You all remember that movie? The one with Lindsay Lohan before she was strangely blond, uber skinny, and the media was trying to convince all of us that made her ultra sexy? Uh, but I digress…
Mean Girls the movie was about a group of popular and yeah, mean, girls. They said and did bad things to others, but in general they tried to be sneaky about it–they didn’t as a rule tromp up to the PA system and announce all their issues with everyone else in the school. Manners of some twisted sort or fear of social suicide, I’m not sure, but generally when women have something snide, insulting, and catty to say about another we do it in our small private groups and let it “leak” out into the world. We’re fun that way.
Which brings me to the real topic today–reviews.
I am sure you have all noticed the growth of what have been termed “Mean Girl Review Sites” (and not just by me–remember those little groups that “leak” their real feelings). They vary by site and by reviewer and probably by mood from snarky to condescending to just plain ole obnoxious, and they attract big followings. This alone is interesting, but recently I noticed that the readers of said blogs/sites are joining in the fun with total abandon. Many trying to outdo the other in their ability to tear apart books and in some cases authors while gathering up the accolades for their wit from the rest of the pack.
So, here is my question for you. Is this rude? The Internet most certainly gives a sense of anonymity, but come on, we all know those authors Google themselves, or if they don’t they have a friend who will stumble upon the site and scurry back to said author with tales of their slaughter. So, knowing that, is chatting in the open, slicing and dicing a book and the author, rude? Or is it somehow part of what the author agreed to when she put that book out there for public consumption? Would you make these same comments to the author’s face? (Please know I am NOT recommending that.) Is there something about the Internet that makes us braver, ruder, what ever you would term it–and which is it? Brave? Honest? Rude? Good? Bad? What????
I’ll be honest, I’m a bit on the fence on this one. On the one hand I despise reading a review or a comment that is obviously nothing more than an attempt to show how smart and witty the writer of the review/comment is–especially since it is at the cost of someone else. But I have no problem with a rough review. It’s all about the tone for me. It’s the difference between a wolf hunting down and eating a hapless rabbit because he’s hungry, and my well-fed husky finding a nest of baby bunnies and tossing them in air with abandon. I guess it’s the abandon I object to.
And, I will also admit, that while reading a review of a book/author recently that was being tossed about, a deep sympathy pierced me. I have never read this author’s books, I don’t know this author, but much like I would feel if I saw a group of bullying girls picking on one with knock-knees and braces, I wanted to rush in and protect her. But say what? Naughty, naughty?
So there you have it. Back to the original–is this wrong or are we authors just way too thin skinned?
It’s all perspective. Reviews are primarily for the benefit of the readers, not the authors or the publishers. Sure, authors & publishers take note of them, but their target audience is the reader — a “buyer’s guide” for books.
The problem lies in confusing a review with a critique. The latter, hopefully, would be targeted toward the author (and, to some extent, the publisher) and would contain constructive criticism.
The snarky sites attempt to blend the two, providing author-targeted critique and reader-targeted review. Add the competitive factor (to be more entertaining than the other review sites), and it’s a textbook recipe for bullying.
by Alessia Brio September 30th, 2006 at 8:19 amThe Internet has opened up a whole new place for people to pass judgement on others. Unlike the playground bullying of decades past, online bullying - or commenting, or gossiping, or call it what you will - is more potentially dangerous, I think, because there is little accountability. You don’t have to look the person square in the face while you criticize. You are as anonymous as you want to be, and thus protected.
Having said that, I also believe that authors must have thick skins, for the very reason that, yes, you are sending your baby out into the world to be judged by others. But I think everyone, not just authors, would do well to keep a healthy perspective on the very nature of the Internet.
by Allie Boniface September 30th, 2006 at 8:57 amI’m waffling on this issue. On one hand, yes, I think some of the trashing goes overboard, especially when its sprinkled liberally with expletives. Let’s be honest, if you’re qualified to review a book, then maybe you should put a little effort into finding words with more than four letters to describe what’s wrong with it.
On the other hand, we’re all going to get bad reviews at one time or another and if you can weather the worst, then the more pleasant panning won’t devastate you so much. I’ve read magnificent reviews of books that I thought were terrible and wondered if there are some review policies that forbid negative reviews at all. The tell-it-like-it-is sites do offer balance against the sunshine blowers, and they seem to generate interest in the books which just goes to show there’s no such such thing as bad publicity.
by Bernadette Gardner September 30th, 2006 at 9:14 amAs an author, I need to be able to handle a negative review that’s phrased with constructive criticism. What I don’t agree with as an author or a reader is a total slash and trash where someone’s work is obliterated so the reviewer can show off his or her own snarkability.
by Mary Stella September 30th, 2006 at 10:43 amYeah, it’s rude. But it’s perfectly permissible rudeness. If the internet has done nothing else, it has exported the American concept of free speech to the world.
One thing to remember about these sites – or the communities which develop around these sites – is that they have nothing to do with the books or authors being discussed. Nothing. The whole point is to enable participants – who have clearly mistaken being spiteful and snide for being insightful and witty – to showcase their sharpest put-down moves. As you noted, the motivator is NOT to give an objective (or subjective) and informative review of the book, but to earn the “oooo”s and “aaaaah”s of their admiring peers. Compare reviews of completely dissimilar books and you will see the same basic series of moves used in every case with only superficial variations. (In fact, some put-downs are so boilerplate they raise the question of whether the poster actually read the book or is just chiming in on cue.)
I know from inside the skin that telling yourself not to visit sites that do this to your stories or books or even you yourself is like telling a six-year-old not to pick at a scab. BUT: Ignore these people. Don’t visit the sites. Because, despite the subject lines, none of the posts are about you or about your work. It’s all about otherwise unremarkable individuals using your name and your work as a pretext for calling attention to themselves.
by KeVin Killiany September 30th, 2006 at 10:56 amYes it’s rude. But you can’t force everyone to play nice. I agree with what KeVin Killiany said about not visiting the site. You wouldn’t go to dinner with someone you knew was going to trash you (barring family or business relations), don’t go to the sites where trashing is the main goal.
by Sara September 30th, 2006 at 11:02 amWhat KeVin said. Consider the source and then ignore it.
by Bernita September 30th, 2006 at 11:06 amI think it is rude and mean.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but to ride roughshod over authors’ emotions with total disregard for their feelings? Writers need to be able to take bad reviews but not tirades of personal abuse by people who wield a little bit of power.
Taking the good and completely ignoring the bad (unless it is constructive) is great advice.
by Toni Anderson September 30th, 2006 at 11:28 amYes, it’s rude. Somehow over the last 40 years it’s become socially acceptable to be rude, even mean, to others. Why? One can be honest without being cruel about it, so why stoop to discourteous behavior? Just to appear clever in wording or viewpoint? When did we, as a society, stop taking the feelings of others into consideration?
The anonymity of the internet encourages bravery, and that can be both a good and a bad thing. The fact that it allows people to be rude and insulting to others is sad; there are so many better uses for the net than that. What a sad waste of their time to produce a plethora of negativity as their legacy.
by Ten September 30th, 2006 at 11:57 amWhat I really hate is a feeding frenzy. One person posts a nasty review, and others chime in because somehow that reviewer gave them permission to express their dark side.
My philosophy is, when one person trashes another or her work, it’s a sign of deep-seated insecurity. A mean girl tears someone down to make herself feel superior. Secure people don’t have to do that.
by Kara Lennox September 30th, 2006 at 12:56 pmWhile the consensus here is that these snarky sites are rude there is no denying their popularity. That’s what I don’t get. I attribute it almost 100% to the anonymity of the internet.
by Rosie September 30th, 2006 at 1:21 pmI often think to myself, “What goes around… comes around” it’s only a matter of time.
A bad review is ok if the comments are inciteful and show the reviewer has read the book and thought carefully about their opinion. It is, after all, just that, one opinion. Rudeness and bad language say more about the people using that than the author.
by nell dixon September 30th, 2006 at 4:59 pmSo, anyone think the sites are good?
by Lori Devoti September 30th, 2006 at 6:15 pmSome people might argue they are good because it does get a book out there for people to see–the whole bad news is better than no news mentality.
And do the reviews make you more or less likely to buy the book?
I don’t think they have a lot of effect on me. They certainly don’t make me less likely to buy–I just don’t find them that believable. So, maybe that means the bad news thing holds true.
Whatcha think?
Lori
I do Google myself — mainly to see if there are any new foreign editions on the horizon, since my publisher doesn’t tell me about these — but I avoid most review sites like bagged spinach.
Especially if I know they’re snarky/feeding frenzy type sites. The thing about authors needing to have thick skins is just, IMO, a way for the shredders to give themselves absolution. “I can say whatever I want, no matter how hurtful, and it’s YOUR problem if you’re offended.”
Sure thing, toots.
But since nobody wants to stop readers from talking about books — however they want to — it really is best if authors steer clear as much as possible. (And I’m hereby giving notice to anyone who sees a snarky review of one of my books — please don’t do me any favors by sending it to me, ‘kay? Really, I don’t wanna know.)
I will go one step further, however, about the “reviews being for readers, not authors” comment, because I think that’s very true. Most criticism, even constructive criticism, is subjective. That person’s opinion. Period. Ninety percent of the time, the negative comments I’ve read about my work are criticisms of elements I wouldn’t have changed, anyway, because then it wouldn’t have been MY story, but the reviewer’s. Some authors — the more recently published, mostly — might take those criticisms to heart, but most of us either don’t see it, or ignore it if we do. Because if we didn’t ignore it, we’d become paralyzed.
We write what we write, the way we write it, for those readers who “click” with our work. While we don’t expect every reader to love our books, neither should a reviewer think his or her opinion is going to have much influence, if any, on an author’s future work.
Because we have these thick skins, see. And, it turns out, HEADS, too.
So as far as I’m concerned, the snarky types can have at it, with my blessings. Knock yourselves out. It makes no never mind to this author.
by Karen Templeton September 30th, 2006 at 8:02 pmWithout knowing exactly which sites we’re talking about it’s hard to comment. I mean, I’d rather not live in a Harriet Klausner (sp?) world where I never met a book I didn’t like . . . so long as the review is honest, and it sticks to THE WORK rather than personally attacking the author, I don’t get what the issue is?
Not everyone is going to like every book out there. I certainly don’t. What I cringe at more often are the fans of an author going after anyone who dares to voice an honest, but negative, opinion.
by Kalen Hughes September 30th, 2006 at 8:38 pm“I am sure you have all noticed the growth of what have been termed “Mean Girl Review Sites” (and not just by me–remember those little groups that “leak” their real feelings).”
This is an interesting sentence. As you are explicitly drawing an analogy between the film “Mean Girls” and author/reader interactions on these bitchy websites, does that mean that you know of an author who is pretending to be friends with the “mean girls” for the sole purpose of stabbing them in the back (the plot of Mean Girls)? Considering the small number of these sites that have enough traffic to meet your description of “attract big followings”, there are only a limited number of authors this could be.
Speaking as a reader, I like these sites. Romance novels are entertainment, in the same way that music or cinema is entertainment. Once I’ve paid my money to be entertained, I feel I have the right to discuss exactly how much entertainment I got for my money. There is an entire magazine industry (Star, Enquirer, US, etc) that generates hundreds of millions of dollars a year in revenue basically by being “bitchy” about the talents, looks, etc of those involved in the music/film industries. There are newspaper and tv reviewers that have built huge followings based on the “bitchiness” of their one star reviews.
Actors and musicians learned long ago that although this snarkery is personally hurtful, it also massively increases their profile and hence earnings – if they have the fundamental talent to withstand the spotlight. I think the expression is “crying all the way to the bank”?
While blogs and websites are not (as yet) on par with the power of say, The Enquirer, the fact that they are coming into existence is evidence that romance authors are hitting the big time in terms of public consciousness. Everyone who is discussing why they hate author X’s book, has had to shell out the bucks to read author X’s books before they can comment, and many of these will secretly slink off and glom the back catalogue of the author after bitching about them. LKH is a great example of this – her ‘haters’ can’t wait for her new book to come out so they can race off and buy it and then post on the web everything they thought was wrong with it. I read her blog and know it hurts her feelings, but that doesn’t stop her writing or earning her millions as a result. Anyhow, in summary, I think these sites are a)fun for readers and b)good for authors because they are evidence that romance novels are hitting the big time in terms of the entertainment industry.
by Anonymous October 1st, 2006 at 4:46 amSorry, I hit “send” before I typed in my name. I’m the post above with the LKH/National Enquirer example.
by eggs October 1st, 2006 at 4:49 amSeeing as there aren’t many reader comments here, I thought I’d chime in with my thoughts.
I suppose my blog could be labelled as one of those ‘Mean Girl’ review sites, and yes, I have no compunction whatsoever about slicing and dicing a book that I paid for, and spent my precious time reading. So sue me.
I’ve never been an advocate of the ‘if you don’t have anything nice to say’ BS, because the world doesn’t really work like that.
I’m not going to get rabid about the subjective nature of reviews, and authors needing to grow thicker skins, because quite frankly, it’s all been said before.
What I will say though, is that I have a reputation for being overly harsh about books that I don’t like, so a couple of months ago, I decided to actually count the number of negative reviews, I had up on my site, and I was quite surprised to find that out of 38 reviews, I only had 8 negative reviews.
Somehow, the eight negative reviews managed to generate more blog column inches than the other generally glowing reviews. Why?
Because. People. Love. Controversy.
Even the tree-huggers who come to shake a righteous finger at the perpetrators can’t help but sit on the sideline and watch in fascination. I see it all the time in Romanceland.
None of us are exempt from that mode of behaviour when it comes to online warfare. The only difference is, some of us choose to throw ourselves into the fray, whilst others watch the wreckage from a safe distance.
Online review sites and blogs are indeed primarily for readers, and what authors need to understand, is that there are far worse things going on in the world than the fact that one person thought their book sucked arse, and was mean about it.
So what if a reviewer wrote horrible things about your book? Do they personally know you? Will their review seriously affect your career? Have you been physically harmed? Were you emotionally scarred by the negative review? (for those who answer yes to this question, you guys seriously need to stop googling yourselves, no good can come of it) And last but not least, does everyone else share their view?
The answer to most of these questions should be no, and if they aren’t, then Ms Romance Author has bigger problems than the mean old review sites.
I’m just sayin’.
by Karen Scott October 1st, 2006 at 4:58 am–”does that mean that you know of an author who is pretending to be friends with the “mean girls” for the sole purpose of stabbing them in the back (the plot of Mean Girls)?”–
by Lori Devoti October 1st, 2006 at 8:09 amUh, no. I’m not big on conspiracy theories, and to be honest, while authors watch these sites, I don’t know any that feel the sites are important enough to “infiltrate” on the level you’re referring to.
Along those same lines, I can’t say I agree that the growth of these sites show romance authors are hitting the big time. (Although LKH is certainly huge.)In the big picture, these sites still don’t pull that big a percent of the romance reading world, much less the world at large–which is certainly an argument for authors not sweating the comments, no matter how harsh. (Although even knowing the comments won’t have a huge effect on your numbers, there is still that human factor that I think readers sometimes forget about. Meaning words hurt, no matter their financial impact.)
People can be mean - history has examples of extreme cases. That doesn’t make it right. However, sometime during the process of growing up, we need to learn to be able to mentally evaluate and then dismiss people like that. Doesn’t make it less painful, but …The tough part is since a readers reaction to writing is all opinion, there is a nugget of truth buried in the river bottom. Is it worth sifting through the mud to get it, or do we just move on? You can’t please everyone.
by Johnwrt1 October 1st, 2006 at 9:35 amI can admit as a reader I find some “Mean Girl” reviews rather entertaining in a watching a train wreck kind of way–sort of like bad reality TV. I’m sure if I were the author on the receiving end of one of these reviews I’d be horrified.
Yet authors seem to be missing the point–reader reviews good or bad aren’t for the isn’t for the author, they’re written for the other readers.
by Tara Marie October 1st, 2006 at 10:18 amYikes–LOL, let’s try that last part again…
reader reviews good or bad aren’t for the author, they’re written for other readers.
by Tara Marie October 1st, 2006 at 10:20 amHonest reviews are not mean reviews. In fact, most authors would do well to take it as constructive criticism to improve or not. But if such reviews are deemed rude or mean or whatever, then don’t read them. I’m a consumer and like every other product, I’d like to know what others think of the product before I buy it.
by Keishon October 1st, 2006 at 11:40 am[...] Here is yet another take on reviews. I appreciate candor and honesty. I do realize that negative reviews are named accordingly because they are not positive. I am an educated reader and know the difference between a review that is informative and a review that is mean-spirited. I don’t make a fuss as everyone has the right to express their thoughts but I know that I do have the power of choice: to read it or not read it. Bookmark This Page:These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. [...]
by Journal of An Avid Reader | RTB Column October 1st, 2006 at 1:18 pmWell, of course some of it is rude, but since that’s the point in the first place on a lot of these sites isn’t it a little redundant to even be asking the question?
And for those of you that immediately want to jump in and tell me that being rude isn’t the point on some of the sites, forget it because I’m not going to buy it any more than I’m buying the author outrage every time. Some may moderate it more than others, but the style is still recognizable.
So, it goes both ways.
OTOH, I’d have a lot more sympathy for the poor maligned authors on this one if I hadn’t had some really strange reactions to some of my own comments over the years and I defy anyone to claim I’m one of the “rude” ones. Put it this way, I once had an author get upset because I said I’d bought her book but hadn’t read it yet.
Uh, huh? I have to admit, that one made my mouth hang open so far I didn’t even know how to respond. Miscommunication or simply taking things way out of proportion? Heck if I know. I just know overreaction happens and sometimes not even for a good or explainable reasons.
Does the abrasiveness of some of the sites get on my last nerve sometimes? Well, sure and then I don’t visit them for a while or ever again. But you know what? So does super-sweetness and light at times. There’s only so much sap I can take and not loose my lunch. Nothing, including romance novels are that good all the time.
But you gotta admit, having lots of variety keeps things interesting.
by B.B. Medos October 1st, 2006 at 1:27 pmI never had any problem with negative reviews. Reviews of my work — favorable or pans — are fine. Often very informative, in fact. Variety is indeed interesting. Nobody here is complaining about negative reviews.
It’s the sites that make deliberately hurtful statements or disparage writers as people simply for the entertainment value that I object to. It was to these self-promoters that my remarks were addressed.
By all means, if you feel strongly enough about a work you’ve read to comment on it publicly, please do so. I don’t think there’s a writer out there who doesn’t value sincere feedback.
by KeVin Killiany October 1st, 2006 at 2:41 pmI have to say I’m not sure I get why reviews being written for readers makes them less hurtful. To me, that’s like saying if you hear two women at a party discussing how fat you’ve gotten or that your daughter is a gold-digging…well you know, that it shouldn’t bother you because they weren’t actually looking you in the face when they said it and didn’t *mean* for you to overhear. Plus, there is the fact that at least some of these sites do very directly address the authors. And these sites are very much in public–it isn’t like authors are hacking into private bulletin boards and then choosing to take offense. The owners of these sites know the authors will see or hear about the reviews–and as I said earlier, sometimes that is very much the point.
by Lori Devoti October 1st, 2006 at 3:04 pmAnd, again, we are talking about the extreme here–not just a bad review.
As a blogger with a site that I am sure Ms. Devoti would classify as a Mean Girl, I appreciate topics like this because the comments are always humorous. I don’t know why writers focus on the negative all the time. Like Karen S, the majority of the reviews that are posted at DearAuthor are average or better.
Tara Marie is right. The reviews are written for readers and not authors. I highly doubt, as Ms. Lennox suggests, that negative reviews are the provence of the insecure, done with the intent to make the poster feel superior. If that were true, then the majority of the reviews would be negative.
The point of reviews, particularly reader reviews, is to put into writing the verbal or email recommendations that have gone on for years. It is just now with the proliferation of blogging that authors are privy to those private discussions. If anything, the blogging reviews are mild compared to what goes on in private reader lists and in person reader groups.
by Jane October 1st, 2006 at 3:06 pmHonest reviews are not mean reviews.
Some are, some are not.
by Anon October 1st, 2006 at 3:09 pmIt’s the sites that make deliberately hurtful statements or disparage writers as people simply for the entertainment value that I object to. It was to these self-promoters that my remarks were addressed.
And those sites are?
Unless I and other readers know specifically what sites/reviews are meant here, how can we judge for ourselves that this is truly happening and speak for ourselves on the issue?
See, over the years, I’ve heard a lot about reviews that attack an author personally but I have yet to actually see more than one or two. Attack the work, yes, and on a fairly regular basis.
Attack the author, though? They are so rare that I have to see each one to judge for myself but if I felt it was happening, do you honestly think I’d stay quiet about it?
I suspect there are quite a few readers who feel the same way and some of them are a lot more vocal than I am.
by B.B. Medos October 1st, 2006 at 4:24 pmI should probably add that when I say I have yet to see more than one or two I am NOT talking about comments left on Amazon but romance review sites and/or blogs, etc.
by B.B. Medos October 1st, 2006 at 4:28 pmAnd those sites are?
Unless I and other readers know specifically what sites/reviews are meant here, how can we judge for ourselves that this is truly happening and speak for ourselves on the issue?
Very good point.
And I should probably disqualify myself from the discussion, because I am not familiar enough with romance review sites.
My experience, as I’ve said elsewhere is in writing science fiction, especially in the Star Trek universe.Fans of Star Trek Star wars, or other fictional universes are 99.999% terrific people. A lot of fun to hang out with at conventions and the like. However, there are fans who go out of their way to completely trash writers whose work they do not like. I am very, very small fry and have had few barbs and only one website dedicated to trashing me (I just tried the link and Googling, it’s gone). Oh, and this.
Some truly great writers like Kevin J. Anderson — a friend of Frank Herbert and of his son who was asked by the Herbert family to carry on the Dune series of novels — has dozens of websites dedicated to trashing him, the Wikipedia entry for his name hacked and filled with vile lies …
As nearly as I can tell, nothing at that level happens in the romance world. I have seen — in my wide-ranging research into this field — some very inflammatory reviews and threads about certain writers. I did not bookmark these because if a site doesn’t strike me as useful, I don’t go back, so I’m afraid I com up empty in the example department (hence my move to disqualify myself).
I notice in your last post that you expressly exclude Amazon reviews in your discussion. I had intended to mention the same names — same groups of names — tend to show up in Amazon review after Amazon review trashing writers as much as their books. In fact, as I noted, some of these reviews are so boilerplate that many seem more like a copy-and-paste than a fresh review.
In the past I have learned from reviews that discussed what I was doing as a storyteller that did not work for the reader. Do not at any time think a thoughtful and specific negative review is unappreciated by any writer. And I’ve been royally panned some places. If you have an honest opinion, state it plainly and it will be taken for what it is by the writer and other readers.
by KeVin Killiany October 1st, 2006 at 5:37 pmI don’t really have an opinion about the review sites. I rarely visit them. I do wish that everyone would stop inferring that authors aren’t readers.:sad: If that truly were the case, I wouldn’t have spent a few thousand on paperbacks over the past couple of years.:oops:
by Jordan Summers October 1st, 2006 at 6:18 pmI do wish that everyone would stop inferring that authors aren’t readers.
Good point. My follow-up question for authors would be are you a reader first or an author first? There are some authors who make a point of stating one or the other first. I think that makes the difference perspective-wise especially in how you handle reader discussions on reader related message boards, etc.
by Keishon October 1st, 2006 at 6:40 pmWhere did anyone infer that authors aren’t readers?
The only thing I’m pointing out is that authors complaining about unfair reviews isn’t the same as readers who AREN’T authors highlighting the same thing. I’m not even talking about a fans of a particular author, either. In fact, it would be better if it wasn’t one of them either.
Don’t all of you think it would carry a lot more weight if readers who AREN’T authors point out real the problems in this area, especially if they aren’t even “fans” of the particular author, instead of authors being the ones doing it?
The whining label would be a lot harder to stick on us for one thing. The only problem then is actually finding those reviews that are unfair in this regard.
As to the reason I excluded Amazon from what I’m talking about, as far as I can see some of the commenters on it fall into the same category that Kevin is talking about - completely dedicated to actually trashing the author to the point that I’m not even sure reading the book is part of the equation. I’m not saying trashing the author personally doesn’t exist. I’m simply saying that I’ve actually seen very few real examples of reviews that trash the author personally from specifically romance novel related sites.
I also don’t count comments on message boards and blogs as reviews, either. I’m talking about structured reviews on a site that calls them reviews. Show me one of those trashing an author personally - not the book but the author - and I’ll get just as irate as the rest of you. You just have to show them to me first. Otherwise, I tend to stay far, far away from this discussion because it goes in way too many circles.
by B.B. Medos October 1st, 2006 at 6:55 pmOkay, I think I’ve spotted a problem here. For an author it is very difficult to separate her/himself from the book–she/he created the book. So if someone says the plot is “stupid”, the characters ridiculous, etc. how can that not be an insult to the creator? Now I totally realize this may be harder for a nonwriter to understand–but it’s true. Back to my party analogy if people make fun of your dress, aren’t they really making fun of you? (and all you did was buy and wear the thing)
by Lori Devoti October 1st, 2006 at 7:58 pmThat said, I have to go back to my original blog–it’s all in the tone and the obvious intent to not really discuss the book but to rip and tear for fun. Authors DO expect bad reviews, and develop amazingly thick skins very quickly, this blog wasn’t about your normal bad review, but the ones who do it with complete glee during the gutting.
I agree on the tone, but I’ve long belived that for some people the internet is a license to be rude.
by Cece October 1st, 2006 at 8:53 pmSo if someone says the plot is “stupid”, the characters ridiculous, etc. how can that not be an insult to the creator?
Because it’s not? Because it’s talking about the work and not the person?
To say, “Look at the plot that stupid author wrote,” is one thing, but to say, “Look at the stupid plot that author wrote,” is another.
I’m not my books. Yes, I write them, create them, but once they’re out there, they become what the readers make of them, and that’s a very individual thing. What’s an A+++ keeper to one reader will be toilet paper to another, but I don’t expect the A+++ keeper reader to think more highly of me as a person than the toilet paper reader does.
Not all readers will like what I write, and that’s their right. Why should I take personal offense because they don’t? I may wish they did, but unless they say *I* am stupid, I don’t consider myself insulted at all when they say that my books are. I’m selling and getting paid, and have enough readers who love what I do not to write with the others looking over my shoulder.
by Alison October 1st, 2006 at 9:30 pmTo me, that’s like saying if you hear two women at a party discussing how fat you’ve gotten or that your daughter is a gold-digging.
There is a huge difference between making rude comments about people (though remember there’s an old addage about people who eavesdrop) and a reader really angry about spending good money for a really bad book.
So if someone says the plot is “stupid”, the characters ridiculous, etc. how can that not be an insult to the creator? You’ve never read a book with a stupid plot or lousy characters?
Now I totally realize this may be harder for a nonwriter to understand–but it’s true. Nonwriters aren’t stupid we actually understand the logic, we may not agree with it but we can understand it.
To say, “Look at the plot that stupid author wrote,” is one thing, but to say, “Look at the stupid plot that author wrote,” is another. And there you have it, one’s mean and the other’s honest.
I can understand why authors would be hurt by particularly snarky reviews, but negative reviews aren’t all “mean” and I haven’t come across that many blogs that show “complete glee during the gutting.” I’m starting to think the thickness of an author’s skin determines what’s considered “mean”.
by Tara Marie October 1st, 2006 at 10:24 pmSo if someone says the plot is “stupid”, the characters ridiculous, etc. how can that not be an insult to the creator? Now I totally realize this may be harder for a nonwriter to understand–but it’s true.///
Are you kidding me? First the reader cannot say anything negative about a book and second, if they do, they are too stupid to recognize that its a personal insult?
When an author puts out a book for public consumption, expect public criticism. Don’t want the public criticism, don’t sell the book or write one that doesn’t generate ANY public discourse and don’t take the public’s money.
by Jane October 1st, 2006 at 11:03 pmWhat Jane said.
by Karen Scott October 1st, 2006 at 11:12 pm“So if someone says the plot is “stupid”, the characters ridiculous, etc. how can that not be an insult to the creator?”
Are you serious? Because it’s not!
<