Reviews and my thoughts on them: aka, "Reviews Are For The Readers. They Are Not For The Author." · 7:49pm Sep 10th, 2015
Paul Asaran did a review of Goodbye, Boneless, and as usual, I'm grateful for his having chosen to read it and for the analysis. That said, the rating of "Worth It" reminds me of an important point, and as an author and a reviewer, I'd like to elaborate on it:
Reviews are for the readers. They are not for the author. Repeat:
Reviews are for the readers. They are not for the author.
Who is being addressed with a review rating like "Worth It?" It's obviously the reader: the reviewer himself and potential future readers. The reviewer, in this case, was kind enough and polite enough to send me a link. It was my choice to read it, and I'm glad I did, but it wasn't FOR me.
Teal deer below.
A good review on this site can boost readership tremendously. The number of my followers skyrocketed after Seattle's Angels reviewed Mr. Lonelyheart Meets Miss Lovestruck. Review is here. Note, however, the following quotes:
Belligerent Sock:
If you expect much snogging to happen with this little romantic romp, you’ll likely be disappointed. But if you’re like me, and enjoy watching a character face-plant while in the midst of said romping, you’ll get more than a few kicks out of reading.
and Casca:
If you’ve been looking for something pretty darn well written (I know I have), that’s all-around feel good, demands little, and imparts much, this is the fic for you.
That was great for me, but it was mostly for the readers: a recommendation from some respected reviewers that here was a story readers might enjoy, along with enough description to narrow down the story for the readers' interests. The promotion is an important secondary purpose. Reviews can analyze, recommend, or entertain, but they're still meant for the readers. They're not an automatic recommendation or promotion, and they're not primarily feedback for the author to improve. Feedback goes in story comments or in PMs to the author.
This is a fanfic site, so the site rules are a bit different. Abuse is inappropriate here (as anywhere), and feedback for the author is often considered more essential than it is in the wide world of publishing. But still: reviews are for the readers, and when writers don't understand this, things can get ugly.
This can even spill over into professional publishing. A few years ago, this happened, and things got very ugly, as published authors began to call bad reviews on Goodreads "bullying" and launched a site called "Stop The Goodreads Bullies." The "bullies" in question hadn't attacked the authors. They had simply given reviews of books they did not ultimately like, reviews such as this: Wendy Darling's review of Keira Cass's The Selection. The disproportionate reactions can be found here and here.
Bullying is a serious and potentially deadly business, and it's also a serious charge. Since the Stop The Goodreads Bullies folks had classified the Goodreads reviewers as "bullies," they considered the reviewers fair game for things like doxing, (including revealing a reviewer's real name, her favorite restaurant, and the names of her children and where they went to school), stalking, and threats. But this was all ok, because these reviewers were "bullies," and deserved everything they got. Here's a long blog entry explaining the entire nasty thing, and it contains some important points:
Because bullying is not a synonym for argument, disagreement or pejorative reactions. Bullying is not a synonym for disliking someone, or for thinking their work is rubbish. Bullying is not even a synonym for saying so, publicly and repeatedly, in a place where that person can hear it – although that’s certainly unpleasant. . . . Even on the Goodreads system, where authors can see exactly what readers and reviewers think of them, expressing a negative opinion is not the same as bullying, because although the conversation is visible, it’s not directed at the author; they are under no obligation to respond, or even to read it at all. Feeling sad and overwhelmed because people don’t like your book and have said so publicly might constitute a bad day, but it’s not the same as being bullied.
When you write a story, even here, there's a big button that says "Publish." It's from the same Latin root as "public." You are making your story public, which means people will see it. Some will love it. Some will not like it. Some of these people may leave some criticism in your story comments or send them to you in a PM, and if it is constructive criticism, you should give it some serious consideration. Some will leave a red thumb and meander on, some will leave a nasty comment, and some may write a bad review. None of these things are "bullying." As an author, do I like getting a mystery downrate on every single story on the same day? Of course not. It's a dick move, and says more about the downrater than about me, but it's not bullying. Readers don't owe me views, upthumbs, concrit, praise, or gushing reviews, although I quite enjoy them.
I write reviews and act as admin on a forum called Rage Reviews. Sometimes, honestly, I wonder why, as I consider myself a basically nice person. Ultimately, though, I consider my job as a reviewer to entertain and to educate. I always include feedback for the author--some even request it--and I also use the stories as negative examples. Sometimes the best way to learn writing is to see how not to do it. That's why I read bad books. Twilight contains one of the best examples of how not to write description I've ever seen. Perhaps I'll write a follow up on this, using only professionally published works offsite.
I never attack the author personally. Stephenie Meyer's appearance, religion, and eating habits are none of my business, nor is what I think of the writer as a person. If I can't be unbiased, I don't do a review.
[END TEAL DEER]
If you survived all that teal deer, then bless. If you didn't, I quite understand. And as a final note, I leave you with John Scalzi's Bad Reviews: I Can Handle Them, And So Should You.
Amen! Preach it!
This seems a bit like a reaction to something other than the Goodreads bit. Drama somewhere on the site, or a commentary aimed at the attitude?
Also, I'd note that a lot of the negative attitude from newer authors stems from just the nature of being new to the world of writing: they don't understand the nature of the beast, so to speak. Just like they might not understand that a reviewer's writeup of their story is, in essence, an opinion piece. It doesn't necessarily mean that it's 100% good or bad (as you stated), it's just how that individual perceived it and presented it to those who value his/her opinion.
My two cents, for what little they're worth
I totally agree. I'd also like to add, for any authors who do get "bad" (meaning negative) reviews, this piece of wisdom I read on a review blog once and bookmarked because I thought it was so very good:
Oh dear. I have confused reviews for criticism in the past. Well, that's what I get for not considering the target audience. (Apparently, that's sometimes a bad thing.
) Thanks for screwing my head on right, Scoots.
3382756 It could be considered a general commentary gleaned from having served as a reviewer at Rage Reviews for about a year (or more), but it's not aimed at any one particular writer on the site, no. I've been planning to write this essay for weeks.
Sadly, the negative attitude comes from lots of writers, including professionally published authors with books on the NYT Bestseller List. The fact that self-publishing is more common now doesn't help. Anyone can be an author without having ever encountered a rejection letter or an editor. An author like E L James receiving a lot of tweets saying "I have an issue with your books and the way it portrays abuse" is not being "bullied."
3382775 Exactly. "WRITE MOAR!!11!!" and "Don't change a thing!" are great for the author's ego. I can stand quite a lot of positive strokes myself. But it's good to get some vegetables mixed in with the Twinkies. I mean, side by side, because a puree of vegetables and Twinkies would probably be awful. And on Amazon or Goodreads, it COULD be written by the author's mother, even though they try to have systems in place to prevent this.
EDIT: A pretty good essay on this is here: Sucking It Up: The Slings And Arrows Of Outrageous Criticism.
3382804 It's a bit more confusing here, since most reviewers and reviewing groups are enjoined to include concrit for the author. If you're reviewing a work, there's nothing wrong with including it, and RR might demand that you include it. But we had an issue some time ago with a RR reviewer (now banned), who demanded that an author read scathing critical comments and reviews and "fix" his story. The author was under no obligation to do so. The reviewer was out of line.
3382824 I meant more with regards to this site and younger writers, as I'm not as familiar with reviewers' and reviewees' attitudes and conduct elsewhere. I'll have to take your word for it on the professional front.
Beautifully done, bravo Scoots!