I’ve been watching “American Idol,” as hooked on that show as the rest of America. However, I’ve about had it with Simon Cowell. Not that I want every judge to be as nice as Paula or as “dog” down sorta honest as Randy, but I would like to see a bit more niceness, particularly from the King of Mean.
Perhaps it’s because I work in an industry where my work is constantly open to criticism. Yes, I’ve had a couple Simons, usually the kind who believe in posting a scathing review in a public forum. They don’t subscribe to that “if you have nothng nice to say, don’t say anything at all” philosophy. I wonder sometimes where that went, if it went out of fashion with chinos and purple swoosh Nikes.
I think there’s a growing tendency among people to be a little more Simon. It’s too bad, really. Being nice can go a long way. Not the fake nice where you encourage people who have two left feet and no natural rhythm to pursue a career in dance, but the kind where you couch criticism with a compliment or two. Where you aren’t setting out to degrade someone and their hard work just because you can. If your neighbor’s dancing ability is in the negative digits, then congratulate her on her bravery for getting on the dance floor and refrain from the “it was a nightmare” Simon review.
There’s too much “Simonizing” in the world lately. Too many people tearing each other down, in everything from Fashion Police ambushing shows to opinion columns. It is totally fine to have an opinion, but it would be nice if more people expressed those thoughts with a bit of tact.
I used to review books. If I read a book that I truly didn’t like, for one reason or another, I didn’t review it. I figured that author got to where they were for a reason and what I didn’t like someone else would. Plus, I knew how hard that author had worked to first get published, then stay published. I was honest in my reviews, but skipped writing reviews of “wallbanger” books. I figured it was my way of staying honest, but not becoming Simon.
I remember my first novel attempts. They were hideous. I look back at them now and cringe at every sentence. However, the editors who rejected me were always encouraging, more Randy than Simon, and that was what inspired me to keep writing, hone my craft and eventually get published. As I look at my tenth book on shelves (and celebrate its local bestseller ranking 
, I know that if those editors had come back with a Simon letter, I would have given up before I’d cultivated the skills that eventually led to me being published. I thank them for their constructive honesty, for remembering to add in a kind word or two even as they were passing on my “baby.”
There is, I believe, a middle ground where you can be honest, but with kindness. What do you think? Do people like Simon go too far or are they a necessary voice of honesty?
No related posts.
I love this topic because I’ve been thinking about it a lot lately. I’m a fairly new person to blogs and I’ve been doing reviews for about a year on Amazon, now I have my own blog where I’ve interviewed some authors and plan to continue doing so.
Personally I don’t believe Simon’s brand of cruelty are necessary, but he’s there because it draws the viewers. There are people who revel in hearing/seeing the reaction to what he says. I don’t watch A.I. – not much of a fan of reality t.v. – but I’ve seen bits of the show and I cringe. I can’t help but feel bad. Plus, how do those comments really help the person? I know that a lot of the viewers don’t care, but why break someone’s heart so completely it shatters?
I just can’t be mean. I’m making myself out to sound like a Pollyanna and that’s not true. I have a mean streak a mile & 1/2 wide, but that doesn’t mean I have to use it, and most times I don’t (that’s reserved for special friends and family). And it’s not that I might not have bad things to say about a book, because I do, but I hate the thought of putting them out there and having the author read them (yeah, like my reviews draw in the masses – LOL).
I guess I’m just a sap who believes in the Golden Rule. And people who live in those infamous glass houses. I mean, please, some of the comments made are by people who have absolutely nothing to say. And I think some people are just bitter, either for a reason or because that’s their natural state of being(Oops, my mean streak is trying to get loose).
I guess my thought is that the romance writing community already gets a lot of slack for being porn, fluff, etc., so why do people want to make it even worse by not being supportive? Don’t love the book, but don’t crucify it either. And to be honest, chances are a really bad review might just tweak my contrary self and I end up checking the book out. Reverse psychology?
Just my $0.02.
It all depends on the purpose of the review and the target audience. Snarky and unnecessarily harsh reviews are entertaining for readers and, as such, are wildly popular.
They do nothing, however, for the authors but raise hackles.
If the intent of the review is to convey constructive criticism such that the author can improve upon his/her work, then it is necessary to deliver messages in such a way that they’ll be HEARD. Good teachers know this. Most critics, however, are not good teachers.
Shirley, you are right on. I can’t watch American Idol any more because it’s my opinion that they seek out voice-challenged people and then torture them for cheap laughs. What’s sad is how audiences eat it up.
Being a poor singer myself, I am sorry for them and yet a little angry that they open themselves up for such a pasting. Are they so desperate for attention that they are willing to be eviscerated on national tv? It’s shameful and a sad statement of how far we have sunk as a society.
There’s constructive honesty and then there’s such plain, dismissive, superior, supercillious spite that disguises itself as, promotes itself as, declaims itself as, only “honesty.”
Very nice post.
Thank you.
Maybe I’m not getting something, but aren’t reviews (I’m thinking RT, AAR, Mrs. G and other review sites) written for readers and not authors.
Shouldn’t the constructive criticism come long before a book actually makes it to the bookstore shelves from agents and editors? If a reviewer writes a snarky, insulting, bitingly funny review of a “wallbanger” has she made a comment about the author or about the work. These reviews aren’t geared to the author they’re meant to entertain readers.
As long as the reviewer isn’t personally insulting the author, I don’t have a problem with negative reviews. I’d rather read an honest review (snarky or serious) of a book than buy a book the stinks because a reviewer didn’t want to hurt the author’s feelings.
Maybe it’s just me, but I find condescending pats on the head more insulting than direct honesty.
I haven’t figured out why people are threatened by bluntness. It’s merely one person’s opinion, and you know what they say about opinions
Great post. Too often “honest” is used as a defense for “mean”. It’s possible to be honest without being negative, critical or outright cruel. In fact, negative and critical fail in honesty, in my opinion. If you see only the bad, you haven’t seen the whole picture. That’s not honest, that’s one-sided.
The Simonizing you describe is very destructive, especially to beginners. But even seasoned pros aren’t immune to the effects. Creative people are sensitive. That’s why they’re able to create things that move others emotionally!
I don’t watch American Idol, but I know what you mean by people being just plain rude with their critisims. There is a nice and polite way to say ‘that was really bad ‘ and then there is the mean way to say those same words. Of course some people thrive on being rude, just never take those people shoping with you.
I agree with you. I get so tired of the constant criticism of everything. We post author interviews and novel reviews on my site and try to subscribe to an honest yet unscathing review format. Sometimes the work has a problem that needs to be pointed out, and I think that’s to the author’s benefit, but a little sugar helps the medicine go down. If we read a book that’s truly horrible, we don’t review it at all.
Something about the web makes people say things they would never say if the person were standing before them in the flesh. Great post!
I just published my first book. I take any and all reviews, and luckily I have been treated pretty well so far.
This writing shtick is hard, hard, hard. You’ve got to love it to do it and you’ve got to do it all the time.
Stacy,
I agree — you can give a review without being mean. I had one reviewer who blasted my book for being the worst erotic romance she’d ever read. Uh…I don’t write erotica, LOL. Either the book was mis-shelved or she expected something else out of the “romantic comedy” on the spine
I think, too, that if you are going to criticize something you should at least know what you’re criticizing
Shirley
Tara,
I don’t have an issue with reviews being written for readers. I don’t need a reviewer to send me kudos; I’d rather she were honest so readers knew what to expect in a Shirley Jump book.
However, I do think there’s a fine line between being honest and being out and out mean. The reason I skipped reviewing wallbanger books is that I simply can’t be mean (at least on paper; my kids think I have mean down well
. I simply don’t believe in dissing someone or their hard work. If I can’t say anything nice…I don’t say anything at all.
But if I sort of like a book, or it has some merit, then I will say something nice, and I will point out things that bothered me as a reader. I won’t, however, ever stoop to bashing an author and launching a Simon. It’s just a line I personally draw, though there are others who don’t believe in lines.
Shirley
Honest criticism, even when there’s a lot of it, is valuable. Expressing what you consider honest criticism in mean, cutting, flat-out nasty terms is unnecessary. I don’t understand the people who appear to revel in their own nastiness. Perhaps they think they’re clever.
“Mean” and “nasty” are in the eye of the beholder, I think. I’ve read reviews on the Internet that I thought wildly funny and made me grateful I hadn’t made the mistake of buying a wallbanger. If I were the author of said-wallbanger though, I’d have probably found the reviews “mean” and “nasty.”
Since reviews are intended for readers and not authors, my thought is that authors who are discouraged by scathing reviews should get their constructive criticism from their editors, agents, and critique groups and completely avoid reviews of their own books. If blurbs are needed for promoting future books, ask a sympathetic friend or paid assistant (depending on resources) to scour the reviews for praise.
“Simonizing”… Hadn’t heard it put that way before, but I suppose it’s accurate. Basically, when the critic knows full well that their words are meant to both criticize the performance as well as entertain others listening in. I suppose in many other cases, the critic knows the ones paying his bills are the audience, and so plays up to said audience.
Mr. Blackwell’s Worst Dressed List comes to mind.
Some “red carpet” interviewers have almost become judge and jury for fashion that way.
Going all the way back, Louella Parsons was probably the first person whose opinion made her more than just a simple columnist. She didn’t critique things as much as point out the moral foibles of others.
The point is, Simon wouldn’t have become known for who he is without the really crappy singers. If he was only criticizing decent singers, he wouldn’t be half as entertaining.
Criticism _for public consumption_ is a lot like Humor. Truth In Pain. Simon does speak the truth, and many times the truth hurts. If the criticism is meant to be private, it should be tailored to the performer/creator.
A public critic should feel no compulsion to be nice. A private critic should feel no need to entertain.
Shirley–I should have prefaced my comments by saying I don’t watch American Idol because I find Simon incredibly rude.
I never want to see a reviewer attack an author, but there is a difference between criticizing the author and criticizing an author’s work, whether it’s done by being snarky or being completely earnest.
To my way of thinking if you’re a reviewer, you review the good, the bad and the ugly, not just the good and the maybe not so good. It’s not about “dissing” someone or their hard work, it’s about giving readers complete and honest reviews.
I agree completely, Tara. Honest reviews are exactly right — good, bad and ugly, depending on the reviewer’s choice and tastes. My point, and perhaps I didn’t express it as clearly as I should have (ah, bad review there for my blog post
is that there are some whose sole purpose in life is to diss authors. For whatever reason, they want to make sure the author is publicly humiliated. It goes beyond “this book is bad” and enters into beat the author down territory so that she may never disgrace shelves again.
I’ve had my share of bad reviews (heck, who hasn’t? My goal isn’t to please everyone all the time. It’s to write the best darn book I can and to be proud of the job I did, and to improve on the book before) and while those bad reviews have stung, they haven’t made me stop sending my book out (even to those same reviewers) nor have they made me quit the self-flaggelation of Googling my titles
All I’d like is a little more tact.
I think there is a common ground between posting a review of a book you don’t like and being a decent enough human not to try to tear the author to shreds.
One other point: Readers (and reviewers) have no idea what went on behind the scenes of that book, whether the author just went through a devastating personal tragedy, or whether she lost her way with this one book, or whether it was a mash of editorial input that derailed the product.
In October, I have a book coming out that I wrote during my mother’s long illness and eventual death. It’s not my best work, not by a long shot, and I fully expect reviewers to have a field day. My editor and I worked hard on it, through the inevitable revision process, but the topic was simply too close to home and thus, it became a difficult labor to write that book and to me, it shows. Will I tell the reviewers that? No. Will I tell readers? No, not unless they read the dedication. I can only hope I do a better job the next time.
I appreciate honest reviews of my work. From reviewers, readers, my editor, my agent. I don’t want to disappoint readers, nor do I want to release a substandard product. My goal is always to grow and improve. I do not, however, appreciate reviews that are designed to destroy my spirit. Nitpick at the work, call my plot convoluted, but don’t attack me as a human.
To me, that’s just common decency.
Shirley
You know what? There’s no nice way to say, “This book bites.” There just isn’t.
While I’m not crazy about the personal shots that Simon takes, he’s also frequently the only one who will tell people the truth — You can’t sing. You’re completely tone deaf and that’s something you can’t be taught. Stop torturing people.
That’s worth something. As much as it puts our “nice person” hackles up, someone has to say it. Life is not fair. Life is not nice. And sometimes people really should take up knitting instead.
I would far rather have someone honestly say, “This book sucks” without taking personal potshots, than just let it pass. Silence isn’t always golden.
Now I have to go write a review for a book I didn’t enjoy. I’ll do my best to apply my highest standards of honesty, but avoid outright cruelty. There is a balance. It’s just not always easy to find.
Sela–it’s not true that you can’t be taught to sing on pitch. True tone-deafness is very rare. Most off-key singing is due to poor vocal technique, which can be taught. I’ve seen a young man who desperately wanted to be a singer go from unable to hit a single note on key to nailing every note–in six weeks. How? The teacher knew her stuff and was able to tell him exactly what he was doing wrong. And he worked his rear off to do what she told him to do.
The problem with Simon is not that he’s negative. It’s that he often attacks the people, not their singing, and he never says, “If you’re willing to take the lessons and work your behind off, you can improve and maybe make it.” That’s not true of everyone, but he dosen’t make the distinction or encourage anyone who isn’t there already. But then, his job is to find the one who IS ready, NOW.
I just prefer that people not be attacked personally. And I’d prefer that people who don’t make it be encouraged to do the work. Most won’t, but some would take that to heart and maybe blossom.
Thing is, all of those AI wannabees who get up there and really suck were told at some point in their lives that they could sing. Whether it was some kind of success in junior-high level chorus or their family members being kind and applauding while trying not to let their winces show, someone encouraged these people enough to believe that they actually had a shot. Those who know they suck but go on the show simply for the attention deserve what they get from Simon, IMO.
But those others – the ones led to believe they had a talent above and beyond the norm such that they’d risk it publically, I feel partially sorry for them. Because if someone in their lives had been honest with them – you’re good, but you’re not AI good – they wouldn’t be able to be crucified by Simon the way they are.
Same thing in writing. If a writer is told by an agent and/or publisher that she (he) is a good writer in the form of publishing her work, then negative reviews come as a particularly nasty shock. She believes she must have some kind of talent, otherwise she never would have gotten published in the first place. In a way, we all should say shame on those who let half-rate work slip through the cracks in the first place.
I’m not one for candy coating all reviews or ignoring bad work for the sake of being nice. If something is bad, call it for what it is. But there is no reason to take pleasure in the badness. No reason to let common good manners and grace go out the window for cheap laughs. Diplomacy is a skill everyone should develop and use generously.
But most of the shame should be heaped on the viewers, who are practicing a sick form of rubber-necking by remaining glued to the screen to see how badly Simon can eviscerate his next victim. If no one watched him, I have no doubt he’d go away pretty quickly.
it’s possible to be honest without being as cruel as i’ve seen him on little plugs for the show, but I’ve never watched it. I have a feeling he’d annoy the hell out of me. It’s scary, though… I think some people go EXPECTING him to tear them down.
A voice of honesty is something we need in life~we have too many people who are afraid to voice an honest opinion just because of how others react, but there’s a way to do it, a place to do it, and a time. Public forums, like TV or advice columns, don’t strike me as the right way to do it but as long as the popularity continues, it’s gonna happen.
I have one more question and then I’m going to shut up…:-)
Are we talking about legitimate reviewers and review sites or are we talking about Amazon again? Because I don’t find the “attack the author” reviews where I search for reviews–but then I don’t waste my time reading the reviews on Amazon.
Maybe I’ve led a sheltered life, but I’ve never seen a book review that attacked an author personally. Never.
I have, however, seen plenty of reviews that ripped apart the book. Stupid plots have been pelted with rotten tomatoes and stupid characters have been strung up by their toes in the TSTL Hall of Shame, but I have never, ever seen a nasty personal remark made about an author.
I think the problem may be that authors take reviews too personally. Since books are a labor of love — a creative baby, so to speak — it may be nearly impossible to entirely separate oneself from her literary creations. But such must be done unless one wishes to write purely for personal pleasure and not risk sending the creative baby out into the world to face the slings and arrows of the masses.
A personal attack is one that assaults an author’s person (e.g., her dignity, her integrity, her morality). It is not a personal attack for reviewers to rip apart an author’s work of art. Seeing one’s books publicly reviled certainly is painful to experience but it should not be confused with true ad hominem.
It’s been my experience that the world is populated by two kinds of people: the glass half full group and the glass half empty. The half empty folks seem bound and determined to muddy the atmosphere they are in, and bring everyone down with them. I avoid them like the plague–sorry, it’s not my job to teach manners.
Am I a pollyana? I think I may be, and I’ll take that moniker anyday over “bitch” or ” ball-buster.”
What happen to common civility in this world?I enjoy being with people who are positive thinkers, and who are creative.
“Mean-streak” Does NOT work in my world!!
Oh, by the way, I have NEVER watched a “reality show.” From what I hear they do not represent MY reality. OR any “reality” I would want to be part of. Geez.. life is large– who needs Simon anyway, whoever he is.. but I can imagine, from the posts!!
I believe there is a difference between blunt honest feedback which might not be enjoyable to hear- but does have value, and comments where the reviewer is really just trying to show how clever they can be. When the underlying message of the feedback is “look at me- I’m witty and clever” forget about it.
“There is, I believe, a middle ground where you can be honest, but with kindness. What do you think? Do people like Simon go too far or are they a necessary voice of honesty?”
I think he’s a totally necessary voice of honesty.
There’s simply no point feeling sorry for these people because they’ve watched the show before, they know what to expect.
If their well meaning friends were stupid enough to tell them they could sing, when they obviously can’t hold a note, then as far as I’m concerned, they’re the bad guys, not Simon. He’s just telling it as he sees it. I certainly applaud him for that. It may be cruel, but guess what, life sucks sometimes.
When it comes to talent, whether it be singing or writing, diplomacy is totally over-rated. We know that authors are sensitive souls, but would they really preferred to be lied to, than told the unvarnished truth?
The fact is, people, even authors, prefer straight talking, rather than sycophantic claptrap. How much notice do people pay to Harriet Klausner, who extolls the virtue of every single flaming book she reads?
Also, let’s face it, for those who watch AI, the judge who’s opinion you can’t wait to hear is usually Simon’s. Anybody who says otherwise, is just in denial.
Simon’s habit of telling it like it is, also means that when he says something positive, we all sit up and take notice.
Oh yeah, and like somebody else mentioned earlier, I’ve never read a review that was scathing about the author themselves, and just as well too, because that would just be unnecessarily mean.
Unless of course the author is JW Mckenna, then I totally understand.
(Oops there I go thinking out loud again.)
LOL, Karen, I can’t help but get a kick out of what you say, even though I can’t agree 100%. Telling someone “you are a horrible singer, don’t waste me time” is just plain cruel, and I don’t believe it’s helping that person at all. But to each their own. We all gotta live by our own code, and I’m sticking by mine.
As to Harriet, well, I think she’s pretty well-known – she is the #1 reviewer at Amazon (whatever that means), even if no one pays attention to what she reviews and it’s only people that know her or maybe even herself that casts the votes (I do wonder how she can read so many books – sometimes I don’t think she does).
Just to reiterate a point already made well by several people. ‘Simonising’ and ‘Critiquing’ are completely different endeavours. What’s confusing is that while he seems to be aiming his critique at the singer he is not. He’s playing to the gallery.
American Idol isn’t my cup of tea. I squirm at the embarrasing singing and cruel criticism. It just isn’t entertainment, as far as I’m concerned. But I love hearing Mark Kermode’s film reviews (available on podcast from the BBC).
He does exactly what Simon does. Reviews movies, with brutal honesty and excessive but extremely funny snarkiness. His job is to give his opinion, in an entertaining fashion.
I don’t always agree with his opinions, but I love hearing them. They are aimed at me, a Snark Appreciator. If he softened the criticism I would stop listening to him.
That doesn’t mean he never gives good reviews, but he doesn’t hesitate to give bad reviews. And the bad reviews are 10x as entertaining as the good ones.
Gentle and constructive criticism is a book editor’s job, or a critique group’s job. It’s aimed at the writer.
Screamingly funny and cruel reviews, on the other hand, are almost certainly hazardous to an author’s health. The thought of the book equivalent of Kermode sending up my writing efforts…yeah, hazardous to the ego.
I fear you’re right though, and there’s a tendency for people to confuse their role and go for the simonising/playing to the audience when giving feedback to the author.
An example of inappropriate Simonising was the rejection slip, cleverly riffing on the poem ‘This is just to say’ telling a poet that she wasn’t good enough. Yes, very funny. Hoho. But that kind of humour is best kept for within-workplace snarking, not direct contact with the poet herself.
I have seen reviews that said the author was stupid, that she should retire, that she should have quit writing a long time ago because she clearly lost it about ten books back (and know personally of two people who have had those reviews). Some are on Amazon, but others have been in print. So it happens, and to me, it’s always sad and uncalled for when it does.
Shirley
Do people like Simon go too far or are they a necessary voice of honesty?
I find it’s a necessary voice of honesty. Is he being brutally honest? Yes. Most people in life walk around with people lying to them everyday, so it’s good to get another opinion. One that’s actually er true. I do agree, that, you can be honest without sounding too mean about it but I’ve been around people all my life who kept it real for me. It doesn’t bother me much at all. Plus, I work in a industry where customer service is important and I’ve learned to not take attacks from the public personally. You’d have to mean something to me in order for me to care even a speck of what you may think of me or my performance. That’s just how I feel.
Good article and I didn’t read many of the responses. I will do that now.
You know the “if you don’t have something nice to say” philosophy? That’s a crock!!!! I have lived my life by that adage and now at my age which is older than you judging by your picture, what I have is a huge ball of rage inside me that I can’t control now and is often misdirected!!! I never learned how to express negative feelings because I was so busy keeping it all in. Plus I have been diagnosed with high blood pressure and I’m sure that’s a contributing factor. While I don’t believe and never will in being cruel, to not write honestly about the body of work that isn’t well done because they have “worked hard” is ludicrous. If I do a lousy job where I work, even if I worked hard at it, I would WANT to be told, so the next time I can improve. Not in a ripping apart me personally kind of way, but if it’s done in controlled constructive way – well jolly good – I will take it and learn. Authors write books for literary consumption and if they put out a bad product, they should know that. Sometimes I think Simon steps over the line too, but he’s a damn sight more honest than Paula.
I don’t watch AI, but I understand the reference. Sure, cruel reviews just to get laughs are Not Nice, but that’s a very, very small subset of book reviews, in my experience.
The thing is, all books are not equal. And a reviewer’s job is to explain her opinion of various books. If a reviewer only writes positive reviews, she becomes like Harriet Klausner, who’s widely disregarded because she’s never read a book she doesn’t love.
As for the reputation of the genre, as Sharon said, the condescending pats on the head are much more damaging than negative reviews.
I used to review books. If I read a book that I truly didn’t like, for one reason or another, I didn’t review it. I figured that author got to where they were for a reason and what I didn’t like someone else would. Plus, I knew how hard that author had worked to first get published, then stay published. I was honest in my reviews, but skipped writing reviews of “wallbanger†books. I figured it was my way of staying honest, but not becoming Simon.
I don’t think anyone should feel pressed to express opinions about books they don’t feel comfortable airing in public. However, I’m glad that everyone does not share the same reticence, because I have probably chosen to read more books from thoughtful but critical reviews than from completely effusive endorsements.
I never expect perfection in a book, and even the books I love the most have, IMO, flaws, to greater or lesser degree. I have found myself reading books that others have disliked, merely because the way that dislike has been expressed intrigues me. And, of course, I know that for every negative review there will be a positive one, and like listening to both Paula and Simon, I can take some of each into consideration in my own decision whether to read something. Sometimes I wince at Simon, but rarely do I think he’s personally attacking a contestant, even on the rare occasions I disagree with him.
As for rude or ugly reviews, that’s not a problem with reviewing or even criticism, IMO; it’s a problem that lies with the person who, for whatever reason, ’stoops to conquer’ through insult. In that case, commentators run the risk of appearing worse than the object of their criticism. And I wonder if some of that rudeness is the product of a society that doesn’t do enough to teach people how to deal with and value constructive criticism, both in hearing and offering it.
And as for authors, I wonder if they’re like those AI contestants — happy for Paula’s adulation, but waiting with barely concealed anticipation for Simon’s assessment. They may LIKE Paula more, but I think it’s obvious many times that Simon’s opinions garner more respect among those competing for fame in a ruthlessly competitive, bottom-line driven industry.
Here’s my question for authors: is it harder to read a rude review from someone who doesn’t seem to have put much thought into it, or a thoughtful but pretty critical review that examines your book in detail?
I can certainly accept that some people are filled with rage or anger or “negative feelings’ but really, are we supposed to “express them” by dumping it onto OTHERS??
I have an old fashioned belief in bucking up, turning lemons into lemonade, being polite.
What does politeness and kindness have to do with anger and negative feelings??
If someone is filled with angst and anger and negativity, a good counselor might help. Don’t dump it onto the rest of us.
My humble opinion.I don’t have a lot of time for the self indulgent let it all hang out communication methods that some seem to find de rigeur for these times.
A little kindness please!
I can certainly accept that some people are filled with rage or anger or “negative feelings’ but really, are we supposed to “express them†by dumping it onto OTHERS??
I assume that you are responding to Kristie’s post, but I’m pretty certain she wasn’t advocating being rude to people.
When I read her post, it made me think about how women are so caught up in trying to be “nice,” that we don’t learn how to be critically honest but still supportive of one another. We hold it all in or we let out these bitchy little outbursts that make us look catty or just plain mean. I don’t think we’ve learned how to express criticism constructively, or if we do, we harbor guilt or concern about hurting someone else’s feelings. Women who can separate their personal life from their professional life (i.e. you don’t need to be friends with the people whose work you critique or the people with whom you work) are often tagged as bitchy or too masculine. IMO it’s a big problem, and one that I think we need to evolve out of, soon, if possible.
One of the things I think Simon Cowell understands is that the person he is on AI is different from the person he is in real life. On AI, he has a professional duty to perform, and while that may not make him well-liked by others, I think it makes him better respected than someone like Paula, who is a great friend to the contestants, but not necessarily the person who will prepare them the best for the industry.
I think he’s a totally necessary voice of honesty.
There’s simply no point feeling sorry for these people because they’ve watched the show before, they know what to expect.
Ditto that. Season One, I felt sorrier for the people Simon reemed. By now, you know what kind of B.S. you are in for when you go on the show. If that is too hard to take, find another route to fame.
I give honest reviews of the books I read including the wall bangers. I do my utmost not to attack the author, aiming criticism only at the work. If the novel had a weak plot, the characters were poorly developed, and the love story unbelieveable, I’m not nice enough to leave it at, “it didn’t work for me.”
Critiques are meant to be helpful. Reviews are just an opinion. I’ve heard that some authors don’t even bother reading reviews. Seems like a wise course of action.
I try NOT to respond to just one person’s post or opinion– My reply about anger and angst, etc. reflects Kristie’s exerience, and needs, for sure, but also comes from my own interactions with people on the job who use things like “I’m having a bad day” to be rude or snarky. To salespeople who are not helpful or polite, to managers I’ve worked with who “dress down’ an employee in full view of others and who
are less than helpful in reviews, more critical than mentor-like.
I suppose I have an ideal vision of what compassionate people working together would be like and it sure doesn’t fit this SIMON person.
Luckily I work with my spouse in a business we own, so we have guidelines about yes, swallowing our irritations some of the time.And focusing on making the workplace good for our clients and our fellow employees..
When did self-control become a vice??
And, regarding SIMON– , isn’t most TV focused on dramatic, disturbing people and images these days? That’s why i don’t watch!
my theory… he’s trying to get kicked off the show – maybe then sue or something – LOL!
I am due up for reviews soon and am shaking in my boots – or sneakers since I don’t wear my boots much! But you just gotta role w/ the punches . . .
This is a really interesting blog, Shirley! I have many thoughts on this topic, but a question Robin posted seems the easiest way to harness them into a simpler form. She asked:
>
My answer would be that for me, personally, I prefer the second kind of “negative” review, hands down. In fact, I’ve never been bothered much by the less-than-stellar reviews I’ve received at times – IF it seems that the reviewer read the book carefully and just didn’t like it (because of my writing style, or elements of the plot or characterization…whatever).
It’s the snarky, I’m-so-clever-look-at-how-I-can-exaggerate-this-element-I-didn’t-like-from-this-book-and-make-you-all-snicker kinds of reviews I dislike. Particularly if the reviewer *hasn’t* read carefully…i.e. she makes comments that make it clear she’s skimmed (because if she’d really read the book, she’d have seen the answer to the very aspect she’s questioning, right within the pages). However, if an author dared to pop in and point out such a thing on a message board etc, she’d be accused of “sour grapes”. I’ve had to sit on my hands a few times myself (one review at AAR comes to mind, along with one from Mrs Giggles, where she even got the title of my book wrong), knowing that would be the case.
That’s my thought, anyway – from a wholly emotional standpoint, I know – but there you have it.
IMHO, bad reviews are par for the course and to be expected (even welcomed…hey, differences of opinion make the world go round). Snarky reviews, however, feel unnecessary from where I sit (and that’s not only as an author but as a reader, too), and, while perhaps “entertaining” for some, aren’t worth much in my opinion except to show that the particular reviewer didn’t like the book (or some aspect of the book) and thinks him/herself wonderfully clever in how he/she says so.
–MRM
It’s the snarky, I’m-so-clever-look-at-how-I-can-exaggerate-this-element-I-didn’t-like-from-this-book-and-make-you-all-snicker kinds of reviews I dislike. Particularly if the reviewer *hasn’t* read carefully…i.e. she makes comments that make it clear she’s skimmed (because if she’d really read the book, she’d have seen the answer to the very aspect she’s questioning, right within the pages).
As a reader, I really have to agree with you here, especially regarding the skimming/refusing to finish phenom. There are, in fact, a number of blogs and review sites I don’t frequent because I’ve found some really surprising mistakes in the reviews of books I’ve read, which makes it difficult to trust the reviewer on books I haven’t. I’m not a big fan of sweeping generalizations without specific details to back them up, either. And I know that when you review a lot of books, sometimes details might get mixed up or misplaced. I’m a little perverse, though, in that when I dislike a book intensely, I’m sometimes more likely to pay attention to all the details just so I don’t miss something when I’m articulating my views about it. I’ve even been known to highlight and make margin notes just to keep track of what I’m responding to.
I don’t mind clever reviews (sometimes I really enjoy them, especially if they’re not mean-spirited), and I admit to sometimes feeling somewhat vindicated when a reviewer I respect refuses to pull any punches about a book I had a strong negative reaction to. I’ve gotten more and more sensitive to outright cattiness in Romance-related blogs and sites, and have found myself really turning away from instances of that. I also agree that when a review crosses over to condescending or mean that an author has every reason to feel insulted; IMO, though, at that point it’s really about the reviewer and not about the book. I think there’s a substantive difference between being direct and being rude, and ultimately, I think intentional rudeness weakens one’s voice.