Dear Miss Reviewer Chick with a Blog:
I’ve never liked you or your blog, so your post today doesn’t disappoint. Your topic? Banal. Techique? Negligible. And don’t even get me started about the quality of discourse you encourage among fans of your slash-and-burn antics, clearly honed by years spent studying the Talk Soup school of literary criticism. Verily, you’ve got the critical part down to a nasty, tired art, which is why we readers and writers have come to appreciate consistency as your strong suit.
Obviously, you take pride in a job well done. Your courageous, no-holds-barred reviews (care to share with us your real name?) affect many. You can be sure that your career will take you as far as you spread your goodwill, and good name, among those who create within, and support, the genre we love.
All Best,
Michelle Buonfiglio
Romance Columnist
romance@ibsys.com
Romance: B(u)y the Book
Romance: By the Blog
***
Ew. I feel so dirty. I mean, I wanted to write a letter in the style of so much of what passes for romance fiction criticism on the Internet, and while it was a little fun to hoist em on their own petards, it wasn’t really satisfying. Especially when I thought about how some folks who write pretty decent literary snarkisism might think it was directed toward them, and feel hurt by it.
That kind of angst has a lot to do with why I write an opinion column about the best new romances I think viewers might like to read, rather than writing traditional critical essays about the novels. It’s also why I eschew even snark; my viewers aren’t served by it. They don’t want to get giddy over what not to buy, they want to know what might be a good buy for their hard-earned entertainment dollar.
Aw, geez, maybe I’m just naïve, but I think we as readers – and readers who write about romance fiction — are really powerful and can move the industry without eating our young. But I also know nasty can feel naughty, naughty blows off steam, and the best place to do that is in the anonymous comfort of cyberspace.
Yet a moment’s mean-spiritedness can hurt book sales, harm careers, dispirit the folks who make the industry thrive: authors and readers. In an Internet atmosphere which encourages “fearless criticism” of romance fiction and authors, I consider myself and others who work hard at being informative, ethical, and entertaining, to be pretty damn courageous when we state simply: This author can do better.
So, set Pollyanna here straight, please. What’s so much fun about nasty on the Inet? How does mean-spirited snarkisism agree with or differ from your definition of what constitutes ethical literary criticism of romance fiction?
Related posts:
reviews, like people, are all different. authors and readers should read what they like and ignore the ones they don’t like. it’s really that simple, because nasty reviews aren’t going anywhere just as nasty people won’t be disappearing anytime soon cuz as long as there is an emotional reward to be had as a result of being nasty, that person’s gonna be like that.
so in the end the bottom line is that we all have choices. we choose to read what we dig, we choose to click the ‘x’ when we don’t dig it. when a writer gives ANYONE the power to affect his or her actions in a negative manner, then it’s time to re-evaluate why you’re in the biz. if you’re in it cuz you wanna please everybody, then you’re playing yourself cuz that’s NEVER gonna happen.
no doubt many if not most of the petty reviewers out there do it cuz they have their own issues to resolve. that’s their journey. ignoring what they do will make them powerless in your world as you continue on YOUR journey.
Who are the nasty reviewers?
Which are the nasty anonymous blogs?
If you all know exactly where they are, especially since they are all so hurtful, could you point me in that direction? I’d like to see what a blogger trying to get attention (as if we all aren’t doing that by the very fact that we’re writing blogs, books, comments, or posts) by being nasty looks like.
I’m guessing there won’t be any linkage in response, which is too bad, because it seems as though you’d want to give an example of the nastiness that is out there.
I’m not being facetious. I’ve been the victim in my personal life of some truly outlandish posts on an anonymous message board in my home town. I know exactly what an attack looks and feels like. But I’m truly not understanding what this complaint within this post is referring to.
Thanks,
Suisan
Good luck with that, Suisan. We never get the names of these Mean Girl snarkers. I’m never sure if I’ve even come across them. Why bring the subject up if you can’t cite specific examples?
I’ve not had a truly horrible review, knock on Formica, but I’m sure my time is coming. I did, however, have a perfectly humiliating experience in front of several hundred people thanks to a workshop where my story was picked as an example. My story and a couple others were dissected by a group of industry professionals. And in truth, honestly, much of what they said was true. But it was the way they said it. They fed off of each other’s snarky comments and competed for the best laughs. I believe three author’s stories were read and not a single positive statement was made. If I hadn’t already had a contract in hand, I don’t know if I could’ve shaken it off so easily. Because we are more than just writers: I’m a daughter who lost both parents recently, I’m a niece who’s lost all of her aunts and uncles, I’m a mother with a daughter who has stage-three cancer, and I’m a grandmother to a child with brain damage. I’m also a snarky writer, but my characters direct the snark to themselves, not against others. I believe in the truth, but seasoned with a healthy dose of respect.
Brit wrote:
Because we are more than just writers: I’m a daughter who lost both parents recently, I’m a niece who’s lost all of her aunts and uncles, I’m a mother with a daughter who has stage-three cancer, and I’m a grandmother to a child with brain damage.
Are you saying that the reader/reviewer has to take all these things into consideration before writing a review, cuz you know that’s not how the world works right?
Incidentally, I’m a daughter and a sister who lost her father and brother way before their time.
I’m wondering who these anonymous slash and burn snarkers are, too, since I certainly haven’t run across them after years in the online community.
But, on a bigger note, is it the new Romancing the Blog policy to just ignore any comments that ask questions about a post or that just clearly don’t agree with it?
I always thought Pollyanna was friendly to everybody.
As a reader with a blog who sometimes does reviews, I too would like to see you name some of the ones you are referring to. Because as an active member in the reading blog world, I really don’t know or haven’t seen the ones you seem to be so upset over. I notice you haven’t responded to any of the posts asking where they are or whose they might be. You are saying they are all anonymous so what is the harm in mentioning them then? Of all the ones I visit, most reviews are quite positive for the most part. And of the blogs I visit, they have come about because the blog owner loves and adores romance books and wants to share that love with other readers in a more personal way. So I really don’t understand this continuing smack down of reader blogs. I think they do a whole lot more selling of books than the opposite. I know myself, I have bought (new) many books I’ve seen reviewed on readers blogs. And I think that holds true for many of us!
This is the text of an e-mail I was going to send to Michelle. In reading the comments that have been posted since I wrote it, I’ve decided to post it here instead.
+ + +
Michelle –
I completely agree with your essay “Nasty is the New Naughty” on Romancing the Blog and your subsequent answers to the comments of others. (And not just because you liked mine.)
What’s happened, though, is a bit of a reader backlash. I’m not sure how widespread it is because I don’t know the community well enough to recognize screen names and know how representative they are of the readership as a whole. We are — or you are, as a media tie-in sf writer I’m not really on their radar — living the dream. We are writers of romances. Us complaining about how rough we’re treated by attack bloggers….
Well, the other morning as I nursed my second Honduran organic at Port City Java a fellow sharing the counter complained bitterly that the annual rental on the boat slip for his yacht (a boat he freely shared retails for twice the million he paid for it) was going up to two thousand a month in 2007. The depths of my sympathy could be measured in angstroms.
I thoroughly understand your reluctance to name names. At the very least it would be unprofessional. At the worst it could inspire a firestorm of flame wars on a half-dozen sites. (Actually, that would be more typical of Star Trek fans than romance readers, I think. However, some sort of rift is likely.) I can imagine no good result from getting specific.
However, you did open this box by making a general statement, and I understand the readers’ desire for the naming of names and the citing of sources.
My advice? Stay professional. (Or, if you fear you slipped from purely professional status by broaching this topic publicly, revert to professional.) Take your lumps. Make it clear you’re not going to make it personal. (If you feel you should apologize for bringing the topic up, by all means do what you think best. I would not, but as my wife will confirm, I’m not the last word on social graces.) Accept that some folks are going to be less than kind about your refusal to give supporting details to your complaint, and expect the issue to reappear at unexpected moments. But above all, keep moving forward. Continue with your excellent columns and reviews of books, the industry, and the state of the craft. These are informative and of genuine interest to both writers and readers of romance.
– KeVin
+ + +
And — speaking now to all my fellow writers:
Maybe enough has been said on about attack bloggers. There is a world full of entertaining topics out there; let’s set this one aside.
Ms. Buonfiglio, I assume when you say “viewers” you mean readers, right? You confused me, saying you write a column and then talking about your viewers.
Personally, I don’t see why anyone feels the need to tell people what they should and should not say. Art provokes a visceral response. Books provoke an emotional response. Who are you or anyone to say those responses aren’t valid, and shouldn’t be considered “reviews”–and asking that we change the very definition of the word review, btw–because the person giving the opinion runs a website, or posts on Amazon, rather than having x number of “viewers” of their regular column?
You choose to write only positive reviews. Bully for you. Other people don’t make that choice. Why do you care? What difference does it make in your life? Do you police other people’s viewing habits as well, making sure they don’t say “mean” things about celebrities or political figures? Is it hard for you to sleep at night knowing that somewhere in the world, someone might be *gasp* gossiping about other people or expressing harsh opinions?
I think there may be more to this opinion than we’re being told…
is it the new Romancing the Blog policy to just ignore any comments that ask questions about a post or that just clearly don’t agree with it?
Sandy, I did notice that the columnist was happy enough to answer the other authors who gushingly agreed with her. I’m thinking that ignoring the dissenting comments (mostly reader comments at that) is her Pollyanna way of burying her head in the sand.
Either that, or she’s actually acknowledging that she might have exaggerated a tad, and just wants the crap to blow over.
Can’t really blame her for that, I guess.
Mr. Killiany: I don’t think it’s so much a backlash as a lack of understanding in where she gets these thoughts. If she were to refer to some reviews on Amazon, then yes - many of them are nasty and uncalled for and just speak in the broadest of generalities. But that is not what Ms. Buonfiglio is referring to and she specificaly says “reviewer chick with a blog”. Many of us are confused as to whom she is referring because as I stated before, of the blogs I frequent, they are for the most part very positive. You yourself said you aren’t very familiar with romance bloggers so I will give you that you don’t know them very well.
I am not making it personal either. I truly don’t know which ones she is referring to or why they make her feel so dirty - her words. Does Sybil’s make her feel dirty? Because Sybil is wonderful for spreading the positive of ebooks and has done that publishing industry a wonderful favour. As does and has Dear Author. Talk about spreading the positive word!!Or how about Karen S? Yes, she can get snarky at times - in a funny non-mean spritied way. But ask her about some of her favourites and you’ll find a major cheerleader in a non-fanatic way.
We are starting to chime in because this topic has been done before and as Karen mentioned, very few seem to stand up for the positive side; for the glowing reviews we do blog about. How many times do some authors thank us for the books that they’ve written that have been sold because of word of blog? Instead we as a community, are almost vilified for the actions of a few who remain unnamed.
There’s no point in listing the slash and burn type of blogs. Though I wouldn’t mind finding out what some people think is real slash and burn.
I’ve come to the realization that one persons slash and burn is anothers funny snark. We’re all coming at it from apples and oranges percpectives. Readers, authors, fangirls, wannabe writers each have a different take on what bloggers are talking about.
Where’s the turning point between snarkisism and mean-spirited snarkisism? Who determines what qualifies as “ethical literary criticism”? Can ethical literary criticism ever be snarky or are we to believe that only glowing positive and tepid negative reviews qualify as ethical.
My advice? Stay professional. (Or, if you fear you slipped from purely professional status by broaching this topic publicly, revert to professional.) Take your lumps. Make it clear you’re not going to make it personal. (If you feel you should apologize for bringing the topic up, by all means do what you think best. I would not, but as my wife will confirm, I’m not the last word on social graces.)
I think part of the issue for me, Kevin, is that Buonfiglio already has made it “personal” by setting herself — as a Romance reader/columnist — as some ideal against these nameless slasher-bloggers (she can “do it better,” as she states). The “anxiety” to which she refers early on seems more of a device rather than a genuine dilemma — even if she didn’t intend it to be so. Had she no horse in the race, it would have been much different, IMO, including her unwillingness to provide specific examples of what she’s referring to and creating this sense of ubiquity around her accusation. Nastiness is everywhere, seems to be the subtext of her column here, except in her Romance commentary.
Now I realize this may not be at all what Buonfiglio intends in her comments, but I think some are making that inference based on both her initial comments and her subsequent refusal to respond to any reader remarks that challenge her views (not that she has to respond, mind you — just that it sends a certain message when she has already responded to positive reactions to her piece). Personally, I think there are a bunch of things going on in the piece, some of which have to do with a very personal need to distinguish herself from certain readers and bloggers. And while I can understand that (even if I disagree with her general characterization of the Internet commentary on Romance), I think it significantly muddied the waters here.
And let me make it clear that I don’t have a blog and am merely a reader who appreciates intellectually rich and intelligent discussion of Romance fiction. I am frankly thrilled at some of the reader blogs that have popped up over the past couple of years that have given readers new forums in which to converse about Romance is a more serious and critically engaged way. I actually very much agree with Buonfiglio that ad hominem attacks on authors (or readers, bloggers, etc.) are frustrating and unproductive and diminishing in a number of ways. But even I’m ready to move on to looking forward to how we’d like the Romance-crit landscape to look.
If Buonfiglio didn’t want to offer any examples of so-called unethical reviewing — or, for that matter, of ethical reviewing — if she didn’t want to create the “firestorm” you suggest, then instead, why not just open up a column on what various folks think constitutes “ethical literary criticism of romance fiction”? As many have pointed out, this topic of the slasher-bloggers (whoever and wherever they are) has already been done to death, so the replay isn’t necessary to frame the question, IMO. And why start out with a comment about how it was fun to “hoist” these slasher-bloggers “on their own petard”? THAT set a clear tone for what followed, IMO. Almost half the space of her column is taken up by her “letter” and those initial comments about “hoisting” those slasher-bloggers.
To me, the column here does not really read like an invitation to discuss “ethical” Romance criticism, which is too bad, really, because what a fine and rich topic that would be to engage, IMO. Besides the fact that it would have nicely modeled the kind of “ethical” criticism to which Buonfiglio refers at the end of her column.
[...] My letter was styled after the one on RtB but I did edit to add the word some in front of authors. I don’t see anything wrong with authors being drawn to pollyanna style of blog/websites. And agree with what Teresa Medeiros states in the RtB comments: My honest theory is that writers need to stay away from almost all review sites on the internet. [...]
“My honest theory is that writers need to stay away from almost all review sites on the internet.”
That’s also the advice of Kristine Kathryn Rusch, though she extends that maxim to all reviews in any medium. She has told me I’m an idiot for searching out reviews. In fact she has no patience at all with anyone who pays attention to reviews — good or bad. To do so, she says, gives the reviewer influence over your writing — because the reviews you read will always be in your mind as you write. She says the only opinion that matters is that of the editor making the buy decision. I don’t know if she’s never read a review in her life, but I knew she was condemning the practice (reading reviews of your work) for at least a decade before I met her. She has been telling me I’m an idiot for a little over three years now.
Oh, and Kristie(J): No one has called me “Mr. Killiany” since I taught elementary school. “Kevin,” please.
I would think, Kevin, that the “buy” decision would be driven by sales, wouldn’t it?:cool: Just asking, just saying. Maybe writers should avoid reviews as it’s true that most people cannot take criticism, constructive or otherwise. Honestly, there are some authors out there who seem to hang tough and appreciate the honesty and there are others who simply cannot tolerate it, no matter what. Such is life. I work in retail and get criticized almost all the time. You can say that I’m used to it.
Keishon, the editor’s buy decision is a bit of both. My first sale was the result of the editor liking my work. My second novel (in media tie-in they’re assigned) will depend on how well the first novel sells. I am not on the 2007 roster at Wizkids — those books are either written or being written now. However, if Wolf Hunters is strong enough, I’ll have a slot in the 2008 line-up. (So everyone go out and buy copies for all your friends.)
Writers poor their hearts into their work. Anyone who tells you they don’t is lying. Some writers, like me, are fine with whatever is written about their work. Others, like my friend Kris, feel compelled to respond. I seek out comments in as many venues as possible — as I’ve said before,I can learn from a thoughtful critique. Kris protects herself from wasting time and emotional energy by never reading any reviews, even — especially — good ones.
Not that I’m a saint. I ripped the arm off one guy who wrote disparaging reviews of my BattleCorps stories. Sort of. BattleCorps is military fiction, you see, and a character with the same first name as the reviewer lost an arm. The guy thought it was funny and thanked me for putting him in my story. (This sort of thing can turn very mean very quickly, however, as Michael Crichton proved by turning a journalist he didn’t like into a psychopathic pedophile in “Next” — an otherwise excellent book.)
My unfamiliarity with romance blogs has really been brought home to me in the course of this discussion. (This is the only romance venue I visit regularly.) I’ll have to spend some time reading around the ‘net, I think.
Also, I think I told someone I’d direct them to some of the attack bloggers in Trek or some such. Decided not to do it — don’t like giving those guys attention. I did, however, remember posting about the experience of running afoul of one of these in my Live Journal. Took me a while to find it — it was about nine months ago — but if anyone’s interested it’s here: http://kvaadk.livejournal.com/10449.html?nc=3
(Not sure that will show up as a link; not real savvy on making links. I can change the ribbon on a manual typewriter, though.)
While you’re checking that out, I’ll go look for romance blogs.
Well I’m going to speak from a personal experience AND name names….
I read a snarky romance blog called It’s Not Chick Porn (I’d link it but I have no clue how - so go Google it). Bam, the gal who writes it, is hilarious in that scathing, snarky, bitchy, nasty way that one could only call true talent. I used to read her reviews religiously. Then she reviewed my short story (not good!) and her comments cut me to the bone. I took it very personally. It took me days to get over her words, despite the fact that I’d had two very nice reviews from other reputable sites.
But here’s the catch: Snarky as it was, I was able to learn a few things thanks to her negative critism - like my use of too many dialogue tags, which I wasn’t even aware of!! And my skin has grown a bit thicker.
I still read her site occassionaly, but not with the same glee or voyueristic pleasure. Instead, I search for the hints and clues that will make me a better writer. And to empathize with my fellow authors!
Oh - and part of me can’t wait until she publishes HER first novel so I can review it ;D (bwahahahahaha)
Well, my site is called Snarkling Clean, but I have no idea if I’m included in Michelle’s slasher-bloggers or not. I like to think that I am snarky, but not mean spirited. Others may disagree; that is their right. My blog partner and I never make personal remarks about authors…except I think I once said that Queen Nora Roberts could poop on paper and it would be printed and loved. Mind you, I am a huge fan of hers, and have given her generally positive reviews.
Any snarkiness comes out of my natural smartass personality. Some will find it funny, and others will find it juvenile and annoying. That’s fine. Any book reviews I do (and there really aren’t many) are not intended to be literary discussions. It’s just me, talking with my girlfriends over coffee at the kitchen table about the latest thing I read. Am I going to bring up the wonderful, tender moments that made me catch my breath? You bet. Do I gush over wonderful characterization or plot? Of course. Am I going to call out WTH? when I read something I find incomprehensible? Yep. Will I tell readers about the thud as I threw the hated thing against the wall? Yes, I will.
And I’m not going to stop. If and when I manage to publish, some other blogger is going to do the same to me. That will be just fine.
Robyn - I enjoy your blog (specially the pictures)!
Here’s the thing, though, the intended audience of the reader review is other readers (authors welcome with their reader hats on). It’s not like the reader wants the author to be influenced by their review. The reader is speaking to other readers and saying, gosh I didn’t like this book, what do you all think?
It’s for reader affirmation. You aren’t crazy, fellow reader, I didn’t like it either. Or you are crazy, fellow reader, this book was the shiznit.
But it isn’t about getting the author to write to tailor her story to the reader’s preference. The reader is identifying what worked, what didn’t to a) help other readers and b) get it off her chest.
I don’t think c) influence the writer comes into play at all because we can’t influence writers. MANY writers that I have seen online regularly say that they don’t take reader’s comments into consideration. I think that’s good. Authors should write from their author heart without a reader looking over their back.
But readers should be able to converse with other readers, no matter the tone, if they want to. The online community of readers is so bright, vibrant and interesting, that it seems natural to want to share our thoughts with each other. The old form was email loops and listservs which graduated to public message boards and forums which now has evolved to blogs and comments. Personally, I love the blogs, the different flavors, from the positive to the negative. All this chatter means that we love this genre. We love it and we are grateful to the authors who make it alive.
Every blogger I’ve visited has praised their favorites and criticized their least favorites. Kristie J and I rarely agree on a book. She likes it and I don’t and vice versa. Heck, my blogging partner Jayne and I rarely agree. I recall giving Hot Dish a C or C- and Jayne thought it was a riot. Do I think that Connie Brockway should have written Hot Dish differently so that I could have enjoyed it more? Heck no. Jayne may not have liked it then. Should Pamela Clare’s Hard Evidence be changed to feature a less (imo) TSTL heroine? No, because Kristie J and other readers found the character-in-jeopardy story very appealing. Who’s right? We all are. We all are right in that the book either worked or did not work for us. Which means that the author was right for some and not for others.
I can’t repeat enough that the reader review is nothing about the author but everything about the book and the reader’s reponse to it. That’s it. Nothing more. Nothing evil or malicious about it. Bam’s reviews? Hysterical and entertaining for both the good and the bad books. You can’t have one without the other. I think the romance community would suffer a huge loss if all the blogs because positive. Why? Because many readers would leave and some really good books may be swept aside as dross because of the lack of word of mouth from those controversial bloggers.
And there you have it–why so many readers blog. We’ve created on-line friendships that foster these types of discussions and if we talk to friends in person about books we loved or hated, why wouldn’t we share this with our on-line friends too?
Reader blogs are for the most part for other readers. Authors are always welcome but they need to be prepared to hear/read things they may not like. Kind of like eavesdropping in on two friends talking books over coffee–you might not like what you hear.
Another author here. This whole thing is very simple for me. Reviewers — If you like my book, that’s great. If you don’t, that’s great too. But please, talk about the book. You don’t know me, but you’ve spent a couple of hours with my work and if you hated it, then feel free to shout it from the rooftops.
FWIW I do read reviews of my books. The good reviews — and that can include ones that didn’t like the book — usually help me learn something about my work. For example, a while back I realized that a reoccuring complaint about my characters was that they thought too much. Ever since then I’ve worked to make them say the things they’re thinking and cut back on introspection. I haven’t read that complaint lately, so for me those reviews were actually positive.
cheers!
I agree, Kathryn - as an author, it’s what you LEARN from your reviews, whether they’re good or bad. Of course bad or nasty reviews are hard to stomache, but once the nausea settles, glean what you can, and move on!
But readers should be able to converse with other readers, no matter the tone, if they want to. The online community of readers is so bright, vibrant and interesting, that it seems natural to want to share our thoughts with each other. The old form was email loops and listservs which graduated to public message boards and forums which now has evolved to blogs and comments. Personally, I love the blogs, the different flavors, from the positive to the negative. All this chatter means that we love this genre. We love it and we are grateful to the authors who make it alive.
I am so glad you said this, Jane, because it’s so true.
Reading is fundamentally a shared/communal activity — perhaps moreso than writing, although this depends on the writer’s process, I’d think — and talking about books is such a critical aspect of that for me. I love that smart readers can talk about how different elements of the genre work and don’t work for them — how some are tired and how some have certain social significance that’s worth noticing. I love how smart readers point me to things in a book I missed and challenge my own reading of something. I love how smart readers can talk passionately about characters without losing the perspective that they’re fictional constructs, and I love that smart readers can provide me with tons of recommendations for books I might not otherwise know to buy. Participating in critical discussions about Romance (which is not the same thing as criticizing them) is, IMO, one of the ways I’ve come to deepen my appreciation of the genre, from understanding how certain tropes have evolved into prominence to appreciating how small novelties can have big impacts. To be able to share the experience of reading a book with other smart people who can critique a book and still love it or the genre from which it came is a great thing, IMO. For me, a lowly reader, it’s not about courage or about authors doing better or about hoping an author will see a comment; it’s about tropes and trends and sharing with other readers the highs and lows of reading books in which we all share an interest. For me, at least, it’s first about books, and then about how I and others are reading them. I suspect that the people who like to talk more deeply about Romance novels are the same people who didn’t sleep through their English and/or lit classes in high school and college — and that it’s probably impossible to communicate adequately why it’s so engaging.
Although the stakes are oh so much lower here, the discussion of critical reading of Romance reminds me a little of the debates over whether dissent can be patriotic. The question here is whether critical readers can be fans (in the language of the column, are we “support[ing]” the “genre we love”?). Of course my answer to both debates is that criticism can communicate just as much loyalty as unabashed praise, and that the best situation is where you have a measure of both.
As an author, I will support the right of someone to publish their opinion, no matter what it is or how nasty the tone. They are, after all, just opinions. This is even more important today in an environment where our own rights as authors to express ourselves are being challenged.
As to snarky reviews, I think they are perfectly legitimate if the reviewer supports her opinion with examples. Why can’t a reviewer say a book just plain sucked if they follow that statement with a litany of problems and complaints about a work?
This is even more important today in an environment where our own rights as authors to express ourselves are being challenged.
This is interesting, and something I’ve wondered about. Would you be willing to elaborate a little? I understand if you’re not, but, as I said, it’s something I’ve been curious about, especially after the Anne Stuart kerfuffle.
Kathryn said: “Another author here. This whole thing is very simple for me. Reviewers — If you like my book, that’s great. If you don’t, that’s great too. But please, talk about the book. You don’t know me, but you’ve spent a couple of hours with my work and if you hated it, then feel free to shout it from the rooftops.”
100% agreed. It’s silly to take things personally. A writer who never develops a thick skin with regard to criticism is going to bleed a lot. I don’t expect everyone will love my work and honestly, if they said something with meat to it, I will extrapolate and I will improve. So they’ve done me a favor. If they say stuff like, “It was stupid and boring, I don’t believe in ESP and all that,” then I am probably going to decide there’s nothing I can learn from that review and move on.
I love readers talking about books. It means people are reading and that’s a good thing, if you ask me, since I love to tell stories. When my book comes out in May, I’ll send it to Bam and Mrs. Giggles, probably Dear Author and Karen Scott too. If they all hate it, they have the right to say whatever they want and I’ll be cool with it.