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?
Mornin’ Michelle!
I think it’s the voyeurism aspect of the nasty (that sounds vaguely dirty) that people like. I’ll admit that I’ve watched in kind of digusted fascination some of this year’s web kerfuffles. This year several that came to pass involved favorite authors of mine, so I read those with interest. Didn’t jump into the fray mind you. I don’t think I’m witty enough and frankly, I figure if those authors are smart enough to write great books, they’re smart enough to defend themselves if they deem it necessary, but I definitely read them.
Now, when it comes to reviewing, I don’t like snark. I appreciate constructive criticism and smart writing. I certainly appreciate anyone who will steer me clear of book that I would have bought and then been infuriated by. But I don’t like reviews with an ax to grind and the criticism has to be intelligent and reasonable. But I don’t mind negative reviews.
by MaryKate December 28th, 2006 at 8:48 amNothing’s fun about nasty on the internet. It’s all about ego as far as I can see and a swollen head will eventually burst, you know.
Lots of times snarky negative reviews ENCOURAGE folks to buy books rather than the opposite because they want to see just what was so bad about the book to cause such a nasty review. The smart author will simply let it ride even though it hurts like hell because starting a public fray over the issue just reduces the author to the reviewer’s level of nastiness.
It’s fine not to like a book and say so in a review. But just because you didn’t like it doesn’t mean it’s not a good book. To quote a NYTimes bestseller, “It just means it wasn’t your cup of tea.” I don’t like coffee but I don’t go around making snarky comments about it.
by Marilyn December 28th, 2006 at 9:35 amMornin’, Michelle!!!
Mary Kate– I am with you on the voyeurism aspect. It’s like a train wreck, you can’t help but stare unabashedly.
by Julie in Ohio December 28th, 2006 at 9:37 amAs for negative reviews, I could do without them. If you don’t like a book, that’s OK. It’s your opinion and everyone is allowed theirs. I just don’t like hearing someone’s hard work get bashed. It makes me feel sorry for the author because you know she worked extremely hard writing it. Although you didn’t like the book for one reason or another doesn’t mean someone else feels the same.
It’s like the Bellas say: Don’t yuck someone elses yum.
Or if you prefer Pollyanna: If you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all.
I talked once or twice about books I didn’t like on my own blog. The nastiest thing I said was ‘By the time they jumped each other’s bones I didn’t care a horse’s behind for them, so the scene bored me even though it was skillfully written.’ No one got mad, but after that I decided only to talk about books I liked. I can learn and share that way too. Like after I read Rumble on the Bayou, by Jana Deleon, I wrote something like, “The characters had gone so multi-dimensional by the time they jumped in the sack I had to have a large pail of chocolate nearbye!”:grin: Same lesson learned, but in a positive way.:wink:
by Kimber An December 28th, 2006 at 9:39 amMornin, Kimber An. Sounds like what you’re saying is you grew more thoughtful about what you wanted to convey. There are things I’ve written that I cringe about now (not that you need to cringe over anything you’ve written), because I’ve since learned how to write better, or communicate better. I like the standard bloggers have set at Romance: By the Blog, because anyone can say what they like, pro or con, as long as they say it with a smile, as it were.
btw, I’ve got Rumble on my TBR. Are you sayin I should visit Godiva before I turn to page 1?
I like the imagery of train wreck, MaryKate, and JulieInOhio. There are a couple celeb gossip and sports celeb sites that I can’t stay away from cause the snark’s so clever and devious. I always feel like I should comment about how mean it’s getting, but, frankly, that’s not where my courage lies. But I’ve always been one of those people who stands up for the misunderstood, which is why I think I like writing about romance fiction so much.
Marilyn, I like this fascinating idea that mean, negative reviews sell books. It’s poetic justice, no?
Trying to figure out whether reviews keep readers from buying is a bit like trying to figure out whether readers prefer “only positive” or “traditional crit” or “snarkicism.” I can love a book and be moved by it and you can think it’s the worst piece of dreck written.
That’s why I think it’s important to realize “reviews,” — at least I’ll own up to this about my column — are just opinions of a novel’s worth, not hard and fast truths. I “rate” my opinion by using a standard set of criteria (again, mine) so viewers who read me consistently can get a sense of what they can expect from several areas including sesuality and “cover cheese.”
Still, when a viewer writes to tell me she bought and loved a book I’d recommended, I feel really great. That’s because I see my job as honoring writers by talking about their novels and hard work, and respecting readers by helping them hook up with the authors they love.
by Michelle Buonfiglio December 28th, 2006 at 10:30 amMichelle, you have yet to steer me wrong and I’ve picked up a lot that you’ve rec’d.:razz:
There is something to what Marilyn said about a book selling more with a negative review. I will go see a movie that critics have hated and usually come out loving it. To me, most of the movies that are critically accepted are boring. There is no accounting for taste…
by Julie in Ohio December 28th, 2006 at 10:56 amActually, I pay as much attention to well written negative reviews as I do to the positive ones. I like to read about both the good and bad aspects of the book.
I never pay attention to the fangirl reviews: “OMG! This was the bestest book ever I stayed up all nite reading it it was awesome!!!” and I seldom pay attention to the Pollyanna (Harriet Klausner) reviews that read more like publicity releases than informative reviews. However, I also ignore those that bash the book (and sometimes even bash the author) for no explained reason.
I have posted several reviews on Amazon for books I liked, and so far I’ve posted one for a book I didn’t like. However, I explained that the primary reason I didn’t like the book was that the cover art and back blurb were misleading (not the author’s fault) and the author used modern dialogue in a historical (the author’s fault), which threw me out of the book.
This is not to say that others wouldn’t love the book, and I think good reviewers make it clear that the review is their opinion.
I’ve loved some books that online reviewers have trashed. I just roll my eyes, smile smugly (b/c I know the truth!) and move on.
by Wirdald December 28th, 2006 at 11:02 amLOL, Wirdald! You’ve got the right of it, opinions w/out explanation don’t make for good reviews. And author bashing is just weird. The first line of this blog was inspired by a review I read recently that really pushed me past my First Amendment tolerance into plain old Pollyanna indignation.
You seem to have a really reasonable approach to what you post at Amazon. I do wish, however, they’d call the posts “Reader’s Opinions,” rather than reviews. The term Reviews carries gravitas, an expectation that the “reviewer” has been thoughtful and balanced in their reading of the novel w/out relation to any other novel they’ve read or are reading. That they’ve studied, formally or informally, literature, construction, language, etc., as well as have in mind what demo they’re writing for.
That way, one doesn’t get the, as you put it so well, “OMG, this book is hella awesome!” or “The author’s ugly, so’s her book cover, and I hate her novels.”
One of the best pieces of advice I’ve gotten from an editor who knows well how much I love the genre, writers, readers, and the industry was:
I know you can’t help it, Michelle, but please God, try to avoid the superlative. And make it about the reader, not you.
Easier flippin said than done.
by Michelle Buonfiglio December 28th, 2006 at 11:25 am(Please note, I am not talking about people who post honestly negative reviews about a story they did not like. I will take a thoughtful and thought-provoking negative review of my work over an empty sunshine and good-feelings blather any day of the week.)
I’m not published in romance yet, but I am in a variety of science fiction and game markets, so I’ve had some experience with reviewers, both pro and blog. Two things are at work, I think, with the slash-and-burn crowd; two things which may seem at first to be mutually exclusive: anonymity and the need for attention.
The internet is anonymous. You can say whatever you want and no one need know who you are. In fact, you can be whoever you want without fear of being discovered. That this immunity from accountability encourages people to do and say things they otherwise would not is well documented.
At the same time, people want to be noticed. They want to get some sort of response or recognition from the people around them. Working in child protective services, one thing we learn early on is that children would rather be hit than ignored, and to a certain extent this carries through to all human interactions.
Everyone has had the experience of posting something they thought was interesting and thought provoking on their blog or in a discussion group and getting absolutely nothing — or very nearly nothing — in response. This can be very disheartening; particularly if it was something from the heart.
So it is with some — not all — blog “reviewers.” They want attention, which they measure in terms of the number of people who respond to their reviews, and they quickly learn that rants which trash a book get a higher return than thoughtful and generally positive essays. With no one in the double-blind internet universe able to hold them accountable for what they say, these slash and burn “reviewers” uncork their most potent vitriol, more interested in the eye-catching turn of phrase that will trigger response than in adding anything to anyone’s understanding of the work.
Though the effort needed to not respond often causes severe finger cramps, the best response to such reviews is to ignore them. And the most therapeutic response to such bloggers is to never visit their sites (because you know they watch their visitor counters like a hawk).
by KeVin Killiany December 28th, 2006 at 11:27 amI’ve loved some books that online reviewers have trashed. I just roll my eyes, smile smugly (b/c I know the truth!) and move on.
heehee. brilliant!
JulieO, now that you’ve mentioned that, you know no good can come of it. I’m Italian, so I expect you’ll hate the next I recommend.
Oh, and I hated “Titanic,” so what does that say about my ability to judge movies that everyone else would like? Although Kate W was gorgeous.
by Michelle Buonfiglio December 28th, 2006 at 11:29 amOoopsy. Did I just jinx it?
Oh, well. I know you have good taste and will continue to believe what you say.
by Julie in Ohio December 28th, 2006 at 11:53 amAnd if you bomb next time, I’ll be sure to keep it to myself.
Ah, KeVin, you clearly are a person of fine sensibility and superior understanding. In other words, you agree with me.
But you say pretty gosh dern succinctly what drove me to write this today. And a great point you make is one I’ve been squawking about a lot lately:
The same sites that are negative, that say such mean stuff, are the ones blurbed in novels the minute they deign to write a nice comment about an author or novel.
What’s that do? It drives more folks to the negative sites so they can read more mean-spirited stuff about other authors and the genre.
Doesn’t make much sense to me, but I think it’s a learning-curve issue for authors/editors, no?
by Michelle Buonfiglio December 28th, 2006 at 11:53 amThis reminds me of an instance where a certain author who is well, a GIANT in the romance industry, she’s written at least 10 extremely beloved books that are still discussed today with passion and gushing. She agreed to an interveiw with a writer for an extremely large, popular website that reviews romance. She was bewildered to find that her novels were considered by some to be “cliched” and to have some of the biggest hot-button topics in the genre (secret babies, the Big Mis, etc). That being said, she certainly didn’t apologize for them, nor did she get defensive, she was just shocked to find out that her books were sometimes held up as the worst “offenders” of romance cliche. It must have been really shocking to her.
The interviewer was a fan, and was very professional about conducting the interview, but had it been me, I’d have been a little embarassed. I mean, here is a scion of the industry who was honestly shocked to read some of the vitriol posted by readers of the genre on the site.
This is among the many, many reasons that I’m not an author, I’m WAY too sensitive to have my work torn apart in that way.
by MaryKate December 28th, 2006 at 12:32 pmFascinating topic, Michelle! My husband’s theory is that the internet makes people feel anonymous (even when they’re not) so anything goes. They post things that they would NEVER dare to utter in public if they were sitting right across from the person they’re addressing and some even seem to take a mean-spirited pleasure in it. The internet also attracts some people who have very little personal power in their “real” lives so they can’t resist wielding it in cyberspace.
The weird thing is that you’ll find the exact same tone on Star Trek and Buffy boards, Russell Crowe fanboards, boards discussing the merits of the various shows in the CSI franchise, etc. It’s definitely not unique to romance criticism. It’s more of a universal phenomenon related to the internet itself. The “tone” of these posts and reviews is so universal that you’d almost swear it was the same little horned troll writing all of it.
And I want to make it clear that I’m not talking about genuine, intelligent discussion of books, some of which can be quite snarky, yet highly witty and entertaining. (Who hasn’t giggled over Mrs. Giggles on occasion?)
My honest theory is that writers need to stay away from almost all review sites on the internet. I think those sites should belong to readers and that readers should be able to converse honestly about books without the writers of those books peering over their shoulders. And writers should be able to create without readers looking over their shoulders because if you start trying to write to please everybody, then you’re probably not going to please anybody, including yourself.
My other theory is that writers/actors/playwrights, etc. and critics of almost any sort will always be natural enemies because it is a writer/actor/playwright’s job to create and a critic’s job to disect (and sometimes tear down) what has been created. It doesn’t make either one of them bad people. It just means their jobs aren’t compatible and to expect them go skipping hand in hand through the daisies might be a tad unrealistic.
Great topic, Michelle!
by Teresa Medeiros December 28th, 2006 at 12:51 pmWell, I think there’s something to be said for keeping one’s head in the sand, and perhaps how that author kept her groove.
There’s a lot of thinking out loud done in cyberspace, and that may be part of the problem, the speed with which irresponsible language spreads among bloggers and readers. Of course, I encourage free thinking, but I know that lots of stuff that was seen as outrageous ten years ago — forced seduction, rape fantasy, submissive women with domineering men — are “revisioned” now. Now, any damn thing that turns on a woman reader is AOK, although I wish the Sisters could have climbed on board with that back when co-eds were hiding Woodiwiss at their NOW meetings.
Anyway, speaking as if one’s immediate reaction to a novel, a scenario, etc., is gospel is almost laughable. That’s the beauty of the Internet: instantaneous population of ideas across a medium that, once set free, are bound to become irrelevent pretty quickly. Unless you’re really lucky — and someone will peel down something stupid one has said, they’re out there for a good long while. Which is only mortifying, I guess, if one is willing to sign one’s name to the suppositions…
by Michelle Buonfiglio December 28th, 2006 at 12:58 pmI used to belong to a reviewer’s organization and my favorite tale of all was the reviewer who bashed a well-known author (WKA) in her review, bragged about doing it and then commented on the organization’s email loop that she was sending her completed manuscript to the same house that published the WKA. Uh… hello!
by Marilyn December 28th, 2006 at 12:58 pmGosh, Marilyn, it’s such a small industry. One of the toughest parts of writing about romance for me is knowing the women I’m featuring, and, most often, not featuring. (I only write four weekly features and AuthorViews/month). It takes a tremendous amount of discipline, kindness, and diplomacy to move among writers, readers, and industry, and I can’t imagine why one would cut one’s nose off, etc.
I’ve heard plenty of reviewers brag about their lack of fear in “telling it like it is.” Even though I choose to write a feature, I certainly can write traditional criticism. I find placing any opinion for scrutiny scary as hell, but I always think of how writers feel, putting their work out the same way. That’s why I choose to approach reviewing the way I do, because I respect the fact that they’ve sweated, shopped, and sold their novel. I’ve not written one, so far be it from me to reject ANY effort out of hand because it isn’t my cup of tea. That would be unconscionably ignorant.
by Michelle Buonfiglio December 28th, 2006 at 1:11 pmThis is a tough topic. On the one hand, yeah it pretty much hurts when someone rips apart something you’ve spent so much time and love and personal energy crafting. And it seems to take ten or twenty nice comments to make the sting of the nasty comment go away.
On the other hand, people like different things. I know there are books I’ve disliked and other people have raved about them (not in a FANGIRL way, just they really liked them) and vice versa.
After my debut came out, I admit I was shocked when there were people who seemed to take such joy in ripping it to shreds. By my second book, I felt a little more ready. I even had a little sign next to my desk:
“They have every right to hate it and you. And you have every right not to respond.”
So I try not to. The really nasty sites and reviews love it when they know they’ve hurt you. As for the others, well who am I to argue with someone’s opinion.
The only person I have to face in the mirror every day is me. I’m proud of all the books I have out and as long as I’m okay with it, I’m trying to learn to shut out the external stuff.
Now, when I actually am capable of doing it, we’ll talk again. LOL
by Jenna Petersen December 28th, 2006 at 1:16 pmHi everybody!
I have a comment, but the first thing you have to understand is that I grew up in a big family. And some of my sharpest childhood memories involve me weeping hysterically in my room while muttering, “You’ll be sorry when I’m dead!”
OK, now that you have the groundwork on my personality, I have to say that I think Teresa is absolutely right: authors needs to stay away from review sites. I found myself at more than one point reading reviews and thinking, “Oh the heck with it. I have another job — I don’t need to be writing novels that everyone hates” (secret code: maybe they’ll be sorry when my pen is dead). But the point is that there are lots of people out there who like my work: I just couldn’t see that for the nastiness coming my way through those sites.
One thing that’s always fascinated me about this kind of review is that way they’re phrased with the obvious hope that the author will read them, and will get her feelings hurt. It’s sick.
Luckily, Teresa keeps slapping any Squawker who wanders onto a review site by accident and I’ve been bruise-free this book!
Eloisa
by Eloisa James December 28th, 2006 at 1:22 pmI agree with smart incisive reviews or discussions about books, whether they are positive or negative. What I can’t stand is people who think they are being witty while trashing someone’s work. There’s snark then there’s utter crap spewing from some hack’s mind thinking they are being cool by ‘telling it how it is’. I’m a firm supporter of free speech, but what I can’t stand is people that hide behind that banner and use to say what they want about whomever they want and don’t consider the ramifications of what they just said. And I think everyone should realize that saying it on the internet, it becomes a permanent record of your account. A person can’t come back a year later and feign innocence. “Oh, I didn’t say that.” Oh yes, you certainly did nitwit!
I’ve stopped frequenting some blogs because I can’t stand the tripe that goes on about books, and then between posters.
by Vivi Anna December 28th, 2006 at 1:30 pmI laughed out loud at Eloisa’s comments. I remember doing that when I was a kid, too!
I’m not a writer, but I’d like to be an editor when I grow up.
I hope I’ll be able to provide constructive criticism without burning bridges.
“My husband’s theory is that the internet makes people feel anonymous (even when they’re not) so anything goes.” (Teresa M.)
I agree with your husband. What is even more worrisome to me is that allegedly “legitimate” media outlets are now buying into the anonymity craze. A newspaper in my area recently introduced a section online where people can post comments about articles. It requires no registration, and people will sign their posts as “Easter Bunny,” “sexxy,” etc. The worst part? The paper now prints selections from those anonymous comments in the paper — and this came immediately after they announced they would only print a few letters to the editor. All other letters (actual missives that people are willing to take credit for!) will be posted online. So they’ve cut the space for people who are willing to make their opinions known and replaced it with anonymous snark.
Sorry. I got a little off topic, but it really burns my buns that a newspaper would do this. It’s not cute; it’s not clever. It’s a cheap attempt to titillate, and it disgusts me.
Whew!:oops: *Steps sheepishly off her soapbox.*
by Wirdald December 28th, 2006 at 2:23 pmWirdald, you’re talking about jerk swarms, and Barbara Palser writes a terrific piece about it in the American Journalism Review at http://www.ajr.org/article.asp?id=4095 JSs are a good reason why blogging and journalism don’t really work together. In the cases of serious commenters on pop topics like romance, site moderators have to be vigilant in setting the tone, which can be tricky while trying to stay relevent and entertaining.
Bloggers at Romance: By the Blog have incited an interesting phenomenon of their own: they gently nudge negative commenters into becoming positive ones who usually become regulars, or just go away.
Eloisa! I hope you’re looking at any feature reviews I’m writing! And I agree that in the same way I work hard to write special features an author can feel pleased to read, ones just for her novel — negative snarkicists want to feel the pain. Ick.
Good luck with that, Jenna.
The question’s not whether folks have the right to dislike a piece, but whether they make a cogent argument for their dislike, which would make them more like a traditional critic. I think writers deserve better; it’s not mandatory, but it’d be nice.
I want to reiterate that I feel strongly that if one offers an opinion, one should open oneself to dialogue about that opinion. And I don’t get why folks are so unwilling to offer up their real names. I do not, I repeat, do not believe it has anything to do with fear of cyberstalking. That’s dicey, to be sure, but it ain’t the reason folks aren’t standing while they deliver.
by Michelle Buonfiglio December 28th, 2006 at 3:11 pmHmmm, you know, I don’t mind it, but I don’t search it out. I recently started reviewing books with the hopes to learn, as a writer. Not so much a review as a list of what I personally learned from the writer. I’m not sure it serves anyone but me.
It’s hard to be honest when you know a writer is going to read it, but honesty is important in a review. Snarks have their place, and I’m not convinced that they actually hurt sales. Some people like to complain. They have to buy the book and read it, if they want to join in the fun.
As they say, all publicity is good publicity.
by spyscribbler December 28th, 2006 at 4:30 pmEeek. This is tough. Authors often get caught between a rock and a hard place because if they object to a review they are accused of not being able to take crit. Right.
It’s not that writers can’t take crit because they won’t accept everything every person has to say about their work. Any writer who’s published has learned how to take crit, and lots of it, from people who actually do hold the reins of their careers. What’s always kind of fun is discussion reviews with editors — reviewers often forget it’s not just the author who thought this book deserved to be on a shelf — books are the products of quite a few people working together. When I get a nasty review, I just remind myself my editor thought it was a good book, and her opinion trumps any.
The problem is many romance reviews (not all, but many) are amateurish and written by readers who really have no qualifications except that they read. I’ve read some very positive reviews that were so badly written it made me cringe. You know, I cook dinner every night (well, okay, maybe not every night), but that doesn’t qualify me to go and be a restaurant reviewer.
How can someone who can’t write a decent summary (or a decent sentence) possibly be qualified to review my book? So, Michelle, I think you are spot on about the name issue, but also, what’s behind that name? Who is this reviewer who’s taking such liberties with our work? When publishers look at writers, they often look at their qualifications to write. When writers look for agents, and agents for writers, we all study each other’s qualifications — why are reviewers off the hook here?
Everyone in romance would benefit from a professionalization of reviews. Some kind of standards. That wouldn’t stop snarkiness, but it would give us reviewers we could take seriously and listen to. Qualified reviewers who really love books and want to do authors, books, and readers the service they deserve. Until then, I learned the hard way not to send books for review anymore, in fact, I send very few. I figure if someone wants to trash my work, they can at least pay for the book.
Sam
by Samantha Hunter December 28th, 2006 at 5:01 pmGreat topic Michelle. I used to write book reviews for my local paper, but I only wrote positive “you don’t want to miss this one” type articles. I’ve written some negative reviews for other places, but never with the snarkiness you’re talking about. My negative reviews generally dealt with the fact that the cover promised romantic suspense and the suspense was less than a third of the book.
by mary beth December 28th, 2006 at 5:37 pmOR the “look” said and flowers and the delivery was more satin sheets and chocolate sauce.
OR the author killed off one of the main characters in the last chapter of the book for absolutely no reason.
My reviews were always reader geared and I never really thought of how they affected me as a writer until this year when I read—I can’t remember whose—article here about writers reviewing.
Thanks for the great topic!
Michelle, before starting page 2 of Rumble on the Bayou, do not have anything liquid in your hand or mouth because it’s so stinkin’ funny you’ll be spewing all over the place! The need-chocolate scenes are a few chapters in. Yes, stop by Godiva’s. Definitely straight Dark Chocolate.:wink:
by Kimber An December 28th, 2006 at 5:40 pmI think that what bothers me most about snarky reviewers are the ones who hide behind anonymous monikers. They post messages such as, “don’t even try to find out who I am.” What’s with that? Are they afraid that some angry author will flatten all of their tires?
by L.K. Campbell December 28th, 2006 at 6:23 pmWhen you have an opinion that you believe is right, why would you be ashamed for anyone to know who you are? If a reviewer believes that my book is the worst piece of trash ever written, they should have the guts to print it with their real names and backed up by real, verifiable credentials.
Frankly, I don’t even read or pay any attention to anonymous reviews, because for all I know, it could written by some 13-year-old kid with a nasty sense of humor.
“You know, I cook dinner every night (well, okay, maybe not every night), but that doesn’t qualify me to go and be a restaurant reviewer.”
Why the heck not? You eat food, right? You know when you enjoyed it and when it was bad, right? And you usually know why (over cooked, under cooked, too bland, etc.).
Same with books. You read, right? You know when you love a book, like a book, are bored by a book, etc. Why would a reader, any reader, be unqualified to state their opinion?
I have a Creative Writing MFA, does that mean I’m somehow more “qualified” to write than the NYT Best Sellers who don’t have a writing degree? I don’t think so.
by Kalen Hughes December 28th, 2006 at 7:03 pmHey, Kalen! Good to read your post, cause it addresses the free speech issue many of us publishing on the Inet discuss often.
Re qualifications, the point isn’t that degree = qualified critique. I stated earlier something that kind of relates to your point: The term Reviews carries gravitas, an expectation that the “reviewer” has been thoughtful and balanced in their reading of the novel w/out relation to any other novel they’ve read or are reading. That they’ve studied, formally or informally, literature, construction, language, etc., as well as have in mind what demo they’re writing for.
Anyone can — and has a right to give an opinion. If they’re calling themselves a “reviewer,” I’d like to see them back up their words at the very least with their good name. And I expect consistency in their work, a modicum of professionalism if they’re expecting readers to take seriously their appraisal of writing, plotting, etc.
by Michelle Buonfiglio December 28th, 2006 at 7:34 pmOkay, yes — “what Michelle just said.”
Sure, anyone can have an opinion; I don’t think having an opinion is bad. Above for instance, was my opinion of nasty, anonymous reviews.
On the other hand, these reviews really don’t hurt careers or affect sales. Even the more reputable ones really don’t come into play in terms of a writer getting a contract or whatnot. Maybe a few impressionable readers might pass on a book, but that’s the only real consequence I can imagine, and then as others have pointed out, it could actually generate more sales.
Nasty remarks can hurt feelings, perhaps, but that’s about it, precisely for the reasons we’re stating — they don’t really carry any weight in the industry, at least not that I’ve ever heard directly. If you have numbers, that’s all that matters these days.
So we can be grateful for the good opinions, I know I am, and ignore the bad. I know I do.
And sure, I *could* go online and blast every restaurant I don’t like because I’m in a pissy mood one day, but one, why would I? I mean, seriously, who has time? More importantly, I give credit to people with experience and expertise that I don’t (I wish more people would do that for us). Perhaps I’m not versed in certain kinds of food, cooking, presentation, nouveau, trends, pricing, whatever, etc — I might hate something that someone in the know would say is absolutely perfect. So while I might be able to blog my opinions about what tastes good, like anyone else, I don’t have the authority to judge people who know far more about it than I do.
Sam
by Samantha Hunter December 28th, 2006 at 8:41 pm[...] But I do think it was a good idea for you to explain in detail to anyone who didn’t understand (well at least the ones who read RtB) you don’t post ethical literary criticism of romance fiction but post happy, happy, joy, joy, rah, rah “Reader’s Opinions” and not reviews. Not to say that is bad of course, I think there is room for all types of blogs (not only the detailed review blogs). And as one can see by reading the comments on RtB, authors will always respond to kissass positive people. [...]
by redwyne.com » Blog Archive » Nice is the new naughty December 28th, 2006 at 10:45 pmHere’s what I think–people will say what they want to. And I can’t pay too much attention, even though it is MY career and MY life they are trashing. There is one reviewer who shall go unnamed who LOVES to trash me. I think, why even read more? Why does she do it? But that’s her gig. Not mine. I have to keep writing.
Anyway, a great topic. I know we don’t all love everything, but when you trash a book, it is a person who feels the pain.
Jessica Inclan
by Jessica Inclan December 28th, 2006 at 10:53 pmspyscribbler says: It’s hard to be honest when you know a writer is going to read it.
This is too true. When I designed my column and features, I chose to do what Mary Beth calls the “you don’t want to miss this” type of reviews. Again, my viewers are served when I suggest what they might like to buy. So, since I got to design RBtheBook any way I wanted, I was jazzed to know I was writing good stuff about the good stuff; part of my mission is to represent what’s best about romance fiction and the industry to an audience who may not be familiar with — or may be merely curious about — the genre.
So, for me, it’s easy, because I choose books I think are even across the board. But I’ve had many conversations with authors whose books I chose not to feature about why I didn’t do so. That feels right for me, to discuss it in a private way.
Now, I’m very comfortable discussing in my columns issues controversial within the industry, especially because I have the broad forum to reach so many viewer/readers, to initiate discussion or disseminate info about hot topics.
But my column, RBtheBook, also is about entertaining viewers of 70+ TV news websites, including all NBC owned and operated, and they expect from me a journalistic standard in my writing about romance fiction. I carry this similarly to RBtheBlog.
And that fits perfectly with the standards I’ve set for my interaction with readers and w/in the industry. Of course, those are the same standards I’ve always set for myself.
And I think this style speaks to the majority o