged at all. That’s not correct. That’s an attitude that breeds ignorance and arrogance. If your formal education taught you anything, it should be that we must always be able to defend and support our opinions with reason and logic.
Without reason and logic to base our opinions on, we prove the truth of the adage opinions are like assholes: everyone has one. Without reason and logic, assholes and opinions produce the same result.
Wave can feel free to post one of her attractive, anatomically correct photos right about here. [I tried to post a lovely picture but the censors wouldn't let me 
]
To further complicate the modern relationship between reviewers and writers — especially in this genre — many of our blogger-reviewers are themselves aspiring writers. It makes sense because one of the best tools for honing your craft is to learn to read analytically. But as we can all testify, there is no one more critical than the ambitious neophyte or the envious peer.
(I’m not saying don’t review. I’m saying, be smart. Be wise. Don’t take your frustrations out in your reviews. If you think networking doesn’t matter and that talent alone will carry the day, you really do have a lot to learn. And a lonely row to hoe.)
Likewise, the reviewer who turns writer and is now being reviewed by her cronies, is liable to experience that same painstaking care in distancing the friendship from the reviewing. And that’s awkward because the role of a friend is that of supporter and comforter, not critic. Getting a three star review from a best friend hurts. Period. It is not the cement of deeper, truer friendships.
Of course we all remind ourselves — repeatedly — that reviews are not personal. But writing a book or a play or a poem isn’t like building a dog house or generating a sales report. If you want to tell me my math is wrong or my floor isn’t level, I’m not going to take it personally. I can see the truth for myself. If you tell me my characters are all the same, I’m going to be offended and I’m going to think that perhaps — unlike my faulty math — that’s a matter of opinion.
And so it is. Much of reviewing is subjective. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t insist that you have a right to your opinion, whatever it is and regardless of your qualifications, and then insist that your opinion is not subjective. Most aspects of literature — up to and including various grammatical fine points — are a matter of taste and style. Beyond type face, there is little black and white in literature.
A long while back I read a post by someone who took umbrage to writers rejecting criticism because they felt the reviewer didn’t “get it.” But of course this is the truth. We all bring our personal experiences, emotional baggage, and our widely ranging literary backgrounds (i.e. education) to everything we read. Just as we don’t all have the same sense of humor or share the same sensibility about what is “romantic” or “sexy,” we don’t all share the same taste/appreciation/understanding of everything we read. We don’t all “get” every book we read.
You would have to be an ego-maniac to believe your reading and your reading alone is the only correct reading of any text. This is why two equally respected reviewers can somehow give opposite grades to the same book.
Let’s talk about respect for reviewers. Like writers, some reviewers are regarded more highly than others. Their opinion carries more weight; more people listen to them and are presumably influenced by them. Setting aside the fact that we tend to think the people who agree with us are smarter than those who don’t, we consider reviewers to be good at their job based on two things: when they plainly know one heck of a lot about the subject matter under review and when they can elegantly and articulately spell out how most people will feel about a given work. In other words, there’s a certain amount of pressure on critics to define what makes something good (or bad), and to successfully predict both what will be popular and what other (knowledgeable) critics will think.
For a reviewer to have credibility he or she has to get it right most of the time. This requires knowing a lot about whatever the art form is, and also possessing an internal gauge for intuiting how others are going to feel about the work. Sometimes the reviewer will knowingly and deliberately buck the tide of what is popular, foreseeing genius before anyone else, but generally the “best” reviewers are in sync with their peers and their public.
Book reviewers are the advocates of readers. In essence, theirs is the business of matching the right book to the right reader. Although this purpose sometimes aligns with that of writers, it doesn’t always. This is why it’s vital that writers not look to reviewers for validation.
But that’s easier said than done.
The problem with storytelling is it’s a two-way street. The decision to share a story seems to require a response, a reassurance that someone is out there reading, reacting. That’s where writers get into trouble.
Validation should come from the fact that someone is willing to publish you — and many people are willing to buy your work. That’s your validation right there. But of course we want more. We want to hear what readers thought of our work. We want, in short, to hear good things. We want to know that it matters to someone whether we keep sharing our stories.
This is it in a nutshell. We write for ourselves. We publish for others.
Reviewers will justify snarky, even cruel, comments by pointing out that reviews are for readers and not writers.
This is the truth. This is God’s own truth. Writers need to accept it.
And so do reviewers.
It’s interesting how flustered and even irritable some reviewers get when writers state that they don’t read reviews — let alone when they urge other writers not to read their own reviews. It can be a real conflict for reviewers, because while reviewers want to be free to write anything they like and not have to deal with hurt or offended writers, at the same time some do seem to resent the idea that writers might feel it’s not important or useful to read reviews of their work.
Here we have a dichotomy — and here we have, I think, the source of conflict between writers and reviewers in our cozy little corner of the literary universe.
Just as writers mistakenly look to reviewers for validation, so do reviewers mistakenly regard their own role.
A reviewer is not a writing teacher or an editor. It is not the reviewer’s job to teach a writer his craft. The reviewer may or may not be qualified to teach writing, but the role of a review is not that of manuscript evaluation.
The writer should not be looking to a reviewer for editorial advice anymore than she should be seeking validation. So while a reviewer might believe a writer could learn something from her reviews, she should not be miffed because the writer declines to read that which should be directed toward readers.
A reviewer is not a marketing manager or PR person. Writers use reviews as promotional tools, which is one reason they get so frazzled over “bad” reviews. We forget that the review does not exist to sell more books for us. But reviewers also forget this.
In recent months I’ve heard reviewers saying bitter things about writers who don’t seem to appreciate “all that we’ve done for them.”
Reviewers should recommend the books they like and explain why they don’t like the books they don’t like. They should not expect anything for this — including special attention from writers.
I’ve heard many online reviewers saying they like it when writers acknowledge their reviews. That it makes them feel like their work — and reviewing is work — is being appreciated. But there’s a problem with this. The problem is an expectation of gratitude on the part of the writer means the reviewer is becoming part of a process she or he has no business being part of. The reviewer is now starting to view herself as part of a writer’s success. This not only leads to delusions of grandeur on the part of the reviewer, it means the writer begins to be beholden to the reviewer. I don’t need to tell you how undesirable this dynamic is.
Also how warped. Reviews are one piece of the promotional puzzle. There are many pieces in that puzzle.
While on the surface this chatty new casual interactive writer/reviewer relationship looks fun and gratifying for all concerned, we’re forgetting how humans work. Think about it. We create an environment where writers and reviewers openly, honestly chat about all kinds of things related to the writing process. At some point we mention in passing to our reviewer friends that we struggled with this particular book. And then in a review, the reviewer quotes the author and the reviewer goes on to say…and that struggle shows. Does the struggle show or is the reviewer merely reaching for something original to say about a book? Did the author’s online revelations color the reviewer’s perception? Would an author feel betrayed by having something mentioned in friendly open discourse used against her in a review?
Here’s another problem with that scenario. Writers and reviewers openly chat about everything under the sun — including their good reviews — but along comes a not-so-flattering review and writers are suddenly supposed to zip it. We are to be visibly grateful in public for good reviews and nobly suck it up if the review is bad? And the reviewer is supposed to somehow be totally impartial while fully aware the writer is watching?
Do I honestly need to point out that this is utterly unrealistic? Humans don’t operate like this.
Very simply, writers and reviewers need to preserve a friendly, professional distance. Good friends should recuse themselves from reviewing, and cyber friends should not be wounded when writers don’t drop by to make nice-nice over reviews. Especially lukewarm reviews. We can still play together with interviews and contests and all that good stuff, but for the sake of everyone’s sanity we need to remember our separate roles in the writing and reviewing process.
The Internet is changing publishing — it’s also changing the role of the reviewer. Literary criticism is in as big a flux as every other aspect of publishing. It’s suffering growing pains too. For an excellent overview of the topic, I recommend a series of essays in The New York Times titled Why Criticism Matters. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/02/books/review/Roiphe-t-web.html?scp=4&sq=role%20of%20reviewer&st=cse
Reviewing serves a vital function for readers and writers both — inarguably — but the aims and goals of writers and reviewers do not always coincide, except in that both are committed to the ideal of quality work within a genre.
Bad reviews. We all know how writers are supposed to behave regarding bad reviews. Chin up, stiff upper lip, a gritted thank you for the review (no matter how unflattering) in public. Very old school, that idea. One of the problems with the greater accessibility between writers and readers is that writers no longer regard reviewers as minor but untouchable deities. Bob the Blogger is not Marilyn Stasio, and only Bob imagines that he deserves the same respect. With a click of the button we can email Bob and tell him exactly what we think of him and his misspelled thoughts on our magnum dopus.
Even so, a wise writer will ignore a bad review. It’s really simple. DON’T RESPOND. Ignore it and it will go away. Guaranteed.
But even if it lingers forever like smoke damage on a particular title, it doesn’t matter. One review is not going to make or break you. I know how hard it is to believe this, but even if it’s your very first review ever, one review will not make or break you. I know the panic that you feel, the growing tightness in your chest, the black dots dancing before your eyes as reader after reader chirps, “Great review, SuzieQ, I think I’ll give this one a miss!” Odds are, they weren’t going to buy your book anyway. And, as I know to my cost, if the book is the kind of thing that tickles the reader fancy, all the dire warning reviews in the world won’t save her. Sometimes the poor fool is actually intrigued by them.
Don’t whine in public about bad reviews. I’m not saying don’t bitch and complain, but do it in private to your trusted circle. Don’t use it as a transparent promotional op as I’ve seen done so many times. Oh yeah, you’ll garner some knee jerk sympathy, but you still look like a big fat baby to the silent majority of observers. And it inevitably gets back to the reviewer who inevitably thinks you’re being ungrateful and inevitably blah-blah-blogs about the ingratitude of arrogant writers who shouldn’t publish if they can’t take criticism.
(And yes, we all see the irony.)
Having said that, remember my mention earlier of the latest writer to have a public meltdown over a review? This was followed by dire predictions that her career was over. Not likely. If anything, her sales jumped big time. Furthermore, do you remember the author’s name? I don’t. I’m guessing that by now the vast majority of us have forgotten her name. Oh, a handful of reviewers have her on their Eternal Blacklist, but so what? If the books are good enough, word of mouth will see her through. And if she’s not, all the glowing reviews in the world (made up and otherwise) won’t save her.
* * * *
One of the best things about the way the Internet is changing how we all do business, is that, though print review venues are continuing to fold, cyber review venues are springing up like mushrooms. So although it feels like it takes forever to start getting reviews, once you score a couple, more will follow. Many, many more. And pretty soon the ping pong of opinion will begin.
It’s brilliant!
It sucks!
I couldn’t finish it.
I couldn’t put it down.
Relax. The consensus opinion of your work will level out. Don’t quit your day job when you get a rave review, and don’t reach for the razor blades when you get a bad one. Everyone gets their share of both. Every single one of us. The only writer who hasn’t received a bad review is the writer who hasn’t been around very long.
I think it helps if you can look at all this blogging and book-talking less as “reviewing” and more like cyber bookclubs. The tone of most of these blogs and reviews is breezy and informal, and it seems to be a lot of the same people talking to each other in something that’s surely as much social event as literary criticism. If you look at it this way, as casual online book discussion, and less as some cowled, faceless entity laughing hollowly as she rips your dreams of a writing career to bloody shreds, I think the occasional and inevitable negative postings will be a lot easier to take.
And if you can’t take it, do yourself a favor and don’t look.
Whatever you decide, never forget that the Internet is forever. So think twice before you post the death threats. Save those sweet thoughts for the Black Mass.
But this column isn’t just about writers. Ultra-touchy writers aren’t the only problem in this brave new world of ours. We have equally touchy reviewers. In fact, part of the new paradigm is we have instances of reviewers attempting to punish and even ruin writers who don’t behave as the reviewers believe they ought. I hate to break it to those who believe that reviewers have always perched on a marble pedestal protected by an impenetrable force field, but writers have been taking public whacks at reviewers since the invention of the printing press, and it isn’t their ferocious feuds with reviewers for which we remember Byron, Hemingway, Steinbeck, Capote, Irving, etc.
No, I’m not Hemingway. But let’s face it. You’re not whoever Hemingway was tearing a new A-hole.
What was that guy’s name again?
Deliberately trying to destroy someone professionally because they annoy you (coz, that’s what it ultimately gets down to) ranks high on the stuff-you-don’t-want-on-your-soul-if-you-get-hit-by-a-bus-this-week meter.
My advice to reviewers is the same as my advice to authors: Get over yourself. In the big picture of things we’re none of us even a blip on the radar.
One of the things that will go a long way toward healing the current breach between reviewers and writers is a responsible and professional attitude on the part of reviewers.
Instead of that defensive, it’s my opinion! the best reviewers hold themselves to the same standards they do writers of fiction. That’s admirable. Perhaps we could all do the same and hold reviewers to the same standards we do all writers of non-fiction. After all, if you publish something, if you put your work out in public, you must expect to have it critiqued, correct? This is what we fiction writers are told. If you put you work out there, you must be prepared to have it criticized. And yet in some circles, to criticize a critic — to even correct a critic on an inaccuracy — is considered a crime nearly as heinous as eating baby flesh.
Here’s what I, as an author, would ask of reviewers of my work. I would ask that you actually read the book and judge the book on its own individual merits. I would ask that you support your opinions — particularly negative opinions — with examples. There’s a great deal of laziness in reviewing. Reviewers avoid supporting opinions by claiming they don’t want to give “spoilers.” In order to discuss a book in any depth, you’re going to have to give a few things away. Readers who don’t want spoilers need to avoid those reviews until after they’ve read the book.
That’s potentially hard on those reviewers who want to see themselves as powerhouses within the star-making process, but that’s what needs to happen.
Secondly, reviewers need to do their own research. How often have I read a review where a reviewer challenges the writer’s research with some fool comment like…although I know nothing of mountain climbing, I’m sure this description of scaling Everest can’t be correct. We all need to do our research. And if you’re not willing to do the research, then don’t speculate on something which you acknowledge you know nothing of.
Thirdly, unless you’re Dear Author with the rhetorical letter to the writer bit, don’t address the author in your review. It’s weird to me, as an author, to read someone pleading Dear Josh Lanyon, please don’t ever write in first person POV again. A review is not a conversational gambit. If you’ve got something you want to say to me, write me. I’m not hard to find. But I’m not going to engage in a public debate with you about my work. If you’re writing a review in the hope of convincing an author to do X, Y, or Z, you’d have a better shot contacting her directly because, if she’s like me, she’s not reading her reviews, and if she is unwise enough to read, she’s hopefully smart enough not to respond.
I happened to mention this column to a reviewer friend of mine. Her view is that writers have created a monster by breaking the long established taboo of interacting with reviewers. She’s right. A blogger writes a nice review and we’re hopeful that here’s someone with a shared understanding, someone who gets it, who gets us. We want to encourage that. We want to reward her. We want to recommend her blog and send her more books. The problem is, if you acknowledge some reviewers but not all reviewers it looks like favoritism. If you only drop by for your own reviews, you’re accused of “using” the reviewer. If you acknowledge good reviews but ignore bad reviews, you’re pressuring reviewers (i.e., we’ll only come to the sandbox if you play nice). We need to stay the hell out of the sandbox and get back to the merry-go-round where we belong.
Writers do appreciate reviews and all the hard work that goes into them. There’s no greater pleasure than a well-written, glowing review — or just honest, heartfelt enthusiasm. It’s one of the perks of the job. And I mean that sincerely. I’ve read comments in reviews of my own work so insightful they’ve made me see my work anew. Or so complimentary they’ve choked me up. I’ve had reviews inspire me to keep writing when I truly thought it was time to throw in the towel. Positive reviews act as the instant antidote for poisonous reviews.
Also, just because I recommend writers don’t read their own reviews, doesn’t mean I don’t love and read reviews. I love reviews. I read reviews all the time. I’m delighted when a friend gets a great review. I’m guiltily amused by smart, wickedly funny negative reviews.
Of course writers understand the importance of reviews. Of course we value the reviewer’s contribution to publishing and our own careers. That doesn’t mean that we agree with everything you write, or that we’re automatically and always wrong when we disagree — anymore than you are wrong every time you criticize a work of fiction.
Can the farmer and the cowman be friends? Some of my closest friendships — both on and off the net — are with people who started out reviewing my work. Sure we can be friends, but we need to take the pressure off that friendship. It’ll be easier if we keep in mind that while we do not exist independently of each other, what we need from the relationship are different things. What is best for the writer may not be what’s best for the reviewer — and vice versa. Let’s remember and be tolerant of the fact that both sides have a tendency to take themselves too seriously, that we can all be replaced, and that we’ve all got feelings and egos — and that caring about other people’s feelings is the sign of an evolved personality.
In the greater scheme of things, people matter more than books, let alone reviews of books.
Having said all this, I hear plenty of writers saying that they learn a lot from reviews, and I guess if the message of the reviews is consistent, that’s quite possible. Certainly, if you read reviews, you should be looking for the consensus of opinion. I also think that how we view things like reviews changes depending on where we are in our writing career — and our own personalities. Some of us can hear that we are the God of M/M writing and it wouldn’t go to our head. Some of us can hear we should give up writing before we do any more harm to Literature, and not be a whit discouraged. There is no wrong or right answer; there is only what works for you.
The relationship between writers and literary critics is as old as the Epic of Gilgamesh. Yep, somewhere in ancient Mesopotamia, some critic was complaining that Gilgamesh’s motivations were weak and that killing off Enkidu guaranteed the reviewer would NOT be reading the sequel. Even if we don’t always like each other, it helps to keep in mind that we do need each other. We may not manage to be friends, but we don’t have to be adversaries if both sides maintain critical standards, hold themselves accountable for their actions, and behave with professionalism.
Author Information
Wave
Madonna196
Bogusia
Larissa
Sirius
“Thirdly, unless you’re Dear Author with the rhetorical letter to the writer bit, don’t address the author in your review. It’s weird to me, as an author, to read someone pleading Dear Josh Lanyon, please don’t ever write in first person POV again. A review is not a conversational gambit.”
A review can be a mental note to the author as with anything else a review can be packaged any way you want it to be.
Reviews have no rules and I don’t particularly want you providing rules actually.
I do not consider addressing an author in a review wrong I take it as rhetorical. Smart people understand what rhetorical means and I do not think they need you saying do not do it since they know they can and they should be able to any time they want.
Are you suddenly making it socially unacceptable and wrong or are you placing limits where none should be anyway.
Are you suddenly making it socially unacceptable and wrong or are you placing limits where none should be anyway.
Neither. I’m not attempting to establish “rules” about reviewing. I’m offering a personal perspective on the current situation which seems to be a little tense.
Am I not allowed to say what doesn’t work for me in reviews even in the context of discussing what doesn’t work for me in reviews?
Wouldn’t that be sort of like what you’re accusing me of trying to do to reviewers?
As I said, no reviewer has ever asked for my opinion. Nor do they need to.
No I saw it as advice that was so generalized it pertained to no one in particular.
You yourself say if you want to critique me in a useful fashion “give examples”.
Yet you are critiquing what I do and not providing anything even remotely useful like that.
Yet you are critiquing what I do and not providing anything even remotely useful like that.
Because the point of this isn’t to teach reviewers how to do their job.
The point is to reassure authors they don’t *need* to read reviews. It’s not part of the job description unless they want it to be.
And the other point is to offer reviewers a little perspective from the standpoint of an author who *isn’t* currently ranting and raving about a particular review — because that’s the only time this comes up. In heated discussion over a particular review or reviewer or author.
Is there some problem just discussing the relationship between reviewers and writers without having some big confrontation?
Because that’s all this is. A discussion of the new and changing relationship between reviewers and authors. It’s a changing dynamic.
My column, as usual, is just the starting point for the discussion.
Well if that was meta commentary I must have missed the “don’t address the author in your review” part as being some provided example of what not to say.
Because different reviewers do have different motives for reviewing. I did use to stumble across reviews where the reviewer was indeed asking me to do something different or posing questions that did not seem to be merely rhetorical. And sometimes I would respond but mostly I wouldn’t because inevitably it’s going to look like I’m trying to defend my work. Even if I’m just answering a question or explaining why I chose to use one technique over another.
I don’t think of your reviews as traditional reviews. They’re often interactive or they’re essays on an issue you see in gay romance or m/m fiction and you happen to be using a book or a couple of books as illustration.
That’s a different kind of thing.
Right my “style” is not really review worthy but simply generalized commentary I understand that I let people know about that.
I make sure people constantly know my reviews basically suck because I do not follow a formula but my reactions. I have read great reviewers and yet they do not follow your provided guidelines either.
Your advice is VERY “writer centric” and probably should be viewed as such and you should caution folks to not use what you have said as a guideline outside of this format.
Sorry, Teddypig. I honestly don’t know what “guidelines” you think I’ve given other than asking reviewers to read the book and to explain when they like or don’t like something.
And since you do both those things — and any good reviewer does both those things — I’m not clear on what is writer-centric?
I’m also not clear why you think that my saying your reviews are interactive or that you address issues in m/m fiction through critical essays is somehow a negative?
I consider those positives. They’re part of what makes your site individual.
Here is the honest to goodness truth. I *wish* all writers did same thing you started doing and never read the reviews, positive or negative. I would *never* ever assume that my review is going to teach author anything and I get very uncomfortable when I see author commenting on my reviews on Amazon. I only share my tastes or distastes with other readers and absolutely do not care whether author would read the review. And if I address the author in my review, believe me it is rhetorical, I do not want and do not expect the author actually answering me.
I mean, it is nice to hear thank you, but if that means that next time when I found something in the book I did not like you are going to give me a lecture, I would much rather not have that thank you. Honest.
Oh and no, while I most certainly want reader or author to correct me if I got the facts of the book wrong, I do not think author should offer their opinions as to the reviewer *not getting* anything more subjective in their book wrong. Not because I mind being challenged and argue about the book, quite the contrary. I actually say it because I think author is the only one who would end up looking silly. I am not getting paid for reviews, *you* however (or any author) want to sell your book, right? So of course *you* (generic author) would want to tell me that I did not *get* what you were trying to say. It is your right to do it of course, my only answer will be that maybe if I did not get it, you should have written it more clearly and that would be it. But no, while I love arguing about the book, when I see authors doing it on other negative reviews, I roll my eyes.
I get very uncomfortable when I see author commenting on my reviews on Amazon. I only share my tastes or distastes with other readers
I think part of why writers started responding to reviews — I know it’s one reason I initially would try and thank reviewers on Amazon — was the community format. Writers were blogging and participating on discussion threads there, and so it seemed informal and more like maybe a casual discussion.
And maybe there was a time when that worked better than it does now. But there seem to be so many incidents as of late. Irate writers. Irate reviewers.
Clearly we all have different expectations, and I think we’re all of us having to figure out the best way to interact.
I write reviews because I like to talk about the books with other readers, period. The author does not come into the equation anywhere in my head, I do not want to teach author anything. Why would I want to do that? I am not qualified to teach author anything, I am an ESL reader and reviewer who still makes grammarmistakes. Trust me I do not have the delusions of grandeur lol. And even if I had literary critique ambitions and was qualified to do it, I would not have wanted to do it, too wierd and uncomfortable. I think author should write what the muses tell her, not hoping to please the readers and the audience will always find them. So if I were to issue the plea to the authors would be something like that, I certainly like chatting to you guys not about the reviews, but could you please let me discuss your books with other readers (that of course includes authors who wear their reading hats) without interfering? Of course again, free speech goes both ways and if you want to say the reviewer was stupid and did not uncover the hidden intent of your book, it is your right and prerrogative. I know what *I* think when I read comments’ like that and that makes me think that there are at least some readers who think the same thing.
Trying to argue with a reviewer about a book (your own book, I mean) is like trying to argue religion with someone.
It’s a waste of energy and the other person almost always feels attacked for what is, after all, a personal belief.
Of course some reviewers like to be thanked, but my point is, they shouldn’t feel slighted if authors aren’t comfortable interacting.
But my point is that I do not *want* to be thanked if that means that next time author will decide to lecture me about not getting finer points of the book. I guess your point was very surprising to me, since I am more than happy to never interact with the author if interaction means not just thanks but arguing over the bad reviews. I take thanks *reluctantly*, I never seek them out and most definitely do not feel slighted if author does not feel comfortable interacting.
Right. Exactly right. Plus, I think it makes the reviewer too self-conscious when they know the writer is watching, waiting for a review. That puts too much pressure on the reviewer. In my opinion.
But different reviewers want different things.
Do you review outside Amazon? I think of the blogs as a different sort of format — they’re geared more to social interaction. And there’s a wide variety of “reviewing” from the most informal to pretty serious stuff.
For example, I’ve always thought of Teddypig as much an essayist as reviewer, so his interactions with writers aren’t quite the same as you’d find in a strict, formal review.
Dear Author addresses the author but they do so in a very traditional, in-depth format. Occasionally funny, but the gist of the reviewing is always quite serious.
But then we have every other conceivable variation, too. Some are brilliant and in-depth and some are no more than a sentence as someone cranks through as many books as possible in a month.
There is no setting hard and fast rules on this kind of thing — which is kind of my point. The old rules are gone and we have yet to work out the new etiquette between reviewers and writers.
Yes, I recently started reviewing on this site as well. And while I think that reviewing here means holding myself to much higher standards, my expectations, what I want to get from reviewing are the same. I want to discuss the books with other readers, it always was my favorite hobby and here while expectations are higher more people may want to interact. Sure, reviewers wat different things, I can only speak for myself what I want to get out of the reviewing.
what I want to get from reviewing are the same. I want to discuss the books with other readers, it always was my favorite hobby and here while expectations are higher more people may want to interact.
I think that’s the case for a lot of bloggers. They’re basically discussing books they liked or didn’t like with their blogger friends and here comes an outraged author shrieking at them out of the blue over a “review.”
So then the blogger is outraged over everything from violation of freedom of speech to authors “stalking” them. Meanwhile the author is outraged over perceived inaccuracies within the review and so on and so on and so on.
I think the ability to Google oneself is one of the worst things that ever happened to authors.
“Trying to argue with a reviewer about a book (your own book, I mean) is like trying to argue religion with someone.
It’s a waste of energy and the other person almost always feels attacked for what is, after all, a personal belief.”
damn,
like all good summations, that’s simple, to the point and true — or feels right at any rate. I’m going to go all around the internet repeating that.
Thanks, Kate. It would be nice to have fewer explosions.
Maybe it all comes down to how very seriously we take our stories. People are passionate when it comes to fiction.
You are always the voice of reason. I have been shocked at all the negativity in reviews/responses lately and have stopped following blogs I used to enjoy because of it. It’s a shame really. It’s just uncomfortable to watch someone you respected melt-down.
This is a great article Josh!! I give it 5 stars…..and highly recommend to people who love this author!!! *g*
LOL. Thank you, Lori. I treasure this review.
It does feel very…fragile out here lately. Nearly every week sees someone posting emotionally and angrily on the topic.
It seems like we could have a reasoned discussion on the topic without anyone taking it too personally. Of course I could be wrong about that — but then that would ultimately prove my point.
Back when I was a newbie reviewer (which feels like decades ago but is actually less than 3 years
) the only traffic I got to my blog was from authors saying thank you for my reviews. I actually cherished those comments because it showed that people were reading my reviews! I also think that those comments helped shape me as a reviewer – I learned to temper my comments, to be reasonable and not snarky, to explain as much as possible any negative comments because whilst I wasn’t going to be anything less than honest, I didn’t want to forget that there’s a human being behind the book I was reviewing.
That still holds today, now that I am a superstar reviewer(HA! Nothing could be further from the truth
) although I no longer expect a comment from authors on my reviews. In fact I think I’d rather authors didn’t comment, especially if I’ve had to be very negative because it embarrasses me when an author thanks me for a review that I know must have been very painful for them to read.
As for whether it’s my job to make suggestions to the author over written style. I suppose I do that indirectly every time I point out bad writing in any form that impinged on my enjoyment of a book. By warning the reader, I am also suggesting that it’s something that the author may want to look at in their next book. Then again what I consider bad writing may be vastly different from another reader – hence your example of first person narrative. It works for me, but I know people who won’t even look at a book written in that narrative style. It’s then up to the author as to whether they consider it a serious enough point to want to amend in any future writing. Of course if the author doesn’t read the review or any reviews of their books then they’ll never know.
And now I’m rambling
.
Anyway, my main point is this: It’s entirely up to authors whether they read my reviews or not. If they do, then thank you for taking the time to read my review, especially as I have paid for and spent my time reading your book and then offered up my unpaid opinion of it. If not, then that’s fine too.
Food for thought today, Josh. Thanks for taking the time to give your opinion.
the only traffic I got to my blog was from authors saying thank you for my reviews. I actually cherished those comments because it showed that people were reading my reviews!
This is very common. And maybe it’s partly why authors get resentful when a reviewer they’ve championed then take it into their heads to criticize the author. WE MADE YOU WHAT YOU ARE TODAY.
Okay, maybe not that serious, but there is (potentially) an uncomfortable dynamic.
I also think that those comments helped shape me as a reviewer – I learned to temper my comments, to be reasonable and not snarky, to explain as much as possible any negative comments because whilst I wasn’t going to be anything less than honest, I didn’t want to forget that there’s a human being behind the book I was reviewing.
Sure. Plus snarky gets laughs, but rarely does it get respect. And I think reviewers do wish to be respected by their reviewing peers. I know they do, having observed them in their natural habitat.
That still holds today, now that I am a superstar reviewer(HA! Nothing could be further from the truth ) although I no longer expect a comment from authors on my reviews. In fact I think I’d rather authors didn’t comment, especially if I’ve had to be very negative because it embarrasses me when an author thanks me for a review that I know must have been very painful for them to read.
I think this is a natural evolution. Reviewers start out flattered that An Author has responded, but then the reviewer builds her own reputation and begins to feel constrained as she feels the need to spread her reviewing wings without worrying about what the author might think or feel.
That’s natural.
As for whether it’s my job to make suggestions to the author over written style. I suppose I do that indirectly every time I point out bad writing in any form that impinged on my enjoyment of a book.
Of course. But this, again, is where we get into trouble. If an editor is thumbs up on the writing then who should an author listen to? The trained professional or a blogger who might not know a particular literary device from a hole in wall?
This is why authors who read reviews at least need to go by the consensus of opinion because I see these bewildered posts from authors saying Reviewer A thinks this is brilliant, Reviewer B thinks this is crap…and they genuinely don’t know what to think!
Then again what I consider bad writing may be vastly different from another reader – hence your example of first person narrative. It works for me, but I know people who won’t even look at a book written in that narrative style.
Yes. There are readers who loathe first person POV. But so what? If that’s the best way to tell the story, then that’s what needs to happen.
It’s then up to the author as to whether they consider it a serious enough point to want to amend in any future writing. Of course if the author doesn’t read the review or any reviews of their books then they’ll never know.
Part of what complicates the equation is that we’re working in a genre where self-publishing is prevalent. It used to be that you knew where you stood because someone was willing to invest in you and an editor worked with you. Now…not so much. If you self-publish and you get reamed, your only hope is to go by the consensus of opinion (and sales).
Anyway, my main point is this: It’s entirely up to authors whether they read my reviews or not. If they do, then thank you for taking the time to read my review, especially as I have paid for and spent my time reading your book and then offered up my unpaid opinion of it. If not, then that’s fine too.
You love to read and you’d buy books in any case, right? And you’re not blogging for author feedback. So…? It sounds like you just slightly undermined your argument there.
If an editor is thumbs up on the writing then who should an author listen to? The trained professional or a blogger who might not know a particular literary device from a hole in wall?
Ah, but sadly many editors in the epublishing business are not trained professionals and have no better qualifications than me with my BA in English. I think you forget how lucky you have been in your publishers and editors sometimes, Josh.
Ah, but sadly many editors in the epublishing business are not trained professionals and have no better qualifications than me with my BA in English.
There’s where the consensus of opinion comes in — and the credibility of the reviewer. If you hear the same message over and over again, then it’s probably worth listening to.
And, as I said (I think?) reviews probably are more useful early in a writer’s career — unless you’re the kind of writer who gets crushed and can’t write if you read something negative.
Wow Josh, heavy stuff, I think you may have just opened another can of worms!
I read a lot, I would never dream of reviewing a book – my skills stop at “I like this book because”! and I rarely read reviews because I don’t know the reviewers or their tastes. The subject is simply too subjective. I will look at Goodreads and read the readers reviews if I know that the reader’s tastes are similar to mine, these are people I consider friends even though books may be the only thing we have in common.
I like to have the opportunity to tell an author that I loved their work, a response from the author is always nice even if just a grin, appreciation works both ways. If I haven’t enjoyed the book I would rather stay silent – the old “if you have nothing nice to say, say nothing”. To me that is good manners. If directly asked I would have to try to explain something that is not always possible.
It should be possible for authors and reviewers to work cooperatively, if every one remembered their manners, their tact and that both writing and reviewing take work. It should be possible for adults to separate ‘work’ and ‘social’ relationships.
Jan, I can tell you that emails from readers mean every bit as much as reviews to an author.
Partly because a reader has absolutely nothing to gain from the equation. There is no performing for anyone else. It’s a personal, private correspondance between two people.
Plus it can be intimidating to contact an author personally. The author might ignore you, they might react badly to criticism…you just never know. It’s a brave thing to write someone directly. To make personal contact.
I’m always impressed by that courage, even if the reader is objecting to a direction I’ve taken the characters or something else.
Well said, Josh. I recently compared reviews to babies — don’t shake them, even if they’re cranky.
“Poisonous” as applied to a review is a scary term. Sounds like something else is going on, possibly unrelated to the book. I can deal with well-reasoned arguments as to why something didn’t work, but I’ve seen a lot of comments on books lately that slop over into personal attack on the author. I don’t think we should dignify that kind of thing by calling it a review.
I like hanging out here because the reviewers take the time to explain their reasoning and are calm and polite, even if they don’t care for something.
I guess it’s natural because there’s so much weirdness on the net. That sense of anonymity brings out the worst in some folks.
I like hanging out here because the reviewers take the time to explain their reasoning and are calm and polite, even if they don’t care for something.
Aunt Lynn recently wrote a review of a book from a well-known author and it was clear that she went to excruciating lengths to explain exactly why she didn’t like the book, to back her opinions, and to reiterate that she generally loved everything this writer did.
That seems about as reasonable a compromise as any author could ask. Was it a negative review? Yes. Was it as fair as the reviewer could make it? Absolutely. Was the reviewer “right”? That’s entirely subjective.
Ooh, what have you got yourself into this time?
Unfortunately, both writers and reviewers are made up by humans and unavoidably, some humans like attention, like to feel important, are prone to jealousy etc etc. It’s ugly and the internet makes it easier for all of us to see it. I’m sure the writer who had a public meltdown would have given up by the time she wrote the 3rd reply to the negative review if she has to go by snail mail. It’s like drunk-dialing – just don’t get drunk to begin with!
And I think both writers and reviewers should stop kidding themselves. Review is just one element in the purchasing decision making process. Personally, blurbs and excerpts and whether I like the writer’s previous works are way more important.
I post my thoughts/2cents on Goodread for my friends there, not for the writers, it’s a way to keep each other informed of “what I’ve been reading”, I always think GR is primarily for this purpose, it’s social networking for reading. I honestly think writers should only respond to specific questions about their works in sites like these, there’s no point arguing about “taste”, right?
And I think both writers and reviewers should stop kidding themselves. Review is just one element in the purchasing decision making process. Personally, blurbs and excerpts and whether I like the writer’s previous works are way more important.
I think it’s because a good review in the right place can boost sales. But so can a bad review!
That’s the funny thing about the whole process, and why writers really, really need to relax.
I just spent over $50. at Fictionwise the other day and it was totally based on the book blurbs and random comments at my Goodreads group.
I do certainly read reviews, but if something sounds interesting, then I want to see for myself. That’s just the way it is for most of us.
Or we’d have listened to everything our parents told us growing up. ;-D
I agree with most of what Jan said.
I read a lot, never know what to say about a book that doesn’t sound like gushing or doesn’t go beyond ‘I like this book because’ and I too will rather say nothing than dish a book, for the same reason Jan mentioned (and the dreaded ‘I really don’t know how to put this’).
Of course, reading reviews I sometimes wonder whether we read the same book, when I don’t get out of it what they seem to get out of it. Then again, tastes differ, needs differ.
That said, I often envy reviewers’ ability to explain what they got out of reading a book, what they liked and what didn’t work for them.
You have definitely given us food for thought, Josh.
That said, I often envy reviewers’ ability to explain what they got out of reading a book, what they liked and what didn’t work for them.
I think reviewers can be very persuasive. I mean, there are certain things I won’t read no matter how enthusiastic the reviewer is, but generally when someone can articulate why they love something…it gets you interested in it.
When it comes to negatives…that’s when reason is more convincing than bile.
*takes a deep breath*
This is the 3rd time I try to post this comment, if the spam eaters eat it again, oh well.
I agree with most of your post. I have a reviewer friend, who declines to join Goodreads or get in touch with any author because she wants to maintain her objectivity. She’s the one who introduce me to M/M genre when we’re in fandom together. She recced your books and other excellent books so I’m really grateful for her reviews. lol.
But by your post, I shouldn’t review your work since I think myself as your supporter, fan, groupie, whatever. Although your work can stand for itself, my interaction with you will always cloud my review, intentional or not.
I do think both reviewers and authors need to respect each other. I have a reviewer friend who told me some authors she reviewed had labeled her emails as spam when she informed the authors that his/her books were nominated for an award.
I do disagree that all negative reviews should be called “poisonous review”. Poisonous means the reviews are destructive, but that is not always the case. Sometimes negative reviews do have their points and we all agree that some stories that should have never been published at all get published before they are ready. Also, reviews can be directed to publishers and editors. When ESL speakers like me can spot many grammatical mistakes, you know that the books are in pretty bad shape.
And yes, reviews can mean nothing at all when it comes to sales so authors need not to go crazy to get bad reviews. Some of the best seller books have got terrible reviews and most of the highest rated books never enter into bestseller lists at all.
*takes a deep breath*
This is the 3rd time I try to post this comment, if the spam eaters eat it again, oh well. ,/em>
Hey, you got through! Congratulations.
I agree with most of your post. I have a reviewer friend, who declines to join Goodreads or get in touch with any author because she wants to maintain her objectivity. She’s the one who introduce me to M/M genre when we’re in fandom together. She recced your books and other excellent books so I’m really grateful for her reviews. lol.
That’s perfectly understandable. Some people join Goodreads because it IS like a big book party. That’s part of what makes it so much fun. If that’s your idea of fun.
But by your post, I shouldn’t review your work since I think myself as your supporter, fan, groupie, whatever. Although your work can stand for itself, my interaction with you will always cloud my review, intentional or not.
That’s where the book party and the blogging and all that informal stuff is great. Because it fills that gap. The wonderful thing about the web is that it provides lots of venues for fans and friends to give a shout out. They’re not limited to trying to pretend they’re objective in a formal review.
That works great for all of us. I give my writing friends a shout out all the time, but I’m not going to pretend I’m objective.
But then I don’t need to. I do love their work and there’s nothing wrong with being enthusiastic and sharing what you love.
I was talking to a reviewer friend recently who said he didn’t know if he could continue to review Laura Lippman because he just liked her so much. Liked her personally and loved her work.
And that’s kind of a gray area because he has no real connection to Laura. If she wrote a stinker book he’d call her on it. We live in a society that increasingly puts value on negative over positive. I think it’s because we all fear that we’re too gullible or easily manipulated?
Anyway, it’s why everyone always and automatically rounds down on their Goodread and Amazon stars. The score falls in the middle but rather than giving the author, musician, whoever that little extra bump of encouragement, everyone knocks them down half a point. It’s instinctive and automatic. Negative seems more “real,” more “fair.” And yet the score falls smack in the middle. I find that very telling.
And I find that I totally lost my point!
I do think both reviewers and authors need to respect each other. I have a reviewer friend who told me some authors she reviewed had labeled her emails as spam when she informed the authors that his/her books were nominated for an award.
Some authors are dumb as dirt, let’s face it. And sometimes stuff gets labeled as spam by accident too!
I do disagree that all negative reviews should be called “poisonous review”. Poisonous means the reviews are destructive, but that is not always the case.
No. And let me say once again, that I am not in any way suggesting that there is no place for critical reviews.
And in fact a positive review will not outweigh a legitimate critical review because we know when something hits home — those generally aren’t the criticisms we resent.
Sometimes negative reviews do have their points and we all agree that some stories that should have never been published at all get published before they are ready.
If there were only positive reviews, all reviews would be meaningless. They would be book reports.
Also, reviews can be directed to publishers and editors. When ESL speakers like me can spot many grammatical mistakes, you know that the books are in pretty bad shape.
True. Unless as an ESL you’re unfamiliar with certain literary devices? Stylistic tropes, etc.?
And yes, reviews can mean nothing at all when it comes to sales so authors need not to go crazy to get bad reviews. Some of the best seller books have got terrible reviews and most of the highest rated books never enter into bestseller lists at all.
Yes! I would think that would be one of the greatest frustrations of all. To be critically acclaimed but a dud at the box office. And that does certainly happen.
Now it posted my reply multiple times.. sigh…
As you know I wrote it before I messaged you. So some parts of this reply is not applicable anymore.
And in fact a positive review will not outweigh a legitimate critical review because we know when something hits home — those generally aren’t the criticisms we resent.
Yeah, I know. After reading the replies, I understand that what you mean by poisonous reviews are reviews that are personal and destructive.
True. Unless as an ESL you’re unfamiliar with certain literary devices? Stylistic tropes, etc.?
But I read more English books than Indonesian, so it is safe to say I can say when the story uses literary devices. And I am not very good at nitpicking, actually. Some are just glaringly obvious like misspellings, the use of “your” vs “you’re”.
Now, Josh, I wonder if it is better for authors to get into best seller list, but their books get trashed in every review site or get five stars from many reviewers yet so so sales?
Now, Josh, I wonder if it is better for authors to get into best seller list, but their books get trashed in every review site or get five stars from many reviewers yet so so sales?
I guess it partly depends on why someone writes. I have to pay the mortgage, so sales are important to me, but I take pride in my work and try to perform at a consistent level of excellence. That’s my goal. Whether I manage to hit it every time is a matter of opinion.
It’s generally a fluke when there’s a huge swing between overall popularity and reviews. Sometimes an artist will be trying out something very experimental and critics will embrace it and the regular fan base will not, but most of the time the consensus of opinion isn’t going to be that far off.
Reviewers usually get first pick of new books so they are often in position to recognize up and coming talent before the general readership, but eventually word of mouth should catch up. Sometimes vice versa. Sometimes it’s word of mouth that brings a book or an author to the attention of reviewers!
Anyway, it’s why everyone always and automatically rounds down on their Goodread and Amazon stars. The score falls in the middle but rather than giving the author, musician, whoever that little extra bump of encouragement, everyone knocks them down half a point. It’s instinctive and automatic. Negative seems more “real,” more “fair.” And yet the score falls smack in the middle. I find that very telling.
Not as universal as you think, though. I and many others round up when my real rating is 3.5, 4.5, etc. The reason isn’t even about being positive vs, being negative, but ingrained from grade school math. I was taught that .5 rounds up to 1, and so on, and I’m too anal to do otherwise.
Not as universal as you think, though. I and many others round up when my real rating is 3.5, 4.5, etc. The reason isn’t even about being positive vs, being negative, but ingrained from grade school math. I was taught that .5 rounds up to 1, and so on, and I’m too anal to do otherwise
I’m glad to hear it — and so is the IRS (they also round up).
You’re in the minority, alas.
Now, see, this is where a preeminent position comes in handy. You can hang ‘em out there and walk away with ‘em still attached, while the rest of us would end up with voices in the coloratura range.
Of course, you make great sense, which helps too.
I’ve sort of settled into a relationship groove with reviewers. With most, I have no relationship. Of any kind. I’m either not aware of their existence or have trouble tapping into their thought processes. And raters or “star slingers”? I try not to pay them any mind.
However, there are some reviewers I genuinely like as people (as much as one can get to know anybody online) and whose opinions I value because they’re invariably expressed in a respectful, articulate way. I don’t have any compunction about visiting with these people. Hell, I genuinely LIKE them. So I don’t fuss over the professional-distance thing. Is that foolish? Beats me. It’s simply a matter of being around folks whose company I enjoy.
When these people are pleased with one of my books, I don’t mind telling them how pleased I am that they’re pleased; if dissatisfied, I’ll express my disappointment over failing to deliver a satisfying read. Ego hasn’t much to do with it. After years in this business, my ego has all the substance and vigor of a dry cuticle.
Maybe this attitude is a result of age and experience. I’ve long since relinquished any dreams of fame and fortune, so I’m trying to enjoy the ride. The pride I take in my work has become a quiet pride, held close. And I suspect (realism alert!) that’s about all most writers of popular fiction can look forward to.
However, there are some reviewers I genuinely like as people (as much as one can get to know anybody online) and whose opinions I value because they’re invariably expressed in a respectful, articulate way. I don’t have any compunction about visiting with these people. Hell, I genuinely LIKE them. So I don’t fuss over the professional-distance thing. Is that foolish? Beats me. It’s simply a matter of being around folks whose company I enjoy.
That makes sense. There are reviewers I like very much as people — and reviewers who have become friends.
But — for me — it almost becomes more dangerous if we’re friends because I’m liable to speak directly and openly to them within that context, I might try to explain something — but to anyone watching from the outside it looks like I’m “debating” or “arguing.”
And there’s a lot of focus on this right now — on “crazy” authors arguing with critics. So it’s better to give the whole thing a wide berth.
The thing about writers is we do respond to the world around us in writing. We try to make sense of everything in writing. So we look like we’re arguing even when we’re simply thinking aloud.
“The thing about writers is we do respond to the world around us in writing. We try to make sense of everything in writing. So we look like we’re arguing even when we’re simply thinking aloud.”
So true! And so unfortunate. An exchange can indeed be perceived as a confrontation sparked by the diva inside. It’s best, probably, to limit such engagements to private emails. (And, having said this, my wayward fingers will probably still find their way to the keyboard while I’m on some public forum somewhere.
)
Great article! Personally, I only write a review on something I’ve enjoyed. I suppose it’s childish but I feel good afterward.
I wouldn’t call that childish, Darla. Writing isn’t exactly the best paid gig in the world. A lot of why writers choose to put themselves through the ordeal of publishing (and it can be an ordeal!) is because they want to share their work — share with people who will enjoy it!
I guess there are some who take delight in offending readers and making reviewers howl in outrage, but most of us want to hear that we’ve written something that gives pleasure to others. Has maybe touched them or inspired them in some way.
I have just started reviewing on this site. I wanted to review because if I love a book I get a kick out of sharing that. I’m also learning to be a writer in this genre and I have found this is a wonderful displacement activity.
I do spend sleepless nights thinking about how to phrase and justify any negative comments. I take what I’m trying to do seriously, and have found it’s the throwaway comments/asides that are the ones I cut before letting the review go.I want to be able to feel content that the opinion I have given is in my mind balanced.
Now I’m even more scared than I was before.
Thanks Josh for a great article.
Now I’m even more scared than I was before. Thanks Josh for a great article
Now there is nothing in any of this that should make anyone nervous. Let alone angry.
All I’m doing is reassuring writers that they don’t need to (shouldn’t, in my opinion) read reviews or take them to heart — and they absolutely must not respond to them.
And reviewers need to remember that reviews are for readers — and not get offended when writers don’t interact with them over reviews.
Especially since we’re all agreed that angry, hurt writers make us uncomfortable.
Oh not angry in any way, perhaps I need to use more of the bunnies
I have a lot respect for anybody who actually finishes a book and gets it published. I do so enjoy seeing good wordsmiths at work.
What is with the bunnies, by the way?
I agree that managing to complete a book is — even in these days of word processing and self-publishing — an achievement. Especially given how many people say they want to write but can’t find the time. Or they have the idea but want someone else to write the book.
That’s one reason why it’s hard for authors to be objective about their own work — they know just how tough it was.
But if you put the work out there, people will form opinions of it, and they will not all be universally flattering.
Which is why, if you’re going to have a problem with negative opinions, it is so much wiser not to look.
I don’t know, the green balls just appeared with bunny ears one day. Gotta get that Christian to tell us the secret.
Josh wrote: “What is with the bunnies, by the way?
”
That should be easter bunnies, those bunnies that hide the dyed eggs on Easter Sunday.
Or are they special to central Europe? 
You’re right! They’re Easter bunnies. Very clever.
I think the authors and reviewers should respect each other. The good manners should be involved on both sides. And that is pretty much the extension of their mutual relationship. They should have a relationship with books and readers, not each other.
I want good books. As a reader, I depend on both authors and reviewers – on authors to write good books and on reviewers to help me decide where to spend my money. That doesn’t mean I would love every well-written book. There are such things as personal taste, background and good/bad mood at the moment I’m reading the book. And many more factors. These things figure in my decision whether I would buy a book or not, regardless of the reviews it received. What I’m trying to say is that readers aren’t blind to the faults of authors and reviewers both. A snarky, witty review will make me laugh, sure. But, it will also make me read other reviews by the same person with a grain of salt in the future. The lack of distance between the reviewer and author would make me think if there is anything else going on (good or bad). And no amount of glowing reviews will make me like the book that, well, I don’t like.
You have given some good advice here to both sides. But, the human nature always interferes. And good intentions… we know everything about those, right?
That’s why we need the above mentioned good manners. The cowman and the farmer really, really don’t have to be friends or enemies, but they should be good neighbors.
When I write a review (usually on GR), I always, always try to explain what worked for me and what didn’t and why. My reviews are never about the authors, always about the books. I am never insulting or derogatory. And I always write the reviews for other readers, never for the authors. Should an author happen to read my review and like it (or not), that’s fine. But, it makes no difference for me. I just want to talk about and discuss books with other readers, I want to find people that have similar tastes to mine and, perhaps, discover the new books. I would never presume that authors owe something to me. And vice versa.
Well said. We’re in the same business, and we share the same love affair with books and the written word, but but we don’t always share the same aim.
It is the author’s aim to sell books.
It is the reviewer’s aim to tell their readers about the books worth buying. Or sometimes just to have fun discussing books and stories, but it’s not the reviewer’s job to sell books for the author.
It’s wonderful when that happens, but that’s not the point of the review. Not for the reviewer, anyway.
You have given some good advice here to both sides. But, the human nature always interferes. And good intentions… we know everything about those, right? That’s why we need the above mentioned good manners. The cowman and the farmer really, really don’t have to be friends or enemies, but they should be good neighbors.
Yes! That’s a great way to look at it.
Your posts always get me thinking and usually changing the way I go about things.
I’m pretty thick skinned and I don’t chuck my toys out if the pram over anything negative in a review, but I do actually find reviews good or bad very hard to read. Of the ones I’ve had so far I’ve only read them once. I’d probably be happier not to read any!
Actual critiques on the other hand I have no problem with. Maybe there’s a feeling there that since a critique is generally on a work in progress then it’s something I can do something with. On a published book, well it’s like being caught out in the rain and people saying “you should have brought an umbrella.” Too late to do anything except remember to bring one next time.
Actual critiques on the other hand I have no problem with. Maybe there’s a feeling there that since a critique is generally on a work in progress then it’s something I can do something with. On a published book, well it’s like being caught out in the rain and people saying “you should have brought an umbrella.” Too late to do anything except remember to bring one next time.
Yes! Edits, critiques…of course we need honesty at this stage. Hopefully we want and are open to honesty at this stage. But once the book is published? What are we supposed to do then — other than suck it up when the blows start to fall?
Sure sometimes we might learn something from a harsh review, but what if the story is simply subject matter that isn’t going to appeal to a lot of readers? What do we learn then? Don’t take chances? Don’t risk anything? Write to popular opinion or don’t write at all?
The message from reviews is rarely going to be a simple consensus of opinion. It would be so easy if that were the case!
The feedback that gets me is when there isn’t a review. Someone rated Mere Mortals 3 stars the other day, but with no written review, and I really wanted to know what didn’t work–it really helps an author to know that kind of thing.
I assume that’s Goodreads? I think Goodreads has little credibility because you can review a book before it’s been released (the argument being that it’s a “review copy”) and because, as you say, no review — not even one line — is required.
It means GR can be used maliciously or “strategically.” And it frequently is.
Well, but sometimes people are working on their review and it’ll go up in a few days. The star rating is the initial reaction and they’re formulating what they will say in the review. Though maybe we should hold off on stars until we’re all done? Never thought of that but you could have a point.
Sometimes they are. But there are a lot more stars without any reviews on Goodreads.
I think initially a lot of people — myself included — simply rated a lot of books in order to give others a sense of what we liked. Someone pointed out on another thread that Goodreads was intended to be a popularity site not a review site. The ratings were strictly supposed to reflect personal taste. No one was really taking seriously a three star ranking of some literary classic be it Jane Austen or John Steinbeck.
Because Goodreads can — and is — easily manipulated, it’s not taken seriously by the publishing industry. Neither was Amazon about ten years ago. But Amazon put certain restrictions and restraints into place, and now Amazon is one more tool publishers use to keep their fingers on the pulse of a book’s success.
I can see that eventually happening with Goodreads, assuming Goodreads puts some of the same checks and balances in place.
Amazon, for example, doesn’t let you post reviews of ARCs until the book has actually been released. This follows with the rule about professional reviews not being posted more than a couple of weeks ahead of a release. That way no one can “sink” a rival’s book release or stack the deck in their favor.
I’m not big on ratings without something to back it up. I stopped use “grades” on the reviews that go on my website a while back. It isn’t the number of stars or chili peppers than convinces someone to buy or not buy a book, it’s what the reviewer has to say about the book.
In fact, I think the effort to “grade” art can get in the way of really appreciating and understanding it.
Obviously just my opinion!
It’s actually official policy at Goodreads that you don’t have to have read the book in order to rate it.
I have no idea what goal inspired them to make that choice. I can see it being difficult to ENFORCE a ‘you must read before rating’ rule, but having an official policy to the contrary seems nonsensical to me.
Kate, I think the idea behind Goodreads is that it’s supposed to be a social media site — like a big book party. And that is exactly how it operates. Right down to some people getting drunk and breaking beer bottls and coming after the other guests.
And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Except that there are those on Goodeads who are responsible and conscientious about their reviews and would like their reviews to be taken seriously. Some of those folks are at Goodreads in rejection of Amazon, and so it’s frustrating for them that Amazon (which is also prone to abuses, though no longer as many as Goodreads) is factored in by mainstream publishing and Goodreads is basically dismissed as a book brawl.
It’s simply a matter of evolution. To survive, Goodreads will have to put certain protections and restrictions into place. Right now, they’re resisting that idea. So did Amazon. But change came anyway. It will ultimately be fueled by the people who are most serious about books and reviews.
To survive, Goodreads will have to put certain protections and restrictions into place.
I shouldn’t say “to survive” because Goodreads will survive fine as it is. but if it is to make the next step…if it is to be taken seriously by anyone within the industry, it will have to grow and change. But it it doesn’t grow and change, it will still be a lot of fun and an amusing social outlet for a lot of people.
And the fact that a book site could be a fabulous social outlet tells you what strides books and publishing have made in the last few years. Three years ago, people were announcing books were dead.
I’ve been giving a lot of thought to reviewing lately, and have changed my policy on Goodreads reviews, only writing reviews for books I can happily award 4 or 5 stars to. I think you’re right about the awkward relationship between readers and reviewers – there are a few reviewers I love reading but I’m slightly wary of getting too close in case I have a problem separating my ego from friendship if they ever give me a bad review. But then I’d like to think I’m thick skinned enough to cope – or just not read the damn thing!
It’s a minefield. I think your article is cogently argued and well worth more people reading and mulling over. Unfortunately, writer’s egos being what they often are, I don’t know if things will ever change. I don’t think they need get too upset about bad reviews, though. Many readers say they never bother looking at them, preferring to go by blurb and excerpts.
there are a few reviewers I love reading but I’m slightly wary of getting too close in case I have a problem separating my ego from friendship if they ever give me a bad review. But then I’d like to think I’m thick skinned enough to cope – or just not read the damn thing!
It’s hard for writers to know what the boundaries are. I’m naturally friendly, so I initally tried to be friendly with reviewers — partly I was misled by the casual nature of these reviews and the fact that they were online.
Sometimes the reviewers were stiff and uncomfortable (which clarified things) and in a couple of cases we became great friends and they had to stop reviewing me. Now I value the friendship over the reviews, but those were some of my best reviewers!
If you do become friends, then what? There are instances here where reviewers have helped a writer with a book and then turned around and reviewed the book. Say what?
It’s complicated for all of us.
Having had one of these author meltdowns on my review blog i can appreciate much of this, but I don’t think you can lump all reviewers into one corner–some are simply readers who have decided to put their thoughts onto amazon (because after all, amazon nags you to do so after a purchase, whether for a book or a biro) some review when they see something that interests them or makes them bogglein the genre, some, like Wave’s site do sterling work for all genre, and some want to publicize a smaller subset. and there’s many many more reasons why people review.
I’ve always been someone who says that authors should not respond, either for a good or a bad review. I feel embarrassed (although this might be because I’m English) if the author drops by and says thank you, because I’m paranoid enough to think those that had a 3 star review and took it badly (even though Speak Its Name takes three stars as “Good”) are repeating their accusations that I’m reviewing my friends well and dissing everyone else to improve the standing of my own work.
What people don’t seem to realise is that this couldn’t be further from the truth. I don’t review my “friends” well–but I actively seek out and encourage online interraction with those I consider to be good writers. As for stopping to review people who are “friends” that simply isn’t possible. The longer I’m online, meeting and getting to know writers, the more people I “know” and if I didn’t review them, soon I wouldn’t be able to review any of them. The most I can do is to try and get some degree of separation when it comes to reviewing my own books, but when it comes to reviewing people who I’ve met in the flesh, I trust those people to trust me–people who do know me know that i won’t be vicious, I will point out (and back up) things that I don’t like. I use “friends” in quotes because I don’tknow that internet friends are actually friends–it’s all very transient.
Teaching or preaching tothe writer? No, I don’t think so. I know that the author will be reading (although I almost never say “Your review is done, here’s the link” even if the pdf came from the author.) but I do write my reviews for the readers and possible buyers.
I WILL point out anachronisms (and yes, I’ve got some wrong, and will always change a review if an author proves he/she was right – it’s happened once or twice) but that’s not me saying to the writer “yah boo you suck you couldn’t research your way out of a paper bag” – what I’m doing is saying to the readers of Speak Its Name that there are fact based errors. Most (not all) of my blog-readers care about this stuff, and they often say that they don’t fancy forking out £10 or so if the research sucks. (or the POV is all over the place, or the author dangles modifiers like clothes pegs, using euphemism and epiphets all the time, etc etc) because I know that these are hot button hates for many readers,
IF the author takes that on board, (and many do, when they contact me privately) then that’s well and good, and can only be a good thing for historical fiction as a whole. But I have to say that I can never respect an author who attacks me either publically or privately–especially those who I actually thought were that transient friend.
But I don’t keep blacklists. I know some reviewers do, but my subgenre is too small to take things personally. I’ll review the next book by the attacking diva and I pride myself that I’m grown up enough to treat each new book on its own merits.
Much longer than I needed to be, sorry!
You are a better person than I am. I have started to bear grudges. But with a name like Teddy Pig you would think I would be good at Bearing things.
I don’t think you can lump all reviewers into one corner–some are simply readers who have decided to put their thoughts onto amazon (because after all, amazon nags you to do so after a purchase, whether for a book or a biro) some review when they see something that interests them or makes them bogglein the genre, some, like Wave’s site do sterling work for all genre, and some want to publicize a smaller subset. and there’s many many more reasons why people review.
No, of course not. A site like Dear Author or Smart Bitches is obviously about as close to the mainstream print equivilent as you’re going to find. And I’m sure there are others…I just don’t get out much.
Wave has basically built the premier m/m review site here and she’s done it by slowly but surely setting review standards.
There are lots and lots of more casual but fun romance review sites, and the reviewers view themselves with different degrees of seriousness. Their criteria is much more subjective (hawtness level, for example) and open to interpretation.
All reviewers are not created equal — just as all authors are not created equal. Everybody has a right to their opinion, but we don’t have to value every opinion equally.
I’m paranoid enough to think those that had a 3 star review and took it badly (even though Speak Its Name takes three stars as “Good”) are repeating their accusations that I’m reviewing my friends well and dissing everyone else to improve the standing of my own work.
Frankly, your situation is a difficult one. You dominate m/m historical romance reviewing. I don’t mean domineer, I mean yours is the primary review site for m/m historical fiction and you are the primary reviewer. That’s the perception, anyway. You’re viewed as a person of influence in the realm of m/m historical fiction.
So how many aspiring historical romance writers are going to dare to give you a bad review even if they sincerely hate your work?
(This is an academic question — I don’t need the actual figure of how many blasting reviews you’ve received.
I’m sure you’ve had your share.)
You see what I’m saying though? It’s all very interconnected here on the web in a way that it wouldn’t have been once upon a time.
As for stopping to review people who are “friends” that simply isn’t possible. The longer I’m online, meeting and getting to know writers, the more people I “know” and if I didn’t review them, soon I wouldn’t be able to review any of them.
I agree with that. But there’s certainly a difference in my mind between friends and people I do know personally (even if only online) and professional acquaintances whether online or otherwise.
While I can certainly look at a friend’s work objectively, even harshly, it’s not in my nature to put those hurtful words in public. If asked by my friend for my honest opinion, I’ll give it every time.
But that’s a handful of people. I can be frank enough about the work of most authors, even those I’m friendly with, but I’ll save it for casual book discussions, I won’t put it out there in a review format.
Now maybe I’m the only one who thinks there’s a difference between a formal review and a casual book discussion — maybe they’re all equally painful to some writers.
But if you’re that sensitive, I don’t know how you made it through the editorial process.
And some of us can view a critical review and come away unscathed and not whinge in public or try and turn it into a big discussion point or whatever. I salute those supremely well-balanced people. I’m not one of them. Flattery turns my head and (unfair) criticism hurts my feelings or makes me angry.
Most writers are not supremely well balanced when it comes to viewing our own work, so for us, it’s safer not to look.
In the greater scheme of things, people matter more than books, let alone reviews of books.
I think this gets forgotten too easily. ALL opinions and discussions and relationships should always show respect and civility. And I hope that’s not just due to my British-ness LOL.
I also bleat on periodically about the unfairness of having to choose between being An Author or A Reader in online life – because apparently once I sign An Author contract, it often seems I’m no longer welcome in Reader discussions and forums, even if they’re not talking about my book
.
That’s being deliberately provocative, but I do find the conflict upsetting and frustrating. But that’s professional life. It comes with its own standards of good/approved behaviour, and you pays your money, you takes your choice.
Great post, Josh. And you’re so right, an enthusiastic email from a reader is the purest gold.
Clare, you are always welcome here in any capacity.
Thanks Aunt Lynn, what a lovely bunny smile
:) That’s much appreciated, hope I wasn’t pouting too much LOL.
It just seems to me that Authors can’t win. If they comment on a review, they’re potentially challenging the author. If they don’t, they can be viewed as dismissing him/her. And of course, every Reviewer has a different style, as does every Author. I wonder if compromise let alone agreement can ever be reached!
I’ll have to continue chatting about my favourite books to my always patient, never argumentative, totally supportive Sony reader…
Always great to read here, even if I don’t often dip my Comment Toe in
. Keep up the great work!
Clare, an author wins in that we’re the glory hounds. Sooner or later every author of fiction gets a lovely letter saying how their story has touched someone, maybe even changed someone’s life.
Even if we don’t make a lot of money, we get something others don’t. Even the point of the reviews is…well, us. Our work.
This is not to say that fiction is more important than non-fiction…it certainly isn’t more important around election time or when making life decisions…but in a strange way fiction seems to impact more people and more lives. And so it has been since the beginning of time.
But that’s a topic for another day.
I think this gets forgotten too easily. ALL opinions and discussions and relationships should always show respect and civility. And I hope that’s not just due to my British-ness LOL.
I do find it fascinating how irritated seem people get at the suggestion that they should be conscious of other people’s feelings.
Is that really a bad thing for a civilization?
After all, at no point have I suggested reviewers not be honest or critical.
I also bleat on periodically about the unfairness of having to choose between being An Author or A Reader in online life – because apparently once I sign An Author contract, it often seems I’m no longer welcome in Reader discussions and forums, even if they’re not talking about my book.
It’s definitely tricky. And maybe I’m kidding myself that informal book discussions don’t count.
That’s being deliberately provocative, but I do find the conflict upsetting and frustrating. But that’s professional life. It comes with its own standards of good/approved behaviour, and you pays your money, you takes your choice.
Sure. I hate having less time to read. That’s another thing that happens when you move from reader/reviewer to author.
Great post, Josh. And you’re so right, an enthusiastic email from a reader is the purest gold.
God yes. And in case my original point wasn’t clear, I’m not saying every reviewer has to be a formal, professional reviewer — but the reviewers who want to be taken seriously as professional, formal reviewers obviously have to go at it a little differently than someone who makes a point that she’s just out there having fun and enjoying sharing books with her friends.
Great post, Josh. I had the privilege of reading it as I formatted it ahead of it’s scheduled publication, so I’ve had several days to think about it. In some ways, it makes me want hang up my reviewer’s hat altogether as I think that I’ll never measure up to what it takes to be very good, much less great in this field. In others, it makes me want to improve so I can become that great reviewer because I love what I do. It certainly makes me look at every review I’ve done in the past and what I will do in the future differently.
I’ve had the pleasure of being the subject of several authors’ rants after a negative review. The first time it happened, I made the mistake of — nicely — responding to the plethora of painful-to-read, pretty hateful comments on the author’s blog in defense of myself after getting a heads up that it was happening. Never again. I had all of the “friends” of the author jump on me further, making a bad situation worse. Now, either I don’t know it’s happening, and if I do, I ignore it. I have grown thicker skin over the last two and some years and have developed the attitude that several others here have mentioned: I write for the readers, not the authors. Like Jen and others, I’d almost rather an author not comment at all on a review I’ve done, but if they choose to stop by and either thank me for any reason, or take issue, my response is always polite. Also, I am totally open to correction — I am human after all and do get things wrong at times — and to other opinions as I am simply one reader with one set of ideas about a book. I have no illusion that I am the be-all and end-all of opinions.
I try very hard to do — and avoid at the same time — several things in my reviews: explain what did and did not work for me in a (hopefully) coherent manner with backup as much as possible; not to be snarky (though sometimes I can’t help myself); give information/facts about me both going into the book and after (such as why I chose the book to read, if I have read other works by the author, what it made me think about and how it effected me emotionally, etc.); and never make it about the author his/herself. I may rhetorically question why an author chose to do X with a character or plotline, but I don’t attack the author. And, if in the comments another reader does attack the author, Wave and I shut that down immediately. As others have said — it’s about respect. Besides, I’m totally a love-and-peace kinda gal who hates confrontation, so I’m all about manners.
Now, I know this para is contradictory to my statement above that I write for readers and not authors, but I can’t help but feel this might be an exception or at least worth mentioning. One thing I am guilty (?) of is saying in a review — and/or in comments after — that X author has continually written Y characterization problem or Z plot hole issue or made ABC factual mistakes in book after book despite numerous readers and reviewers complaining about it. I feel that if I am the only one that notices it, then it’s me and, as we’ve all talked about, views about a book are subjective. But when there are ten folks who comment on the review that feel exactly the same, and then I go out on GR and Amazon and see similar mentions in those reviews, I have to wonder if the author either a) doesn’t read reviews and doesn’t know or b) doesn’t care about reviews. If it’s the first, then how does said author know that the readers are unhappy? Or don’t they care because, as we’ve determined, reviews are for readers, not authors? Maybe this is delusional and unrealistic, but aren’t those kind of reader statement/complaints useful to authors in honing their craft? This isn’t rhetorical, I really do want to know. It would help as I grow as a reviewer.
Wow, that was long, wasn’t it?
In some ways, it makes me want hang up my reviewer’s hat altogether as I think that I’ll never measure up to what it takes to be very good, much less great in this field. In others, it makes me want to improve so I can become that great reviewer because I love what I do. It certainly makes me look at every review I’ve done in the past and what I will do in the future differently.
Not every reviewer approaches this thing from a deadly serious standpoint — which is fine. If that message got lost somewhere along the way, my point is not that every review site needs to conform to a certain standard of behavior. That would be kind of dull. Every site doesn’t have to be a formal review site — that’s one reason why I advocate authors trying to view some of this as casual discussion that we’re inadvertently listening in on.
But we’ve done that to ourselves by butting into the conversation and then sending bloggers books and waiting for the review — sometimes pressuring reviewers for that review, sometimes angry if the reviewer declines to review, or complaining that the reviewer keeps reviewing the same authors and not US, on and on and on.
This is the author forcing their way into the part of the process we have no business infiltrating.
I’ve had the pleasure of being the subject of several authors’ rants after a negative review. The first time it happened, I made the mistake of — nicely — responding to the plethora of painful-to-read, pretty hateful comments on the author’s blog in defense of myself after getting a heads up that it was happening. Never again.
God. And of course this kind of thing looks so bad for the author — and maybe the author isn’t even aware the fans are doing it? Either way the author is going to take the hit for it.
I write for the readers, not the authors. Like Jen and others, I’d almost rather an author not comment at all on a review I’ve done, but if they choose to stop by and either thank me for any reason, or take issue, my response is always polite.
It’s not that there can’t be polite discourse, but given the number of blow ups in this last few months — heck, the last few weeks — obviously something is changing here. And it’s not a change for the better.
I do honestly think we’re all more and more uncertain of exactly how to respond. I know I see questions on lists all the time. Should I respond to a reviewer? Should I thank a reviewer? Should I correct a reviewer.
If someone tells me they reviewed my book, of course I thank them. I’m very glad they reviewed it. I appreciate it. But I’m not going to go Googling for reviews. That way lies madness.
Also, I am totally open to correction — I am human after all and do get things wrong at times —
I think most reviewers are open to this, and I think it can be done behind the scenes politely. But what an author shouldn’t do, because I think it looks confrontational (even if it’s not), is correct the reviewer in the comment section.
I mean, unless it’s all jokey and friendly and that kind of a site. But an author barging in to tell a reviewer they got something wrong…that just has a way of going south fast.
I try very hard to do — and avoid at the same time — several things in my reviews: explain what did and did not work for me in a (hopefully) coherent manner with backup as much as possible; not to be snarky (though sometimes I can’t help myself);
Some books are just bad. Bad. Bad. Bad. And I’ve read some of the funniest reviews — and felt sick for the author even if I agreed with the review. But that’s getting into something else. For some reviewers snarky is their shtick. I’m not saying they’re not allowed. I’m saying it’s better for the author not to see it. I don’t think humiliation is a great learning tool.
give information/facts about me both going into the book and after (such as why I chose the book to read, if I have read other works by the author, what it made me think about and how it effected me emotionally, etc.); and never make it about the author his/herself. I may rhetorically question why an author chose to do X with a character or plotline,
Those are the elements of great reviews. And those are the things that help an author make sense of a review, too. If you understand the reviewer worked on a rape crisis hotline that’s going to help you understand outrage over a fantasy rape scenario.
but I don’t attack the author. And, if in the comments another reader does attack the author, Wave and I shut that down immediately. As others have said — it’s about respect. Besides, I’m totally a love-and-peace kinda gal who hates confrontation, so I’m all about manners.
That’s something I’d like to see a little more of. A lot of these huge blowups could be quickly resolved by the site owner shutting down the thread before it turns into a disaster. Just close it down and discuss offline. But some people do love these online brawls.
Even though they don’t put anyone involved in a good light.
Now, I know this para is contradictory to my statement above that I write for readers and not authors, but I can’t help but feel this might be an exception or at least worth mentioning. One thing I am guilty (?) of is saying in a review — and/or in comments after — that X author has continually written Y characterization problem or Z plot hole issue or made ABC factual mistakes in book after book despite numerous readers and reviewers complaining about it.
That’s fair enough. What I had in mind was more along the lines of a review I once received where the reviewer was complaining that I had written yet another book where an ordinary citizen is thrust into a murder investigation.
Uh…that’s the definition of the amateur sleuth sub-genre and I didn’t invent it, I just happen to write in that sub-genre. That’s like bitching at Dick Francis for all those horses in his equestrian mysteries.
Now I could — and should — laugh that off as the mistake of a clearly inexperienced reviewer.
But basically we’re all limited in our writing to certain characters, certain storylines, certain motifs, etc. The more popular and widely read we are, the better known our patterns will be. We still hope that — assuming the reviewer likes mysteries — they’ll review the newest mystery on its own merit and not grade us down for working in the genre we’ve elected to work in.
I feel that if I am the only one that notices it, then it’s me and, as we’ve all talked about, views about a book are subjective. But when there are ten folks who comment on the review that feel exactly the same, and then I go out on GR and Amazon and see similar mentions in those reviews, I have to wonder if the author either a) doesn’t read reviews and doesn’t know or b) doesn’t care about reviews. If it’s the first, then how does said author know that the readers are unhappy?
Sales? Reader email? Publisher continuing to buy books?
Not every writer reads a bad review and wants to hunt the reviewer down. There are writers who can read a negative review and not be bothered and read a positive review and not get selfconscious. That’s great!
But if you’re the kind of writer who can’t write for two days after a negative review…maybe you’re better off not looking.
Or don’t they care because, as we’ve determined, reviews are for readers, not authors?
The problem is when you start out you don’t get a lot of reviews and so every review seems to carry undue weight. I remember that phase quite well. You get one review and you’re rethinking the stuff that should be intrinsic to your craft. And maybe it’s undue praise. It happens on both sides. Reviewers tend to go gently on first books, so you’ve got someone thinking they’re a genius following rave reviews of what is actually pretty mediocre book. But everyone is trying to be kind and encouraging and then by the third and fourth book the gloves are off and the writer is reeling at critical reviews of what may well be the better book.
Also as someone pointed out, a lot of romance reviews are based on elements that have nothing to do with writing — it’s just the reviewers personally find some things distasteful. Not everyone finds the same things funny. Or maybe there’s a menage scene in an otherwise m/m book.
Now the writer could look at the slew of hostile reviews and think…Oh my God, I can’t ever take a chance on writing something so out-of-the-box again. I’ll be ruined. But that would be a really bad thing for the writer trying to spread her creative wings.
It’s a balance, and for writers, finding that balance takes time.
Maybe this is delusional and unrealistic, but aren’t those kind of reader statement/complaints useful to authors in honing their craft? This isn’t rhetorical, I really do want to know.
Consensus of opinion. If you’re (the writer) going to read your reviews, then look for the consensus of opinion — assuming you get enough reviews to find a consensus. But what often happens when you’ve got maybe three reviews for a book is they’re all going to say three different things.
Not always. Sometimes it’s clear cut and then it is definitely worth paying attention to.
As others have said — it’s about respect.
…and so yours is the approach that’s much appreciated by any sensible author who *does* read their reviews, wants to share on some other level than sales figures, and also to learn about what works & doesn’t for a reader in their fiction.
Lots of points to think about here. Thank you for your post, Josh.
I think it’s a good idea to assume that anything said on the internet is public rather than private, and open distribution rather than restricted distribution. I just wish I always posted accordingly.
I’m a reader and can’t see myself as either an author or reviewer (my one attempt at reviewing stalled badly). But speaking as a reader, I wonder whether it’s the extremely personal nature of the subject matter (sex and romance) of m/m which means there is perhaps more of a problem between authors and reviewers in the genre. After all, the relationship between author and reviewer is essentially a professional one, and so potentially at odds with the personal reactions engendered by m/m. The relationship between author and reader, or betwee reviewer and reader, has a more personal flavour to start with, so is less at odds with personal reactions to the subject-matter.
I’m a reader and can’t see myself as either an author or reviewer (my one attempt at reviewing stalled badly). But speaking as a reader, I wonder whether it’s the extremely personal nature of the subject matter (sex and romance) of m/m which means there is perhaps more of a problem between authors and reviewers in the genre. After all, the relationship between author and reviewer is essentially a professional one, and so potentially at odds with the personal reactions engendered by m/m. The relationship between author and reader, or betwee reviewer and reader, has a more personal flavour to start with, so is less at odds with personal reactions to the subject-matter.
Good point. Because a lot of these books are about sex and fantasies and romance, yes, maybe reviewers here are walking a finer line than perhaps in mystery genre or the spec fiction genre? Anybody have any insight on that?
Part of it might simply be the changing role of the internet in all this.
But yes, when you have people commenting — critiquing — other people’s kinks and fantasies…you’re right. That probably does convolute everything.
I’ll try to be short Josh.
I’m thrilled when I read a book with engaging characters, a believable plot, great dialogue and prose and the pacing is neither too slow nor frenetic. Reviewing books which meet that criteria is such a pleasure and I have a difficult time not to be overly enthusiastic and seem as if I’m pushing the book on to other readers.
Conversely, when I find a book that I think has every flaw (at least I see them as flaws but I could be horribly wrong) – flat one dimensional characters, a plot that only someone from Mars would find believable, dialogue and prose that’s so poorly written I have a hard time believing that it went through all the usual checks and balances that the publisher has in place, pacing that’s so slow I wish for a merciful death, and an ending that is so far fetched I’m amazed and not in a good way – that’s when I have a difficult time writing a review. (Sorry for the long sentence) LOL. No matter how I try, it’s hard to write a positive review about a book like that. Authors may feel that I’m being negative but I have to tell the truth, my truth, for someone who is looking to buy his or her book.
Always remember that although authors write for themselves they also sell their books, which makes their books subject to being reviewed the same way a critic would review a bottle of wine, a play, a meal, a movie or any other commodity.
I don’t want to be unkind and hurt the author’s feelings when I write a negative review about their book, and I’m never personal in my criticisms, but I reiterate, my review is not for the author, it’s for the readers. The author is probably doing the best s/he can with what what s/he has, and no two authors are the same in terms of writing skill and the ability to make their characters seem real. I tell the readers what my opinion is about the book, in language that’s not volatile, but it’s clear that I can’t recommend the book.
I always try to be fair and balanced when I review a book and I love to discuss books with other readers, even when they disagree with my review. All opinions are subjective. No matter how much we (reviewers) say that we’re objective, and we do try as much as is humanly possible to be objective, the fact remains that if it’s a personal opinion it’s subjective, and there’s nothing wrong with that. Factual errors are quite different and we can point those out without someone saying it’s a personal opinion.
To end this with a bit of levity, as you said “opinions are like assholes, everyone has one.” That’s true, but some assholes are prettier and hotter than others.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it Josh. 
I have to take lessons in brevity.
looks as if I just said the same you did in different words, Wave – sorry, pure coincidence.
Maybe I could join you in the brevity lessons.
Feliz
Maybe we’re twins. LOL
We have to get on to those lessons soon.
See, what I think is happening is we’re starting to drift into the debate about whether reviewers should write negative reviews.
And that’s not at all what I’m talking about.
Reviewers should be honest and communicate clearly their feelings — good or bad — about a book.
But is a review for the benefit of the author? Because if that’s the case, a non-public lambasting would be a better idea. In my opinion.
Reviews are not for authors, which is why reviewers can do things like write funny reviews with crazy pictures in them and not have to worry about author’s injured feelings.
But for that to work, authors need to not respond to those reviews or hold a grudge over those reviews or let those reviews destroy them. And if that can only be achieved by not reading the reviews, then authors had best not read them.
I’m not forbidding authors to read reviews. If an author finds reviews helpful — and they often do early on (as I did mention toward the end of my post) — then they should absolutely read them and get what good, useful information out of them they can.
But if an author has reached the point (as we all do sooner or later) when they would not change anything regardless of the review — either because they can’t or they don’t want to — then reading reviews is merely feeding one’s ego or going out of your way to be irritated.
Now maybe I’m being cynical here, but I think sometimes reviewers think that if writers hear enough terrible things about their work they will either improve or stop writing. And I don’t think it’s always possible for writers to improve beyond a certain point, and I don’t know of anyone who ever gave up because of bad reviews. Bad sales…yes. And if a book really stinks, the sales ought to reflect that. But I know some really awful writers who sell hand over fist. So what the heck is that about?
Proof that there is no God?
Josh
The crux of the whole issue of whether authors should read reviews or not hinges on positive or negative reviews. Authors love us and never complain when we give a book a glowing review and they would invite the reviewer out to dinner if they could. Obviously a negative review gets an entirely different reaction.
Authors love to read positive reviews and most of them use quotes from these reviews in their promo materials, so you will appreciate, I’m sure, that reviews do serve a purpose to many authors.
If they stop reading the positive reviews I suppose they could get their author friends to write them one to use in their promos.
I don’t know any of reviewers who would have the audacity to think that they could influence an author to improve their writing or stop writing altogether. That would take a huge ego for a reviewer to think along those lines. Some of the worst writers who get panned regularly are still writing and raking in the money because there is always a market for books – good, bad or indifferent. Maybe there is no God.
The issue of reading reviews only arises in the context of negative reviews. Authors love to read positive reviews and most of them use quotes from these reviews in their promo materials, so you can appreciate that reviews do serve a purpose to many authors.
I’ll tell you exactly how this works. In mainstream the publisher gathers the review quotes and puts them in the front pages of the book.
My webguy does it for me (which is why I’m about a year behind on my website).
Robert Parker used to have his wife do it for him.
I think positive reviews are every bit as damaging to an author. I see authors boasting on lists about the reviewers who recognize their genius work and their brilliant insights and lyrical prose and all the rest of it.
But you’re quite right. Most writers adore the good reviews (I do) and only get upset and outraged over the bad ones. That’s a given.
The best way to handle it is to give them all equal weight. If you only believe and listen to nice things about yourself, what does that say?
Authors love to read positive reviews and most of them use quotes from these reviews in their promo materials, so you will appreciate, I’m sure, that reviews do serve a purpose to many authors.
Yes. For authors, reviews are primarily promotional tools. We use quotes on websites, books, etc. We hope that the reviewer’s word carries weight and that their many followers will be moved to buy when the reviewer loves our work.
Which is the same reason we fly into a panic over a bad review.
We fear that the reviewer’s many followers won’t even give our book a chance. That we’re ruined before we’re even out of the gate.
It’s worse if we’ve expended one of our only print author copies and there’s a negative review or even no review at all.
Authors tend to have limited promotional budgets, and reviews are one of the few things that are essentially free. In fact, buying a reviewer dinner would be a no-no. Or sending gifts. There are reviewers who don’t want to accept a copy of the book directly from the author — you have to respect that boundary.
And it’s because of that oh-sure-you-love-us-when-we-say-nice-things feeling that authors need to also preserve a distance. So that we aren’t perceived as “using” reviewers — beyond the normal and expected usage.
I was kidding of course because that would be a conflict of interest. On the other hand I saw this diamond tiara that would look really great when I attend the Royal nuptials but I haven’t had any offers:)
By the way you were asking about the rabbits. They are Christian’s gift for Easter. He has such a weird sense of humour – maybe it’s a German thing.
I was kidding of course because that would be a conflict of interest. On the other hand I saw this diamond tiara that would look really great when I attend the Royal nuptials but I haven’t had any offers:)
I know you were kidding, but at various times the topic of paying for reviews arises. It happened with Kirkus reviews at one stage — I don’t know if that’s still going on or not. They were going to do paid reviews of self-published books. That was to be the Kirkus Discovery program. Maybe they went ahead with it and maybe authors have found it worth every penny.
By the way you were asking about the rabbits. They are Christian’s gift for Easter. He has such a weird sense of humour – maybe it’s a German thing
Green wabbits. Very festive.
I don’t want to be unkind and hurt the author’s feelings when I write a negative review about their book, and I’m never personal in my criticisms, but I reiterate, my review is not for the author, it’s for the readers. The author is probably doing the best s/he can with what what s/he has, and no two authors are the same in terms of writing skill and the ability to make their characters seem real. I tell the readers what my opinion is about the book, in language that’s not volatile, but it’s clear that I can’t recommend the book.
Some people do take delight in being snarky and funny — and some of those people actually are very funny — but I think most reviewers aren’t thrilled when they have to give a negative review to a writer they know is waitng and watching.
Either way, though, I’m not telling reviewers how to write their review. Yes, I’ve shared what I look for in reviews, but if you have writers dictating that all reviews must be such and such and formated like so…well, it would destroy the whole process.
Part of the reason writers got involved in the first place, was there seemed to be a shortage of reviewers. We wanted to encourage the bloggers and amazon reviewers (I’ve seen people using their amazon reviews on their websites) so making the process harder would not be what we need or want.
What I’m really suggesting is giving reviewers more freedom by removing ourselves entirely from the equation — and that’s only in regard to our own work. I’m not saying writers should abandon the pleasure of review sites and the enjoyable interaction there, I’m saying writers should avoid reading their own reviews if they can’t be dispassionate about them.
Always remember that although authors write for themselves they also sell their books, which makes their books subject to being reviewed the same way a critic would review a bottle of wine, a play, a meal, a movie or any other commodity.
Yes! This!
It’s only a minority of professional authors (and yes i use the definition deliberately) that take such umbrage, and we really shouldn’t let them spoil it for others, but they really do, specially when their Minions Attack en masse.
But the bottom line is, when you put your PRODUCT out there, be it a bottle of wine, a cafe, a tv programme, a new mousetrap, a blogpost, a tweet, or a novel – you have to grow a pair and learn how to take criticism.
Thanks, Wave.
This is a fascinating post and an even more fascinating discussion here, particularly because it’s related to something I’ve realized only recently.
It never occurred to me that reviews might be about writers/ authors. I can only speak for myself, but I always thought reviews were about BOOKS – what affected me about them, what bothered me about them.
Is anyone here aware that there are “review” sites out there for just about anything? That there are consumer – for – consumer forums where people take enormous efforts to point out the benefits of one brand of toothpaste (or candy bar, or detergent, or even Brillo pad) over another? Back when I was in college, those forums offered an opportunity to earn a little money with “reviews”; that’s where I started. You wouldn’t believe how serious some people take that kind of thing; I’ve had my thoughtless or snarky reviews on some consumer good or other shredded to pieces by people who thougth they knew everything and then some about that particular brand of toothpaste.
Not that I’m not aware that books aren’t exactly consumer goods.
Except where they are.
As Erastes mentioned above, readers are also consumers, and like every other consumer, they want to get their money’s worth for what they spend. So those “book-consumer” forums like goodreads or Amazon have their place when it comes to market value and/ or public relations – but that’s what they should keep to.
Yet, people are always people, and like with those consumer goods forums, there are people who use – for example – Amazon’s review sections as a stage for their personal showmanship – which, in my opinion, reflects badly on those people, but not on the books they shred to pieces. For my part, I can’t take those people serious, and I don’t think authors should, either.
Personally, I think a review should be about the book. Nothing else. I don’t review an author (how could I? I don’t know that person, and even if I did, how could I arrogate to myself the right to judge someone else?) or a publisher, but a book, and that can’t be personal.
Is anyone here aware that there are “review” sites out there for just about anything? That there are consumer – for – consumer forums where people take enormous efforts to point out the benefits of one brand of toothpaste (or candy bar, or detergent, or even Brillo pad) over another?
Yes! In fact, I was thinking about this very thing when I was buying my mini-laptop. These reviews are so detailed and painstaking and in-depth. And there are anecdotal examples and all kinds of useful information.
And yes, you’ll still get people arguing back and forth over whether the screen does flicker and whether the keys are too small and weirdly spaced.
Not that I’m not aware that books aren’t exactly consumer goods.
Except where they are.
They absolutely are. To everyone except the author.
As Erastes mentioned above, readers are also consumers, and like every other consumer, they want to get their money’s worth for what they spend. So those “book-consumer” forums like goodreads or Amazon have their place when it comes to market value and/ or public relations – but that’s what they should keep to.
Yep. Those forums are great — and they can even be fun for writers, but as Clare pointed out, sometimes the arrival of a writer is like a big wet blanket. People start feeling like they have to be careful of what they say — plus I think they’re waiting for the big promo pitch to start. How many discussion threads at Amazon and elsewhere have come crashing down due to relentless author promotion?
Yet, people are always people, and like with those consumer goods forums, there are people who use – for example – Amazon’s review sections as a stage for their personal showmanship – which, in my opinion, reflects badly on those people, but not on the books they shred to pieces. For my part, I can’t take those people serious, and I don’t think authors should, either.
That is absolutely true and from your mouth to the authors’ ears. An author need not point out how unfair the rabid reviews are, the reviews speak for themselves.
And the author looks…well, undignified responding to that.
Personally, I think a review should be about the book. Nothing else. I don’t review an author (how could I? I don’t know that person, and even if I did, how could I arrogate to myself the right to judge someone else?) or a publisher, but a book, and that can’t be personal.
From the moment the review becomes personal, it loses credibility for the majority of readers.
After reading the post + comments, this is the sentiment I most agree with. I think many have touched upon it here, but the truth is, reviews are helpful to bring awareness to books, both good and bad. And these days, most of the books I read are pop-fic (low-brow books that have no significant meaning to anyone for at least another 30-50 yrs until students are required to read books of that specific era, and even then, only a few well known ones).
Reviews are a fact in the consumer world, and if I treat books I read as consumer goods, I also see the reviews the same way. Of course I’m grateful to both the author (for writing) and the reviewer (for bringing the book to my attention), but most won’t make a lasting impression unless one side is unforgivably rude. The thing about serious book readers – they never stop reading, and books/reviews will fade with time, except hysterical tirades. (Though, I am not too sure about that one either – maybe in time, that will fade, too.)
I guess the key is respect from both sides, and try not to take things so seriously. As I discover other like-minded reader-friends of mine (on GR and other places), the reviews take a back seat. They often serve as a prelude to views from fellow book-readers.
I guess the key is respect from both sides, and try not to take things so seriously. As I discover other like-minded reader-friends of mine (on GR and other places), the reviews take a back seat. They often serve as a prelude to views from fellow book-readers
I think personal recommendation is still the #1 means by which most readers find books. But then a lot of these blogs seem to be a hybrid of review and personal recommendation. Online book clubs are the best way I can describe them.
And the great thing about it for authors is there’s so much discussion of books these days. People are reading and talking about what they’ve read. There is no downside to that.
But for those who don’t write and don’t review — the majority of readers, I think — what on earth do they make of these explosions between writers and reviewers? Nobody comes off looking good in those things.
I enjoyed your post, Josh, and I agreed with everything you had to say (that’s odd – usually I can find something to argue about
).
I think everyone -reader, reviewer, and writer – needs to remember that reviews are personal opinions, not facts. I have read negative reviews and the very thing the reviewer hated was my favorite part of the book. I have read glowing reviews and when I read the book I wanted to hurl it against the wall.
We all bring our own personal likes and dislikes, our own histories, our own hot buttons to every book we read, write, or review and that makes a huge difference in how we view it.
Thanks very much, Kiracee!
I’ll do my best to come up with something we can argue about next time.
Josh,
I think that in the world of m/m romance that territory folks should stick together, that Territory folks should all be pals. Cowboys dance with farmer’s sons, and Farmers dance with the ranchers’ guys.
Also, I think there would be more civility if people used their real names. I believe that people are more careful when their actual identity makes them accountable for what they say. On the blogs that have adopted a real name policy, I’ve seen a significant transformation in how people treat one another.
-Stuart
LOL. I love it.
I’ve had “I sure am feelin’ sorry for the pony” stuck in my head all day.
Hi Stuart
I don’t think that reviewers would have a problem using their real names if the authors did the same.
I don’t think that reviewers would have a problem using their real names if the authors did the same.
I think it’s reasonable that reviewers should use a pen name — provided that they can be reached through that pen name. That they are accountable through that pen name.
I can reach you as Wave. You can reach me as Josh Lanyon. But Sugar Plum Fairy who reviews through the Sugar Plum Fairy site can’t be reached directly.
Than again, neither can reviewers at Publisher’s Weekly, so while I think the anonymity of the net contributes to the problem, attaching names is more a symbol of accountability. Accountability is what we’d ideally all like to see.
Thank you for the interesting article! I learned a lot and got a lot to think about.
Actually, I didn’t think that authors would take reviews on (hobby) blogs or even Goodreads serious. (Maybe I’m naïve in this way.
) I used to differentiate between reviews and professional critiques and thought the professional ones the only important source of critic for writers.
Most of the time the GR reviews are readers letting other readers know that they liked a book and how much and how hot it was. Only in a few cases you get enough reasoning and arguments to understand why they liked it.
As a reader I like the kind of reviews here on this site because they have enough substance to get you an idea of the story and show positive and negative points. And that’s how I might get interested in this book and want to read it.
Somewhere in the posts above somebody wrote that even mere thinking aloud would be seen as an offence or negative critic. I think that is a general problem throughout the whole impersonal, writing based internet. It lacks the direct personal interaction where you have gestures, facial expression and body language to discern subtleties.
That’s why a neutral statement can come across as negative when you can’t see the smile on the face of your opposite. That might be a reason that reviews can seem more negative as they were meant by the reviewer. And that’s why green Easter bunnies are so very important.
And that’s why green Easter bunnies are so very important.
Truer words were never spoken.
I’ve always loved reading reviews. The good ones can entertain and amuse me. Who are they written for? I’m assuming for anyone who cares to read them, readers & writers alike. Writers should respond or not, read them or not.
I don’t see why a writer needs to be punished if they want to defend their work. It might make them look foolish, it might be the dumbest thing they’ve ever done, it might make them lose sales but I defend their right to do so. Reviewers do not get special indemnity from criticism. The moment they put pen to paper or blog or publicize their review, what they instantly become is just another ‘published writer’ subject to the same critiques as any other writer. Yeah, I think it’s OK to criticize the critic.
Now it would be nice if everybody behaved nicely in the writer/reviewer playground but this is the big anonymous Internet so we should probably settle for everyone being less touchy.
Ultimately I’m a consumer of books and I read reviews to make good purchasing decisions. I find both the more professionally run sites like here & the free for all Good Reads & Amazon are helpful. It warns me against things I don’t like (even in a 5 star review) & ignore what others find negative if it’s something I can tolerate. It has saved me the trouble of reading books I would personally rate 1 star. What more could you ask for?
Now it would be nice if everybody behaved nicely in the writer/reviewer playground but this is the big anonymous Internet so we should probably settle for everyone being less touchy.
Ha. Ten pages of post condensed to one paragraph. And so true.
As a reader, I like reading what other readers think about a book before I purchase it. My method of filtering the good comments from the bad generally works. The one big exception was believing what Stephen King (yes, the author) said on Amazon about The Ruins, which must be the most ridiculous story I have ever read.
Authors who take anything an amateur reviewer says seriously are foolish, but if a slew of those amateurs keep telling them the same thing (e.g., your dialogue is stilted, you have more coincidences than Charles Dickens, etc.), it might be wise to consider those matters.
As a reader, I like reading what other readers think about a book before I purchase it. My method of filtering the good comments from the bad generally works. The one big exception was believing what Stephen King (yes, the author) said on Amazon about The Ruins, which must be the most ridiculous story I have ever read.
Was it? It was an interesting film.
Yes. A lot of readers like to read reviews before they buy books. Other readers don’t read the reviews until after they’ve read the book. I go both ways. Sometimes I want to know more about the book before I purchase it and sooner or later a reviewer is going to tell me what I needed to know. Or sometimes I’ll read the reviews afterward thinking maybe I missed something — or because I loved the book so much I just want to hear other people talking about it and sharing their thoughts on it. Sometimes that enriches and prolongs the whole experience of the book.
See, I think there are a lot of people following blogs who are like me – lurkers – who ‘follow’ in the sense that they catch what’s being released, what’s new, what’s older-but-overlooked, etc. If they’re really like me, they will take a look at the kerfuffle, make a face like this
and then continue to search for books they need (burning!) to read next.
Even on GR, there’s a good group of reader-reviewers who don’t partake in blogging, but are just extremely prolific readers who drop down their thoughts for whatever book they’ve read and move on. With this set of semi-reviewers, you’d be right in calling them a makeshift cyber book-club. No pressure, pure exchange in thoughts and perceptions of what’s being read. I guess I am beginning to see why – there’s too little time to read all the books I want to read – one really must learn to pick up pace.
So yeah, as much as I’d love to deliberate on the finer points of reviews and books I’ve read and liked/loved/disliked/hated, ultimately, I’d like to share my thoughts briefly and move onto the next one. Time’s a ticking
If they’re really like me, they will take a look at the kerfuffle, make a face like this
and then continue to search for books they need (burning!) to read next
That’s probably true for most readers. Only a relative fraction of readers take part in all this online social interaction, which is probably why word of mouth and personal recommendations still count so heavily.
Oh my goodness, I just realized I replied to the wrong post. Have no idea how that happened. This was in response to this
Apologies!
Heavens! I can’t keep track. I get a notice when someone posts a response to my post — otherwise I’d be totally lost! Don’t worry about it.
Very interesting..thanks!
Thanks, Sherry.
Regarding The Ruins, the book was so bad, I would not waste money on the movie. I feared actually seeing plants imitating mobile phones – reading about it was enough. The stupid thing was, I kept thinking the book must get better at some point, but it didn’t. It wasn’t that the writing was a problem, it was the dumb plot. The characters weren’t at all likeable either, so having them all meet their doom was not at all upsetting.
One of the things I liked about the movie was that the characters did try all the obvious stuff you *would* try to get free.
Also they didn’t all instantly turn on each other, which always drives me nuts.
It wasn’t a perfect movie by any means, but it was better than I’d expected.
Josh, when I first saw that your topic was about the farmer and the cowman, I couldn’t for the life of me figure out what you could possibly be writing about. Of course my mind went right into the gutter: the farmer likes to push a plow….. hmm, what is the farmer liking to plow in this case? What does that have to do with a cowman? And then I couldn’t imagine where you were going to go from there!
Seriously, however, a reviewer isn’t a a writing teacher or an editor. But, as Aunt Lynn noted above, if a reviewer notices a recurring weakness or trend, will an editor read the comments of established reviewers to get feedback for an author?
I would also like Aunt Lynn to know I really like her reviews; especially when she is very up-front about scenes in the book that readers might find objectionable. Just an observation.
Now there’s a good point. Publishers and editors do indeed read reviews. So, for example, if a number of reviewers spot a problem — copyedits or any number of things — that message does get through.
Totally off your topic, but I will try to get a copy of The Ruins – the movie. Some books are much better as movies, e.g. Cold Comfort Farm.
And if you don’t enjoy it, we’ll have another example of how subjective our likes and dislikes are.
So true. Thanks, Josh.
Hello! It is I, your stalker. Okay at some point I know I’ll get that restraining order but still….
One of the main rules for our reviewing is that I don’t review friends. Those get passed off to other reviewers. I can’t really be objective … not really… and if I want to say something about a book or a writer, it gets logged under Editor’s Opinion rather than a review.
One of the biggest issues I have is… can’t post a comment about a book I didn’t care for on a review site. Can’t do it because well, now I’m in the stable where that author is as well. Bad form. Even if it’s just an opinion, I feel it would be… hurtful in some aspect.
But I’m comfortable with not saying anything if I don’t have something nice to say. Most of the times. Okay, well…. I’m shushing now.
The bunnies are cool.
Yes, I do differentiate between friends and people I am friendly with. I hope I’m friendly with just about every m/m author out there. Some friends are reviewers, some friends are stalkers. Some friends are both!
Of course I’ve often spewed my opinion about a book in places I shouldn’t. I fear I shall be forced to sit in a corner at some point with no one talking to me.
Some people are very nice people but I don’t care for their books. Hell, some of those people are even my friends so it makes things very difficult.
I know you’re not going to believe this but I rarely pimp out authors in general. Brace yourself… because really I don’t. I think I have five authors I can say hands-down, everything they write is golden. I count you as one.
Even if you threatened to kill the cat. :::sniffs:::
That said, I probably have more faith in your ability to derail a series with a twist that is unpopular… like Jake’s marriage. I might not have liked the twist.. okay I lie, I did… but the fact is, it didn’t turn me off the series because I knew that you’d come to that conclusion totally within the character’s mindset. I could see it. And I liked it.
I can’t say that for every author’s decisions. There are times when the “misunderstanding between lovers” seems very formula and almost Harlequin in nature. I recently forced myself to finish reading a series because by the time I got halfway through the first book, I was tired of a naming convention the author was using. And EVERYONE in the book would spout off random cutesy names for everyone else as if it were a disease that there was no cure for. It got annoying and detracted from the writing for me. Probably other people enjoy it. I didn’t. I still don’t. I would seriously reconsider buying another book from that author because of it.
Can I review the series? I would recuse myself from that because well, first, I’ve entered the “author” status and really can’t have an opinion without offending someone… regardless of m/m or het or any other genre (I go through a lot of books). Secondly, the writing was damned good and I enjoyed the series except for that bit. Could I be fair about it? I don’t know.
It isn’t the first series I’ve enjoyed only to have something pop up as a recurring irritant that bloomed into a huge annoyance by the end of the series… overly cute rocket-scientist kids and Hawkings-IQed animals are big ones for me.
Sadly, I am probably guilty of it too. Aren’t we the most annoyed by the thing we do as well?
I’m rambling. I need coffee. Shutting up now. Have a bunny. They make things all better.
Can I review the series? I would recuse myself from that because well, first, I’ve entered the “author” status and really can’t have an opinion without offending someone… regardless of m/m or het or any other genre (I go through a lot of books). Secondly, the writing was damned good and I enjoyed the series except for that bit. Could I be fair about it? I don’t know.
Well, we’ve all heard me on the subject of writers reviewing fellow writers, so no comment on that.
But your example is a good one. You have no real complaint about the series, it just bugs you for various reasons.
So were you to write a review, it made add something to the dialog, it might not, but for the author reading that…well, okay. Not a lot he can do with that.
And that’s how it is for a lot of reviews, really. The reviewer happens to like or not like something that the writer does like or is part of the writer’s branding or whatever.
Sometimes a reviewer will pick up on something useful — some fundamental and important something, either a positive or a negative. But most reviews really *aren’t* for writers, meaning there isn’t anything other than a particular reviewer’s opinion for the writer to take away.
And if you like and respect the reviewer’s opinion, you may find their view of your book interesting, gratifying, disappointing, whatever…but most of the time there isn’t anything of a *practical* nature to take away from it.
Which is why I believe that reviews should be aimed at readers.
Hey dude. Now, you know you’ll never save my heart from death-by-sitting (I’m just gonna have to accept my abbreviated earthly portion on that one), but you have saved my shivering authorial soul with the above words of wisdom – over and over again.
;-D
STAND UP. STAND UP NOW!!
Josh, thank you for this! I don’t know when I’ve read a piece about reviews that hit home so much with me!
I did thank my reviewer on this for his review on my book a while back. Simply for the time and effort to read it, and for being fair. Or I thought he was.
You said so many good things here, I can’t begin to address them. But I can only say my heart zinged as I read your piece, and it all made so much sense. And I truly loved that you stressed that we should not write for a reviewer, nor for…well, that was a billion words ago, I can’t find your original words. But you know what I mean.
So true, and something it does me good to be reminded of.
Again, thank you for this honest article.
Thanking reviewers is absolutely right, Carol. Reviewers have many books to choose from and it’s a compliment when they choose ours. Even when they don’t like the book, it’s still — in a strange way — a compliment that they took the time to review it.
I think most reviewers do try to be fair. I think most reviewers try to be conscientious. I think most reviewers don’t enjoy giving a bad review. And I think most writers agree with all of the above.
I’ve been a long-time lurker here, though I find it hard to keep up sometimes (so many posts!), and this topic caused me to come out of hiding.
Josh, what an important, and complicated, issue you’ve brought to the fore. I appreciate everyone’s comments here and and it’s made me think about my own use of ‘reviews’ and other comments, either here, or amazon or other sites.
When I first started reading books in this genre, reviews were extremely helpful in figuring out what to buy next (or which authors to catch up on). But the kind of reviews mattered, too. “I liked it a lot, go buy it!” doesn’t provide as much insight as a multi-paragraph commentary.
But I like to think that I’m discerning enough that I can tell what a good reviewe-”ER” is from a not so good one. And then of course, we all have different tastes – there are some very good reviewers here with whom I don’t have the same taste, so even though I read what they have to say, I tailor it for our differences. This, of course, happens to be one of the most polite locations, both in reviews and in commentary, so when I do get here (I am behind following reviews by about 3 weeks), I enjoy the process.
I will say, even though I now know who my ‘favorites’ are, and my must buys (and you are one, Josh, though, no, there are no thanks required, please
), I still need reviews. There are so many authors out there, new, and those I haven’t read, that it’s nice to have the buying decision supplemented with some assistance.
Having said that, the underlying theme of your initial post, Josh, is such an important one to me. Civility in tone, and a grasp of language and communication are often missing elsewhere on the internet, and they impede actual discourse. Forget the internet, look at daily life. I’d love to see more of that return, but sometimes I wonder if it’s a lost cause.
In the meantime, I love a well-written review, I love a well-written book, and if I read something that isn’t perfect, I can often find elements that really worked for me. Maybe I’m a bit sensitive to this, because I’m a progressing writer (though not in this genre), and I appreciate how hard it is to first create, and then put it out there for others. Having been in writers’ groups in the past (I’m encased in a concrete writer’s block right now, so I haven’t written in a very long time), it was always interesting to me to see how writers took critiques, and equally, how people critiqued others. I admit to being dumbstruck by how some people expressed their PERSONAL likes and dislikes in such harsh fashion. And these people considered themselves communicators!
So, hey, if every now and then I buy something that doesn’t work for me either because the recommendation didn’t match my experience, or I expected more from that writer, you know, that’s ok. It’s not life and death, and act of reading always inspires me in some way.
Boy. This was longer than I imagined. I am going to go back to lurking, I promise.
Thanks for this website, and this discussion.
ETA: Another reason I appreciate this topic? Maybe it will get me to start writing again!
Having said that, the underlying theme of your initial post, Josh, is such an important one to me. Civility in tone, and a grasp of language and communication are often missing elsewhere on the internet, and they impede actual discourse. Forget the internet, look at daily life. I’d love to see more of that return, but sometimes I wonder if it’s a lost cause
I wonder too.
I know a lot of people took different messages away from yesterday’s post.
Some reviewers thought I was trying to tell them not to write negative reviews. Some thought I was trying to set up rules for every blog and review site. Some thought I was saying reviews aren’t useful or that I dislike reviews.
I wasn’t — and am not — saying any of that.
We currently have an outmoded dynamic for authors and reviewers, and it’s starting to fail us. The failure is resulting in increased hostility and resentment on both sides. Almost every author I talked to yesterday had a crazy reviewer story. And almost every reviewer I talked to had a crazy author story.
I don’t think we’re all crazy or that we’re more crazy than previous generations of authors and reviewers. The failure, in my opinion, comes from confusion and wrongful expectation on the part of all of us.
How do we change that? I have no idea. I would think open communication was the first step, but given how upset some people were by the suggestion that maybe we could all examine the way we’re relating to each other…well, I’m hopeful but I’m not holding my breath.
See, even words that have specific meanings can be taken in so many different ways, based on the individual’s perspective! Rashomon, indeed.
For what it’s worth, I never thought you were trying to set up a guidebook for reviewer or author conduct – good luck to you if that’s what you intended.
It seemed to me – and still does, 24 hours later, that if anything, perhaps more thoughtfulness on the part of all parties involved, writers, reviewers, bloggers, amateur wordsmiths, etc, would be a good thing.
The internet has made everything so immediate. Someone ticks you off? Email them about what a jerk they are, only to find out you read a word the wrong way (and somehow end up cc:ing your entire email list to boot.) Twitter your outrage about the bad burger you just bit into. Any and every emotion can just be thrown out there, immediately, without benefit of thinking it through, without editing (let alone proper English), without filter.
I’m not suggesting that happens on this website, far from it. I do think that our new technological age – which I embrace because, well, thank God for ebooks, and authors (and genres) I would never have known about – would be far better if there was a ‘slow down’ button, that forced one’s comment, or thought to sit in a time-out for at least 15 minutes before you had to re-read it to send.
I also think that as a writer or reviewer, trying to respond to everyone’s comments is a bit of a no-win situation. Kind of like whack-a-mole, whereby you end up hitting your own self in the head. Again, as a pure observer, I admire all of you on both sides of the fence.
Also, as you can probably tell, I’m a bit of a dork, and love talking about issues without clear cut answers, especially in such thoughtful company. What a great dialogue.
PS, So did the farmer and cowman end up together? There’s a story there, somewhere!
See, even words that have specific meanings can be taken in so many different ways, based on the individual’s perspective! Rashomon, indeed.
For what it’s worth, I never thought you were trying to set up a guidebook for reviewer or author conduct – good luck to you if that’s what you intended.
It seemed to me – and still does, 24 hours later – that if anything, perhaps more thoughtfulness on the part of all parties involved, writers, reviewers, bloggers, amateur wordsmiths, etc, would be a good thing.
The internet has made everything so immediate. Someone ticks you off? Email them about what a jerk they are, only to find out you read a word the wrong way (and somehow end up cc:ing your entire email list to boot.) Twitter your outrage about the bad burger you just bit into. Any and every emotion can just be thrown out there, immediately, without benefit of thinking it through, without editing (let alone proper English), without filter.
I’m not suggesting that happens on this website, far from it. I do think that our new technological age – which I embrace because, well, thank God for ebooks, and authors (and genres) I would never have known about – would be far better if there was a ‘slow down’ button, that forced one’s comment, or thought to sit in a time-out for at least 15 minutes before you had to re-read it to send.
Also, as you can probably tell, I’m a bit of a dork, and love talking about issues without clear-cut answers, especially in such thoughtful company. What a great dialogue.
It seemed to me – and still does, 24 hours later – that if anything, perhaps more thoughtfulness on the part of all parties involved, writers, reviewers, bloggers, amateur wordsmiths, etc, would be a good thing.
I thought one of the most troubling aspects of yesterday’s post was how many writers seemed to think there might be reprisals for daring to criticize reviewers.
Now maybe I’m naive, but I truly don’t think many reviewers are so childish or spiteful that can’t handle the suggestion that there are some problems on both sides in the way we interact. But what that tells us is there is a huge communication gap — and a lot of distrust. It really IS like OKLAHOMA.
We’ve got to get past that — hopefully in time for when you get writing again!
Thanks Josh for more perspective on the writer/reviewer/reader dynamic here in cyberspace.
Courtesy isn’t complex but we never know whose listening anymore. Readers have been discussing stories since the beginning of oral language. We just aren’t used to writers being present to hear it.
When does someone transform from a logger on GR to a “reviewer”? I guess you know it when it happens? And what happens if this “reviewer” doesn’t wish to change pattern of communication with this new position of power? Yes, very blury and messy business.
On a different note, wanted to thank you for introducing me to. Joseph Hansen’s PI series. Read the first book and LOVED It! So Enjoyable! I have to get the rest.
Thanks so much for the REC!!!
So we readers will always be talking about books,both good and bad. Be careful what you eavesdrop on.
Readers have been discussing stories since the beginning of oral language. We just aren’t used to writers being present to hear it.
Yes. You expect writers to read their reviews. You don’t expect them to barge into your living room and listen to you discussing a book with your friends.
And that line between reviewer/blogger/personwithanopinion is becoming increasingly blurred.
The message from reviewers was mixed. Some would prefer not to hear from writers, some would prefer to hear thanks but nothing negative. I think they were mostly agreed they wanted writers to read their reviews; that many reviewers hope writers will take away something useful from the review (beyond promotion op) even though they feel they’re reviewing for readers.
I think that it’s difficult to ask writers to interact and be charming over positive reviews but keep mum over the negatives. Maybe the most is that you have civil discourse over the negatives — but then you run into reviewers feeling attacked if a writer objects (even civilly) to something in a review.
What we currently have is a scenario that doesn’t take human nature into account.
The rules and the roles ae changing, and it would be great if we could all deal with that change with maybe just a little understanding of where the other side is coming from. Or, failing that, good manners.
Hey, I’m so glad you’re enjoying the Hansen books! That’s excellent.
Josh
Thanks for spending so much time preparing your post and responding to all the comments. I know how wearying and time consuming it is.
If there’s one thing I’m taking away from this discussion (and I mentioned this to you today off line):
Authors and reviewers need each other –
Without books, reviewers have nothing to read. Without quotes from positive reviews authors don’t have an inexpensive and effective means of promoting their books. So can’t we all get along?
I love to read and the world would be a pretty barren place without books. It doesn’t matter to me really if authors don’t read my reviews, although those who do I hope get something out of them, even if it’s a little germ of an idea of what I’m talking about.
See you next month Josh when I hope that Christian will have different green smilies than these damn rabbit ears.
Wave, I’m going to think of a nice, neutral topic for next month. Something like…decorating your workspace.
Don’t you dare!!!
Oooh, I’m looking forward to that one… LMAO.
And by the way, Wave, those curtains don’t match this blog.
And Clare, just for the record, I think you should be using more ergonomically friendly furniture.
Okay, long comment please beware, and while I am replying to specific comment, I came back after more than a week and read a lot of them, so it is a response to more than one of your comments in a sense.
I still do not understand how you calculate your statistics about reviewers agreeing about wanting authors to read their reviews and thus your whole argument about reviewers wanting to write anything they want but also being hurt when author do not respond to them, well just does not ring true to me. I counted several reviewers from this site responding (five? six?). Maybe there were reviewers who are from other sites of course, whom I was not aware of. If I remember correctly only one or two reviewers said that they want authors to pay attention to their reviews, some said that if paying attention means arguing over negative reviews they would much rather authors not read reviews at all and I would much rather authors *never* read my reviews, period. If you need them for promos, if you are pleased with them, there is nothing I can do, I can only say I really do not care and same with negative reviews, unless the response from the author attacks me personally. But again, in that situation I truly believe that it is author who will look more foolish than me. How does that translate into your summary that reviewers *mostly agreed that they want writers to read their reviews*, I am really not sure. At the very least I have not seen anything close to consensus. Do not get me wrong, I am all for reviewers working on the quality of their writing if they so desire, goodness gracious I am aware I have a lot to work on when I write and I do want to get better in review writing. But this issue to me is completely separate and independent from saying that reviewers just cannot say what they want, unless they would follow the rules writers will establish for them. I know you did not say these specific words, but this is the implied message I am getting from your essay and your subsequent comments. It may not be what you wanted to convey but this is what I am hearing. So let me say again and I am going to venture a guess and say that there are at least some reviewers that have the same wish, I do not want the author watching over my shoulder when I do a review, be it a positive or negative one. I of course cannot force anybody to stay away and not read the review or not comment on it, freedom of speech surely goes both ways, but yes, I think I have a right to say anything I wish about your book, as long as I do not personally attack you and I do not equate being harsh towards the book with personally attacking the author. To me personally attacking the author means attacking the “person”, calling names etc. I think we have to be civil to each other, absolutely, but as long as I am not reviewing “you”, but your book, I think I am being civil. When I think and say that dress I bought in the store is crappy or the food I ate in the restaurant was horrible, I do not think about their creator, when I talk about the book, I think it is a very same thing. I want to warn the readers with similar tastes, that is all. Other person would think that dress is lovely, it is all super subjective, but I do not expect dress designer to suddenly show up in the store and start telling me how dare I criticised her or his dress when I am not aware of the rules of the design, even when I see that dress is badly cut and is a horrible colour on me, I really do not need to study design for that.And while in different language, I am a little bit more educated in the field of literature than I am in fashion design. Fashion critic who is writing for designers would surely criticize or praise the dress from more detailed perspective, but I feel that consumers are my audience and not authors. IMO of course.
I want to be able to adequately explain what in the book worked for me and what did not work in the reviews, but while I never thought that reviews on Amazon which said “book sucked” or “loved the book so much” were very helpful, I will defend the right of the reader to say just that and nothing else, if they so desire. Funny, it seems that a lot of readers on Amazon do not even care for long reviews. My most helpful reviews on Amazon had one or two paragraphs in it, but of course Amazon is totally different animal from this site and I want to write at least somewhat as well as so many reviewers here do.
To be clear, when I say I am more educated in the field of literature than in fashion design, I am not claiming the graduate degree in the literary criticism or anything close to that
.
Sirius, It’s possible I’m misunderstanding your point, so let me just clarify my own.
1 – I did not say at any time — nor do I believe — that there is no place for negative reviews if by “negative” we mean thoughtful critical reviews.
2 – I said several times and I sincerely believe that Amazon reviews are every bit as useful to writers as reviews on review sites and blog sites. They all serve a purpose. And part of that purpose serves the interests of writers although serving the interests of writers is not — in my opinion — the main function of reviews and reviewers.
3 – The impression I had from comments on and off list (because I received one hell of a lot of email from reviewers and authors both on this topic) was that the reviewers who had an issue with this column were those who objected to my advising writers to avoid reading their reviews.
Are these reviewers the majority of reviewers? That I can’t say. We would have to define “reviewers” and I think that is a fairly fluid term. Are we going to call every single blogger, Goodreads reader, and Amazon reviewer A Reviewer and then lump them in with those who review on actual review sites?
That’s a question not a statement because unless we define our term “reviewer,” there is no possibility of knowing what the majority of “reviewers” feel or think. And even then, it would be hard to draw conclusions based on emails and comments on this site.
I believe you when you say you don’t care whether authors read your reviews or not. I believe that is true of many who post online about books. Maybe it’s true of most who post online — I have no way of knowing and neither do you and, frankly, I don’t think it’s a key issue, is it? Clearly some reviewers would like authors to read their reviews. Clearly some would not. The exact number changes nothing. Even if three quarters of all reviewers desperately want authors to read their opinion, it does not change the fact that YOU do not want this, right? So it is true for you and I’m sure it is true of many.
And yet again, because this message seems to keep getting lost (maybe because some folks assume they know what I am saying without actually paying attention to what I’m saying) I do not have a problem with critical or unfavorable reviews.
If all reviews were positive and glowing, there would be no point to any reviews.
In another sector of the publishing universe I review mainstream mysteries. I understand both sides of the equation very well indeed. It’s one reason why I’m critical of reviewers, it’s one reason why I support their right to express their honest and reasoned opinions, and it’s one reason why I think writers who don’t thrive on criticism do better not reading those reviews.
Well said, JOsh.
There is s aterrible danger in pretending that all words, work, worlds have the same worth.
I’m reminded of a Jung quote that a lot of credulous nitwits forget when they slop around words like “archetype” or “shadow” in pop lit-crit.
“If anything means everything, then everything means nothing.”
The challenge of anyone expressing their opinion on the world-wide-whatever is that the gates are open and the task of winnowing the chaff is left to each person individually. For this reason alone Google is now a verb and emerged unscathed from the fall of the dot-communists. It’s fucking hard to determine value when it must be done on a case-by case basis.
Again this is where your Oklahoma reference in the post title is so apt. The trouble with landgrabs during the big push West is that it WAS a free-for-all but there was enormous cost to claiming turf. All that open terrain was “given” in order to increase its value and thereby the government’s. Like good primates, we’ve gathered into tribes and found watering holes and other vital virtual resources.
Likewise, 15 years into its popularity, the Internet has begun to circle the wagons and infect the blankets. The Gold Rush is over. The prime real estate seems to have been claimed for the moment. Rules are firming like mortar and barbed wire around us. That’s just the way you build a community, Hobbes would say. LOL And just like the Westward Ho movement, the fences and favors are creating friction with people who liked it wild and woolly. The zeitgeist has shifted, and we’re just wiping off the dust of its passage. and fighting off rustlers and carpetbaggers.
I find it fascinating that reviewers should get mad that authors avoid their reviews as I do that readers feel that reviews are “intended” for them alone. This strange imaginary sectioning of the world makes me think of people trying to carve lines in an ocean with a stick. The very scale and access of the Internet makes it impossible. That same scale and access which makes it possible for anyone to express their opinion or sell their product makes it equally unlikely that opinion will be heard or that product found. Direct ratio actually. Not unlike history in that. If your analogy holds what we’ll see in the next few decades is the “industrialization and urban migration of the virtual world. A lot of analysis indicates exactly that… companies dominating sectors and harvesting data, individuals sharecropping their little patch until they get absorbed by the big “cities” with access to the flow that provides power and transport.
Not to belabor the metaphor but it’s a robust one you’ve found.
Anyways, great points all and thank you for taking the time to articulate your thoughts so clearly.
Anyways, great points all and thank you for taking the time to articulate your thoughts so clearly.
It’s been a fascinating and, I believe, enllightening conversation. We’ve heard from many on the topic and all of those views — not least your own — have offered a fresh perspective.
What’s even more fascinating are the conversations this post sparked elsewhere across the web.
What does this column basically boil down to? We should aim to be professional and civil in our exchanges with others. Many hurt feelings could be avoided if we remember that reviewers and writers have different aims and different goals — and this is a good thing.
That’s pretty much it. That’s pretty much my point. And yet I’ve heard some fairly astonishing interpretations of what I’m “really” saying.
I find it funny and very telling that the idea we should “have to” act like grownups and professionals pisses so many folks off.
There could be no better illustration of why we are still miles awway from being able to dosey doe in peace and harmony — or at least style — with our publishing pardners.
Thanks for clarifying your point Josh, and you indeed laid out what my possible point of contention is right here in yout first sentence:
“1 – I did not say at any time — nor do I believe — that there is no place for negative reviews if by “negative” we mean thoughtful critical reviews”
Who gets to decide what is a thoughtful critical review and what is not? Of course there are situations when it is obvious that review is not thoughtful, but I can barely count such situations on the fingers of my one hand and they all are boiling down to the fact that reviewer is either being rude to the author’s personally (calls him names, etc) or reviewer does not talk about the book (uses incorrect facts in the review). Before I started reviewing on this site, my only venue was Amazon and as I said before, of course it is not comparable, one of the reasons why I was so delighted to be invited here is because I view it as great learning opportunity for myself to improve my writing skills. But at the same time I am also proud of *some* of my Amazon reviews, even when they are so short, because it is very hard sometimes to explain what you liked or not in a couple paragraphs.
And actually one of the few reviews on Amazon that people seem to find most helpful was my review of your “Fair game”. I usually scowl at Amazon’s voting system simply because I had seen so many great critical reviews (much much better written than mine) voted down for the only reason I could imagine. I was shocked however to see how many people found my review of your book helpful, because I spend on the review maybe five minutes. It was one short paragraph. It takes me days sometimes to craft reviews and revise for this site, and that is how it should be, but apparently there is an audience for such short reviews too?
And NO, I am not asking you to read my review, I am just giving you the information and I promise I am close to making my point
. My one paragraph was highly complimentary because I indeed loved that book. And now lets imagine that instead of saying how much I enjoyed the characters, the resolution of the mystery and the end of the story (because this is ALL I have said in that review,really), I would have said the following – your book sucked, characters were one dimensional and flat, resolution of the mystery was weak and I could see the villain telegraphed from the very beginning, the ending was unsatisfactory too.
Would you have deemed such review “not thoughtful critical review”? Now of course I would have never attempted to pass this review, positive or negative here, Wave and Lynn would have smacked me and deservingly so
, more examples, more reasoning would have been needed.
But what I am saying is that there is apparently a *very* large audience for the reviews like the one I referenced and who is to say that they should not be published in the appropriate venue like Amazon for example or even Good reads. Sometimes when I am looking through reviews on Amazon that is what I want to, the essense of the reasoning, boiled down to few short sentences.
I hope I am making more sense now. Oh and as to reviewers wanting authors to read their reviews, I admit I am surprised indeed that a lot of such reviewers exist.
But honestly, I also do not think it changes much, if reviewer has a wish for author to read their review, I still do not think that review has to follow special rules, besides general civility towards the author and sticking to the correct facts of the book. I also think that even if reviewer has such a wish, they should not think that they are entitled to author’s reading their review and especially commenting on it, I think this should totally be up to the author.
Who gets to decide what is a thoughtful critical review and what is not? Of course there are situations when it is obvious that review is not thoughtful, but I can barely count such situations on the fingers of my one hand and they all are boiling down to the fact that reviewer is either being rude to the author’s personally (calls him names, etc) or reviewer does not talk about the book (uses incorrect facts in the review).
You’ve pretty much nailed it down right there. Just as it is difficult to reach consensus as to who the best fiction writers are within our genre, I think there is some difference of opinion as to who the best reviewers are. And yet certain names do crop up with greater frequency. So perhaps it’s a bit like pornography. We know it when we see it.
You mentioned Amazon and one of your reviews of my work — thank you for the review, by the way. And no, I haven’t read it, but I don’t need to read it to appreciate the time you spent on sharing your thoughts. Even if it was five minutes.
Yes, we have different expectations for a site like Amazon than we do Goodreads. Amazon,
for example, does not allow rating without commentary. Goodreads does. You can’t get much briefer than that. Some bloggers post their reviews to Amazon, so some Amazon reviews are as in-depth as you could hope to find. Some professional review sites — Publisher’s Weekly, Library Journal, Kirkus — post their reviews to Amazon in the editorial review section, so we can’t really generalize about Amzon reviews.
Again, I think all reviews — all discussion of books — works to the greater good of promoting and marketing books. It’s all useful. Even a lot of what I would deem negative and foolish blabber does ultimately advertise and spread the word.
This is why I think authors need to relax and let go of feeling a need to control or spin the word on their work. So long as their work is being discussed, it’s all good. It really is.
Anyway, it’s nearly time for my next column and I’m stll responding to posts on this one! I’m pleased that it served the purpose of stimulating so much discussion, and that the discussion continues, but I think I’ve pretty much said all I have to say. I find myself repeating the same things over and over, which is always a good sign that it’s time to stop talking.
Wow, there’s so much here to think about and take in from Josh’s blog to all the comments. I have written reviews on Amazon and Barnes & Noble in hopes that it might “help” give another reader some insight rather than solely depending on the publisher’s blurb. I noticed a couple of the commentators are those whose reviews and opinions on Amazon are ones I’ve followed and appreciated as their reviews are generally well thought out and supported. With regard to authors commenting on a review, I have had one instance where the author commented, which was completely unexpected although flattering. I was the first reviewer and it was his first published work so naturally he had a vested interest.
I enjoy writing reviews as one reader to another. I am under no illusion that my reviews are akin to the NY Times Book Review – I would, however, like to think or hope that I have conveyed enough elements regarding style, plot, and character to help another reader make an assessment. I can certainly understand and empathize with a writer when my review has been marked unhelpful without letting me know the reason why – it is not to justify myself to that person, but rather a desire to improve or take it into account for the next time.
As stated previously, there is an amazing amount of information and remarks to process, all of which will be helpful to me as an amateur reviewer. It is interesting to note the passion around the subject of writing vis-à-vis reviews and how personal it becomes demonstrating that something so subjective can elicit a strong response.
J, I think Amazon reviews are sort of like the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval. The quality of the reviews might vary, but not having any translates to NO ONE WILL READ THIS BOOK.
Of course that’s not always true. Sometimes the book has only just been listed on Amazon. Sometimes it’s an out of print book or an obscure scholarly work or just an obscure work, period.
But no reviews is worse than bad reviews and if all you have are bad reviews, that’s not a lot better.
Which is the long way of saying that Amazon’s citizen reviews — Amazon in particular, but other bookselling sites too — also play an increasingly important role in all this.
What you sort of have is a democratization of literary criticism where everyone potentially has a say. Ultimately that should make book buying choices easier for a potential reader.
Sometimes those citizen reviews are the only reviews an author will have for a book at first, so they’ve come to be increasingly valued. Some of the top reviewers — Harriet Klausner, for example — are even used by mainstream publishers to blurb on book covers.
“Wonderful, wonderful, and yet again wonderful, and again, out of all whooping”
Thank you, Josh for posting such a fantastic overview of this zetigeisty issue.
I agree with you on almost every point, and I say that as someone who has been writing professionally for over two decades. Online reviewing by bloggers and readers and whatnot IS a kind of steroidal bookclub. This is the landscape wrought by Amazon and the like. The internet is less like a literary salon than a garage sale with people squabbling over stuff as the happen to pick it up at the same moment.
To me the pivotal observation is that, as you say:
“These days any goof with a computer and a credit card can call herself an Author, but so too can any goof with a computer and Internet access call herself a Reviewer.”
Like online dating, the imaginary internet atelier is generally a conjob. Without some level of screening and standards we have to decide for ourselves, on a case by case basis if someone is insightful or a dolt… If text is thoughtful or twaddle… if anyof it is worth our time. The task of FINDING quality has replaced the tacit approval of New York publishing. Ultimately I think that will be good writers and readers, but at the moment we ARE living in a bit of a land rush (of the type remembered by your blog title). Anyone with a flag can plant it in a piece of virtual land and claim it. In turn this can make for hateful neighbors. Writers select words and readers select tect texts: CHOICE is how we express intelligence, experience, imagination, anxieties, prejudices, hopes, et al.
The great leveling operation of internet accessibility has convinced the world that anyone who can type is writing. The plain truth is that many things suck: books, reviews, observations, people. THat’s not really a surprise, dross is always ample and treasure scarce; that’s just supply and demand. Likewise, the ubiquity of the tools (who doesn’t have a keyboard that is posting on the internet?), means that there’s a surplus of fragrant opinions. It’s a statistical fact that people are for the most part lazy and stupid, and efforts to be otherwise are how we reveal our natures. We all gauge the relative insight/skill/craft/intelligence of reviewers and that in turn is the great invisible hand which drags people to follow certain opinions or authors. Judgement.
The truth is, throughout history, the best reviewers have been writers… people who themselves have been subject to the same scrutiny, who know something of the craft, who have qualifications because they know what they’re talking about. BUt without the detached, friendly, mindful observation what is the point of meditating publicly on the quality and effect of anything? I’d say none, but again that’s only my own prejudices peeping through.
Of course, I’m biased in that. I write fiction but I also write reviews. I try to be good at both. I take pains, as they say. After 20+ years writing I also read every review with an eye to its author. Any writer who lets their writing be hampered by people they don’t respect deeply and know well is NOT going to do much writing. Because (once again) dross always outweighs treasure. We have to CHOOSE.
I read reviews. BUt I don’t comment on them. And I always start them with a critical eye, thinking of the criticis qualification to judge. Why would anyone do otherwise? And why should they occasion public spectacle? Only in a Wild West of WWW landgrabbing do people think stomping around and shooting at shadows is going to make their fortune or their fame. Poor choices.So long as we think abotu our choices (of words or whatever) I think we are showing xenia to our neighbors… We are being neighborly, which is after all, how villages-counties-nations are built. We don’t live in a vacuum and no amount of sucking will make it so. XENIA is how the world gets on.
Still, I don’t think that flat-out ignoring reviews is useful across the board, unless the white noise is distracting. And I can count the number of reviewers who’ve taught me something on one hand. Reviews are a byproduct of the process, like styrofoam, but they can be useful (like styrofoam) at moments. They are no more or less helpful that the endless IDEAS that non-writers try to foist upon you the minute they hear what you do for a living.
Still, I guess I “get” why some people do ignore reviews, and I know a lot of artsy types that do just that. But I also think there’s something to be said for visiting the vast book-club germinated by the internet, because I DO learn things from readers and audience members. THOSE interactions are often the most illuminating. Odd comments and unexpected observaions that might send me off in a new direction. Again, it’s my mind doing the filtering, sifting the options, paying attention where I find it usefully deployed. LOL
CHOOSING MY WORDS.
If I choose well, someone pay listen to them, consider them, repeat them, buy them. If I choose poorly, I have no one but myself to blame.
Thank you, JOsh, for this marvelous post AND thank everyone who has posted thoughtful replies. Much to chew on!
Thank you for that long and insightful response! Plenty to think about in your post as well.
I think I should probably reiterate that reviews can be useful, especially when you’re starting out, but the writer does need to look for a consensus when and where possible (if the point of reading reviews is because the writer is hoping to learn something).
If you want to believe you do a great job of dialog, and one reviewer says you do a great job of dialog — but three reviewers say your dialog is the weakest part of your writing — then although the temptation might be to go with the reviewer who supports your own treasured opinion, you need to consider that the majority of reviewers think you’ve got a problem.
Generally, after a certain point in everyone’s writing career, the reviews become more and more subjective because there’s less of a technical nature to comment on. So the reviews become more about the reviewer — and whether he or she relates to the kind of story the writer tells this time around.
Whereas the initial reviews one receives are very often about craft — and those can indeed be useful to the writer starting out.
I think someone above got it bang on. Josh is the “voice of reason,” and this is a great article that should be archived for all writers and reviewers in our genre!
Thanks so much, Jeff.
Brilliant article, utterly brilliant. I think I’m just a teensy bit in love with you.
I made a decision from the very beginning not to review stories in my genre, as I felt it would be impossible not to call it as I saw it, and still maintain friendly relations with colleagues. It seemed much simpler to me to avoid that can of worms!
Not reading my own reviews… well, that’s something different altogether. I think it is sound advice and one I will try very hard to follow in the future. I think the reason we so it, though, is like Noah standing on the deck of the Ark, releasing doves in search of dry land, we as authors are hoping someone will return with an olive branch.
I think perhaps your advice is better, and that I should just let my sales do the speaking for me.
There is no more tangible proof than sales when it comes to knowing that you’re on the track as far as writing AND promotion.
UNLESS your goal is simply to get all the reviewers to say nice things about you. But reviewers are as unique as writers are, so it seems a goal doomed to failure.
Thanks, Sarah. I’m always so pleased when one of these columns proves of use.
“And, as I know to my cost, if the book is the kind of thing that tickles the reader fancy, all the dire warning reviews in the world won’t save her. Sometimes the poor fool is actually intrigued by them.”
Couldn’t agree more with this.
Speaking as a reader who doesn’t have a blog, and who has yet to pluck up the courage and organize her thoughts enough to write a proper review on Goodreads or Amazon I have to say that I fail to see what all the fuss is about.
Yes I saw from the sidelines different tantrums being thrown and all I could think of was that most of the arguments (from both sides) resembled banging your head against the wall. So it’s good to see there are authors out there trying to keep things in perspective.
After all a review is nothing but ONE persons opinion. Therefore IMO as long as a review is well thought out and polite, as opposed to insulting and hateful I don’t see a reason for an authors melt down. Besides for every bad review there’s bound to be a good one out there so in the end I guess they balance each other out.
Also if I get the impression the reviewer is going out of his/her way to say “I hate you and your book too” in as many ways as possible I’ll most likely forget I even read that review in the first place. On the other hand, an articulate and well thought out 2 or 3 star review that actually details what did and didn’t work will be more useful in prompting me to buy a book that 10 5 star reviews along the lines of OMG the author is a genius I love, love, loved the book it’s super perfect, go buy it now. Maybe I’m being silly but I’d kind of like to know what’s so super about it before buying the darned thing. Unless of course I’m buying it no matter what. In which case I won’t be reading the review in the first place and even if I do I’ll still buy it no matter what the review says. So at the end of the day in the eyes of an average reader a bad/average review won’t kill the book, just as a glowing one won’t make it more popular.
Thanks, Eva.
And there’s the other side of this too. The author that reviewers champion and continue to rec and rave about…and readers just don’t get behind. They just don’t cotton to that author, aren’t engaged, aren’t interested. And all the reviewer superlatives in the world don’t change it.
I guess that’s why authors are as uncertain as anyone else why some books succeed, some books fail…which makes us overly sensitive about every comment, every review, every response.
Basically we should simply be thinking about the next story and how we’re going to tackle it — how we’re going to make it better than the story that came before.
Totally, Eva.
The thing is a 5-star string of superlatives isn’t a review, it’s an advertisement. And a 1 star lump of generic grumbling isn’t a review it’s an insult. In a way the trouble is what Josh described above. Just because these opinions are titled “reviews” doesn’t make them so, any more than painting the word “Palace” above a shack puts a crown on anyone’s head.
In our post-Oprah world of infotainment and incessant backpatting the meanings of words have eroded greatly. People often rush to point out that their review is “only an opinion” but a review ISN’T only an opinion, SHOULDN’T only be a tissue of opinions. I couldn’t give tuppence for an opinion from a stranger because what I’m always looking for is THOUGHTS.
Anyone who can’t be bothered to have some thoughts and to support those thoughts with citation is doing the critical equivalent of grunting and pointing, whether praise OR pan. One of my favorite things about Jessewave and Elisa’s Ramblings and the M/M community at Goodread is that people mull and debate and crossreference. These communities are extended conversations and meditations on a genre I love that DRIVE the genre. The energy invested by their creators and participants is repaid exponentially.
In the bad old days of limited access and the NY-publishing hegemony, critics were expected to be THINKING in their reviews, which is why reviews and critical pieces were often collected and published as interesting reading in their own right. Criticism at its best was a job with demands that matched its impact. I own 100-150 such collections because those thoughts are intriguing/inspiring to me as a writer. THAT’S what criticism should be, far as I’m concerned. I’m a cranky, old-fashioned bastard. But thinking takes time and work and craft, so mostly what we get IS opinions. Thin gruel, that.
I mean, I get it: we live in a world of soundbites and coverage. Books are published at a whiplash pace and who the hell has time to sit down and write formal essays about genre fiction. Still, all this rumble about reviews (IMO) seems more like opinions about opinions about opinions, a fax of a photocopy of an email or a scribbled precis of an outline of a criticism. There’s not a whole lot of original, insightful thought happening over in the Amazon forum. Of course, I’m not indicting anyone for ONLY expressing opinions, but I do think limiting “reviews” to opinion is where critical response lurches in personal and unhelpful directions. If a criticism is to be taken seriously it must be produced seriously.
I know that people don’t have time to write critical exegesis about themes of purity and redemption in werewolf romances or the sociological implications of Gay-for-You plots, but in truth that’s what I’m always hoping for when I read a review: an intelligent, observant response to a piece of writing that points my mind in a new direction.
Throughout history the best reviews have come from authors engaged in a kind of braided response to each other. Our thoughts about much of the Western canon were pushed along by authors talking to each other through criticism, writers reacting to writers with thoughts that affected their own writing (Coleridge on Shakespeare, Shaw on Chekhov, James on Bronte, Tolkien on Beowulf, Eco on Borges). Even if I disagree with their thoughts those reactions BY authors are a fertile loam for my own process.
My rule is I don’t think about a review for any longer than it took to produce it. I give any piece of criticism the time and energy it warrants. If I get the sense that a review was dashed off in 5 minutes, it only gets 5 minutes of my brainspace. If I can tell that the reviewer spent an hour/day/week, I’ll probably chew on it for an hour/day/week.
Quid pro quo seems a fair compromise and a vigilant guard against authorial lunacy!
Throughout history the best reviews have come from authors engaged in a kind of braided response to each other. Our thoughts about much of the Western canon were pushed along by authors talking to each other through criticism, writers reacting to writers with thoughts that affected their own writing (Coleridge on Shakespeare, Shaw on Chekhov, James on Bronte, Tolkien on Beowulf, Eco on Borges). Even if I disagree with their thoughts those reactions BY authors are a fertile loam for my own process.
Such a great point. And something that I never thought much about in my advice to writers about reviewing each other. But then our reviewing is unlikely to be literary criticism in the formal sense — but how fascinating if it were!
Baby, you really are the Jedi Master. May the force bless and keep you, Yosh. Amen, raise the lighter, preach it brother, etc.
It is thanked you are, young Bookwalker.
I’m a bit late to the party – I actually stumbled across this post when I was checking the site, hoping that maybe, somehow, my Google Alert had failed to pick up on a review that had been written for my latest book. (Nope, still no ‘pro’ reviews – sigh).
So your post made me think. Why AM I so hungry for reviews? Obviously as a sales tool – I’m terrible at doing my own promo, so it’d be great if someone else would do it for me! But I don’t think that’s the only reason.
I’m still new at writing, and I’m genuinely hungry for quality feedback. People saying nice things at Goodreads and elsewhere is nice (It’s VERY nice), but it doesn’t help me improve my work. The good, fluffy comments give me inspiration to keep working, but I feel like without meatier reviews, I don’t know what I should be working ON. I’m not saying that I take every word of every review to heart, but I CONSIDER every word, and try to learn from it all.
So, not directly contradictory to your point – I definitely agree that boundaries are important and that there may be a time when I should stop reading reviews. I just wanted to reiterate that for some authors, (and probably you’re right, this may apply more to beginners), quality reviews are a really useful tool.
Absolutely. There is no greater pleasure than an in-depth, well-written review. For writers and readers both. As a matter of fact, I’m having my coffee and opening up the New York Times book section at this very moment — and very few if any of these are books I plan to buy. I simply enjoy reading about books and seeing them so intelligently, appreciatively discussed. Writing reviews is also an art.
Way to go, farmer, or are you a cowman. (I couldn’t help but see Bart Simpson saying “Don’t have a cow, man.”) You are absolutely, perfectly right, for me, on all counts. I used to try to keep up with reviews and be nice with reviewers even when the reviews were less than stellar but I figure the less I thank reviewers for good reviews, the less my phony smile has to be trotted out for bad ones. I’m going for sincerity and congeniality.
Really, I want to say, I am grateful for whatever any reviewer has to say, so, go on about your business as if I weren’t here because I won’t be.
I don’t mean that in any reactionary, or insulting sort of way, just that reviews are for the reader and I’ll just leave it at that.
Unfortunately, I think my earlier hail-fellow-well-met attitude left people thinking I’m only nice when I get good reviews, which proves your point. I probably never should have had a lot of interaction with reviewers in the first place, but one is so grateful when one is starting out, and one thought saying thank you was a good thing. Which it is, until you have to choke out that first insincere thank you and you (foolishly) blow it off in favor of licking your wounds in private.
Does that stop me from reading reviews? No, not always. Does it stop me from responding even when the review is very complimentary, hell yes. The only exception is when I get a note that I’m being reviewed and then I send a sincere thank you, BEFORE I read it, if I’m going to. That way, my intention is clear, it’s a
thank you for taking your time, either way.
The only exception is when I get a note that I’m being reviewed and then I send a sincere thank you, BEFORE I read it, if I’m going to. That way, my intention is clear, it’s a thank you for taking your time, either way.
This is exactly what I do. The intent is to show the reviewer that, either way, I appreciate the time and trouble they went to — because I do!
I thought you were spot on — and I say this as a published author who has received good/bad/ugly reviews, and a reviewer for a fairly popular site (I’m incognito at the moment) who has left books with glowing reviews and others…well, not so much.
Authors and reviewers are in a very precarious position. I love receiving good reviews, of course, and if I receive criticism or a bad review — yes, it hurts. Of course it hurts, but you suck up and move on. I attempt to respond to all reviews with a “thank you” at the very least. As a reviewer, I don’t expect the author to respond or even acknowledge the review, good or bad.
Anyway, one man likes to push a plow, the other likes to chase a cow, but that’s no reason why we can’t be friends. Territory folks should stick together, after all.