# wRiters wRiting Reviews of otheR wRiters woRks



## DavidRM (Sep 21, 2010)

This is somewhat related to the StaceyHH line of comments in the recent Indie Publishing thread.

I've long listed the books I read on my blog. Recently, though, since I've started soliciting reviews of my own work, and since I see it as a sort of alternate writing form (and as new content for my blog), I decided to post little reviews about the books I read.

When I like the book, a review is easy. I treat it almost as a recommendation: I liked this, here's why you might like it too.

But when I don't like the book...I'm torn. Especially if the author is a KB regular, but even if they're not, I don't really think it's my job to rain on their parade. They wrote a book. I didn't like it. Seems simple. Maybe I should even take the opportunity to practice useful critiquing or something. Except...I'm not sure I should do even that, at least not publicly.

If I wasn't also an author, a part of the community so to speak, I wouldn't care. I'd tender my 1-star opinion and that would be that. I do it to movies all the time (though not in a public forum like a blog). I sometimes do it *during* movies. I paid my $10, I get to mock the guy on the screen and/or the writer who fed him stupid lines. Also, I don't *know* any of the people involved. They're total strangers, and unlikely to be anything else.

But that's not the case here.

And so I'm torn.

-David


----------



## NickSpalding (Apr 21, 2010)

DavidRM said:


> But when I don't like the book...I'm torn. Especially if the author is a KB regular, but even if they're not, I don't really think it's my job to rain on their parade. They wrote a book. I didn't like it. Seems simple. Maybe I should even take the opportunity to practice useful critiquing or something. Except...I'm not sure I should do even that, at least not publicly.
> 
> If I wasn't also an author, a part of the community so to speak, I wouldn't care. I'd tender my 1-star opinion and that would be that. I do it to movies all the time (though not in a public forum like a blog). I sometimes do it *during* movies. I paid my $10, I get to mock the guy on the screen and/or the writer who fed him stupid lines. Also, I don't *know* any of the people involved. They're total strangers, and unlikely to be anything else.
> 
> ...


If you want to write a negative review...then write it, buddy. If it's a genuine appraisal, with no ulterior motive behind it, then no-one has any right to complain about it. And if they do, they're idiots. If you want to be a proper author you have to have a thick skin, so all the writers on this forum who are professional about this business won't get all precious and sniffy if you don't like their book...and the ones that do aren't worth bothering with, right?

We're all after feedback...bad or good...so if you really have an opinion about a book...voice it, it's your right as a consumer!


----------



## Ali Cooper (May 1, 2010)

Hmm, a difficult one. I've critiqued books but that's different. I also know how tense the atmosphere is here and how easy it is to get into misunderstandings online. One of the problems is the proximity. Professional reviewers are paid to be controversial and over the top, but they are not mixing and socialising with the people they review and they are not usually writers themselves. Anything they say, good or bad, will get the writer publicity and sales - if only from people curious to find out if the writer's as bad as the reviewer says.

Here are some thoughts. Do you want to be a member of this community? Because if you publicly say you love some books and hate others, I'm not sure you can be. The other major problem I see is favouring a writer for treating a plot/subject the way you would do it yourself. It's too easy as a writer to mark up your preferred style. And if you criticise the literary worth of someone's writing style, do you have the experience and qualifications in literature to do so?

Sorry for wittering! I'm trying to think how I would approach this.

Another consideration - and it's quite a big one - is that your handling of reviews is going to reflect on your reputation as a writer. Much like putting your reputation on the line to write someone a reference for a job.

I'd consider these things very carefully. Do you have to give a star rating? To me that cheapens things. My rule in critiquing is not simply whether I enjoy a book but whether my best friend would enjoy it, or her son etc.

I think if I were doing this, I would try to do it in a very constructive and impartial way that is helpful for prospective readers. Ideally I would not give a rating. I would comment on whether a book is slow or fast pace, on whether it is descriptive or action-packed but would try not to put a value on these things. In fact I would seriously consider reading up on literary critiquing and associated techniques so that, as you suggest, the review becomes an art in its own right.

But those are just my thoughts of how I might handle it. How you choose to do it is up to you. However, the one piece of advice I would give you is to put your career/reputation as a writer first. I don't mean this in an entirely selfish sense but do think about whether you can be completely honest and true to yourself as a reviewer and as a writer without your reputation in one or both of these suffering.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Different approach for everyone, and no ideal, right answers.

For example, Mark Twain's critique of MOBY DICK and THE LEATHERSTOCKING TALES are classic essays on over-writing.

However, few of us are Mark Twain, LOL.

I do think books tend to be a bit different than other sorts of reviews, because of that personal aspect.

There are a couple times where I decided not to review a book at all, simply because I had too low of an opinion of a piece of writing to really WANT to air that opinion publicly. If it's an author I have had contact with, sometimes I'll just offer feedback to them, constructively and privately.

I'm not one of those jaded reviewers that enjoys ripping people to shreds. That's just part of my personality, so if a book is so broke that it would be a 1-star or 2-star review, then usually I probably didn't even finish reading it... and I don't review books I never finish.

So, as a result, most of my reviews rank between 3-star to 5-star reviews... but 5-star reviews are EXTREMELY rare for me to give out, because a book has to be very, very, very good and relatively free of flaws for me to award a 5-star review.

So actually, the bulk of the reviews I do on books range in the 3-star to 4-star range, but I try to be constructive when I air my concerns about why I didn't rate a given book more highly.

I don't think it's a problem, though, for a writer to critique/review the work of other writers... most writers with blogs/web sites offer at least mini-reviews of whatever they're reading at the time. Charlaine Harris is famous for this; on her Web site, she has a Book - N- Blog column where she micro-reviews 2-3 books she's read in the past week or two, then spends the other half of the column talking about her writing efforts of late...


----------



## terryr (Apr 24, 2010)

I'm completely with Nick on this one.


----------



## Erik Williams (Jun 13, 2009)

I think the key is not being malicious if you didn't like the book.  It's easy to say, "It sucked."  But to give a thoughtful yet negative review is another matter.  Ultimately, the work didn't work for you so honesty is the best policy.  If the writer, though, is a friend or at least someone you know here, a head's up e-mail might dull the pain a little.  "I thought it showed a lot of promise but the plot just felt too convenient and on the nose" then give some examples.


----------



## Jnassise (Mar 22, 2010)

> Because if you publicly say you love some books and hate others, I'm not sure you can be.


Wow. That's sad.


----------



## kcmay (Jul 14, 2010)

Reviews should always be about the books, not the authors. It's not a popularity contest. If you feel bad about it, give the author a heads up first.


----------



## MJWare (Jun 25, 2010)

While I understand people who do, I don't normally leave negative reviews for indie authors.

First, if the books sucks someone else will come along and tear it apart. Second, before that happens they might go and fix it. It's indie publishing, an author can do that.

Also, for 99-$2.99 I don't feel like I own it to other readers to warn them to save their money (if a book was simply unreadable, then it might be a different story).

Last, others might no agree with my assessment, if most people love a book, but I hate it, why should I scare some of these buyers away?

One thing to realize, if you do leave a really negative review, for an author you know, even casually, you are going loose a friend. Call it spiteful, but give me a one star review and then ask me to do a guest blog for you, I'm going to pass. 

I can imagine lots of circumstances where I might feel compelled to give one, plagiarism, $12.99 book, if I thought it was loaded with 5 star fends and family reviews, etc.

Generally, I just follow the rule: if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all--at least publicly. I have e-mailed indy authors with suggestions, even unsolicited on ways to improve their books.


----------



## Maria Hooley (Jul 21, 2009)

I typically don't leave negative reviews on anything for the simple reason if I don't enjoy reading or writing negative reviews.  If I don't enjoy something, I just prefer not to leave a review at all.  If there are things I can suggest to help an author, I'd rather just make those suggestions in private.


----------



## SuzanneTyrpak (Aug 10, 2010)

Maria Hooley said:


> I typically don't leave negative reviews on anything for the simple reason if I don't enjoy reading or writing negative reviews. If I don't enjoy something, I just prefer not to leave a review at all. If there are things I can suggest to help an author, I'd rather just make those suggestions in private.


This is how I feel. I'm a writer, not a critic. Also, chances are if I don't like a book I'm not going to read much of it. I'd rather leave no review at all than give someone a one or two star review. And if I know the writer I might contact them privately. If someone asks me for my opinion, however, I will be extremely honest--and, hopefully, offer constructive criticism.


----------



## Steven L. Hawk (Jul 10, 2010)

I read a few indie books and have posted reviews for some that I rated as 4 or 5 stars. I will also sometimes tout these books on forums when the opportunity arises _and _when it is appropriate to do so. Why? Two reasons:

1) The author's work convinced me that his/her effort deserved some effort of my own in return (i.e., they have earned my support through excellent story telling); and

2) I honestly felt that others would enjoy the book as well as I did.

Like MJAWare, Maria and Suzanne, I don't leave negative reviews because I don't enjoy it and, frankly, don't want to expend the energy to do so. I'm a firm believer in sampling books before you buy. That's the best way to find out if a book may or may not be for you.


----------



## David Derrico (Nov 18, 2009)

I am generally of the "If I don't have something nice to day, don't say anything at all" school of thought. I know some people think we should treat indie authors like any other author and rip their books to shreds in reviews if they deserve it, but I don't enjoy stomping on someone else's dream, and it's not my job, so I don't do it.

If the book is that bad, enough other people will say so without my help. Trust me, there's enough negativity out there on the Internet already.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Just a quick FYI, as I have done a few reviews now...

My "to be read" pile is VERY high... My Kindle has approx. 120 items in it and I've only read about 5-6 books on Kindle so far.

So, if you know I've bought your book and I haven't posted a review of it yet, please realize that is by no means an indication I don't like your book enough to review it.

I just have a LOT to read and I'm not a speed-reader... plus, I'm a writer myself.

Also, if there IS a book I read that I don't think deserves more than one or two stars and I don't review it, I'll likely contact you privately with some non-public constructive feedback and let you know I decided not to post a review.

So unless you've heard THAT from me... it's probably just that I haven't read your book yet. 

Another possibility: I've already reviewed ONE of your books and I haven't reviewed the rest might mean I'm moving on to other authors who I haven't reviewed at all yet...


----------



## Paul Clayton (Sep 12, 2009)

I will only review books I feel are worth reading.  And I won't review in genres I don't usually read.  Why read something I'd probably not buy anyway?  I'll leave the scathing screeds to the pros that write for the newspapers.  If you want to see my reviews, go on Amazon.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

Before a book is published, comments belong to the author. After the book is published, comments belong to the reader. Once a book is out there, once the author expects people to pay money for it, reviews are part of the process. I know there are a lot of people who won't post anything critical and there's value in sharing a book you love with people, but this means that a lot of reviews are skewed too positive, and that's not helping the consumer. 

I don't believe in being mean to authors. Writing is hard. Putting something out there that you created is a vulnerable thing. I never forget that. I don't discuss my own writing here too much, but suffice it to say that I understand. Any review I do keeps this in mind, but if something doesn't work for me, I'm going to politely make it part of the review. I'm going to honor my responsibility to be honest. 

We're adults. No adult should have to baby another adult and act like every word they bring forth is poetry. If you consider writer your profession, or even expect people to put a couple dollars in your pocket, then you need to behave professionally. That means an acceptance that no one owes you a 4 or 5 star review. I saw a 4 star review earlier of an author's book who posts here -- and I honestly don't recall which book or what author -- and someone took the reviewer to task for it. (It wasn't the author.) A 4 star review. Are you kidding me?

I don't care how much time I spend writing, or how much camaraderie I feel when around writers. I write my reviews with the thought in the back of my mind that not everyone has a huge book budget and I know how much the little things matter when you're strapped for money. I don't want to hurt a writer's feelings, but I hate the idea of someone giving up something else in order to buy a book based on reviews from friends of the author who aren't being honest. 

Also, even somewhat negative reviews help writers. The existence of any review legitimizes an author and makes a potential buyer feel more comfortable and as if they're not plunging into the great unknown. The thing the reviewer hates might be the thing the reader loves and now knows about because of the review.


----------



## julieannfelicity (Jun 28, 2010)

Speaking for myself (and only myself), I would want someone to leave an honest review.  No review is worse than leaving a 1 star review.  At least (hopefully), with the 1 star review, I can learn to fix whatever it is I need to fix.  If the person reading my book would rather comment to me privately, sure ... please do so, I give ways to contact me after the About the Author.  You're reviewing, not for the author, but rather for the next reader.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

Anyone who completes a book they consider to be one star:

A. Is a glutton for punishment

B. Had to read the thing for a book club

C. Really wants to write the review to punish the writer and is fueled by pure anger/resentment. 

D. All of the above.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Novels I dislike that much, I don't finish.

Novels I don't finish, I don't review.


----------



## xandy3 (Jun 13, 2010)

My advice, take it for what it's worth:  Unless you promised that person you'd give a review...or made some kind of review-swap deal with them, don't worry about writing one.  

If you feel you must write one, then I recommend finding at least one nice thing to say about it (there's always got to be something   ) then, talk about what you didn't like...and why. Be tactful and professional about it.  
Also helps to word it as being only your opinion, and purely subjective. 

As for me, I only post negative (1-2 star) reviews for a book if it's something that's receiving a lot of undeserved hype, and I want to inform readers that it's not all it's cracked up to be.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

xandy3 said:


> As for me, I only post negative (1-2 star) reviews for a book if it's something that's receiving a lot of undeserved hype, and I want to inform readers that it's not all it's cracked up to be.


Ahh, you mean like THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO, THE GIRL WHO PLAYED WITH FIRE, and THE GIRL WHO KICKED THE HORNET'S NEST?

And, of course, the lesser-known sequels, THE GIRL WITH A BAD MIGRAINE, THE GIRL WHO STUBBED HER TOE, and THE GIRL WHO CAN'T STAY OUT OF TROUBLE ALREADY....


----------



## DavidRM (Sep 21, 2010)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> Novels I dislike that much, I don't finish.
> 
> Novels I don't finish, I don't review.


That's pretty much where I'm at now too. 

-David


----------



## nomesque (Apr 12, 2010)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> Ahh, you mean like THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO, THE GIRL WHO PLAYED WITH FIRE, and THE GIRL WHO KICKED THE HORNET'S NEST?
> 
> And, of course, the lesser-known sequels, THE GIRL WITH A BAD MIGRAINE, THE GIRL WHO STUBBED HER TOE, and THE GIRL WHO CAN'T STAY OUT OF TROUBLE ALREADY....


ROTFL!!


----------



## Steven L. Hawk (Jul 10, 2010)

MichelleR said:


> Before a book is published, comments belong to the author. After the book is published, comments belong to the reader.


Yes, kind of... but they belong first and foremost to the person who is making the comment(s).



MichelleR said:


> I know there are a lot of people who won't post anything critical and there's value in sharing a book you love with people, but this means that a lot of reviews are skewed too positive, and that's not helping the consumer.


I wholeheartedly agree. There are too many books out there that are skewed to the positive side. On the other hand, as has been stated by others, it's not my job as a consumer/reader to help other consumers. I'm repeating myself, but that's what samples are for -- so that consumers can help themselves.



MichelleR said:


> Also, even somewhat negative reviews help writers.


So true. The worst review I have currently is a 3-star from Bards & Sages. But you know what? Julie hit the nail on the head on a few items. She let me know that a few story points that I had taken for granted weren't very clear to my readers. Here's an excellent example: In her review she states, "Unfortunately, the author seems to equate 'peace' with 'conformity and complacency'..." When I first read that, I thought, "I don't, but that's exactly what the characters in my future version of Earth have done. They've exchanged the concept of war for a bland world of conformity and complacency and just called it Peace. That's what I was going for..." But upon further consideration I realized that while I understood that key point, it was obvious that I didn't do a good enough job relaying that concept to my readers. If I had, it wouldn't have come up as a negative. As a result, I've clarified that point early on in the sequel through dialogue. In fact, I think Julie may be surprised to find that a few of her negative comments are addressed in the sequel. Bottom line, it is a great example of a review helping me to hone the story and clarify points in a follow up work. Ideally, all reviews should have such a positive impact.

(By the way, Julie, although I've thanked you for the review, I have not yet thanked you for helping me clarify those ideas in my writing. So thank you!)


----------



## Brenda Carroll (May 21, 2009)

I just do this.  If I like the book and can write at least a four star review, I do it.  If I don't like it, I won't read it, so how can I write a review if I don't read it?


----------



## traceya (Apr 26, 2010)

As a reader I expect anyone who writes a review to be honest - tell me what was good, what was bad etc, don't bother reiterating the storyline, I already know that from the blurb but tell me if the writer made it work

As a writer I expect anyone who writes a review to be honest - tell me what was good, what was bad, where I made the book work and where I failed and if that means a 1 star review then I have to be A] thick skinned enough to take it and B] humble enough to ask if the reviewer has a point.

Some reviews I've gotten I've ignored, others I've taken away a lot from and hopefully I'll keep improving in my craft

But the number one rule of reviewing is that it is for the next potential READER not the WRITER

My two cents


----------



## Ali Cooper (May 1, 2010)

You see I've spent a lot of time on critique sites and what I see over and over is writers saying other peoples' work is wrong because it isn't to their taste or how they'd treat it as a writer. There is too much definitive 'I am right and you are wrong' from opinionated writers. More often, readers see past all this and rate whether a book is a good read. And if it isn't to their taste they don't read it anyway.

So I'm very wary. I'm not at all sure that reviews by writers are necessarily helpful to readers. Writers also tend to be super-critical of books generally.

So don't fool yourself here. Don't justify that you're providing a service for readers. And be very sure that, in giving a less than perfect review, you're not just stroking your own ego as a writer.

And also be aware of the potential damage you are doing with your review. If your published opinion of a book means that readers who might like it don't even sample it then you've failed both the readers and the writer.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

I think the reason we don't see a lot of writers criticizing the writing of other writers, is that we know, perhaps instinctively, that that path is fraught with danger.  Because, despite the repeated claims of "I want readers to be honest about my work", we're a very insecure bunch, and we (as a group) don't react well to criticism.

Negative reviews are sometimes dragged out into our public square, to be flogged by the group, along with the person who had the unmitigated gall to write it.  Hell, even refunds are sometimes greeted with breast-beating.

As authors, we're in a very vulnerable situation, and we know that any public displays of negative honesty directed towards our fellow writers could very easily lead to criticism directed back at us, honest or otherwise.  We can claim that it shouldn't happen, but seeing the reality of what goes on, we know that it might.

It's the same logic that prevents most writers from engaging in controversial subjects in other forums on this website: push one wrong button and a hacked-off poster can do a great deal of damage to your review resume.  As writers, we know what our own buttons are, and we know to stay away from them.


----------



## D.A. Boulter (Jun 11, 2010)

I can understand: "I won't give a negative review."  I can understand various reasons given to support that statement: Dislike of possibly causing harm; fear of causing bad feelings; fear of retaliation; not wanting to be the purveyor of any negativity.  Yes, I can understand all that.  I may not agree with the reasons, but I can easily understand them.

But I cannot understand: "You shouldn't give a negative review."  Here we are, as writers, hoping, praying for reviews.  Naturally, we are hoping for exuberant, positive reviews, but we'll take fair-to-middling ones as well and cross our fingers against the dreaded 1-star review.  Anything to attract attention to our works.  So, to have anyone say, or imply, that no negative reviews should be posted is to say, in effect, that books should only get positive reviews or no reviews.

If you follow the logic, you'll end up with: Reviews are useless.  We shouldn't have reviews at all.  'Cause not all books that have no reviews have no reviews because they are bad.  Thus you can make no judgment on that basis and you can make no judgment on the basis of a book with only positive reviews 'cause you know that those who thought poorly of it (and those may be the vast majority) have said nothing.

Authors are readers.  There should be no distinction with respects writing a review.  I've been a reader for 45+ years.  I've been a published author for 4 1/2 months and suddenly I'm in a different category?  Five months ago I could write positive or negative reviews and that would be okay, but now I'm restricted to positive reviews?  Can anyone tell me why?  I've read thousands of books.  I've published three.  I'm no longer a reader?  My opinion no longer counts unless it is positive?  Balderdash!

Either reviews are valuable or they are not.  If they are not, then none should be written.  If they are, then no restrictions as to positivity should be placed on them or on reviewers.  Once you place such restrictions, reviews lose their value and we return to 'reviews should not be written'.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

Brendan Carroll said:


> I just do this. If I like the book and can write at least a four star review, I do it. If I don't like it, I won't read it, so how can I write a review if I don't read it?


I think we're getting into one of the gray areas of the review system. Some people see 3 stars as a negative review, or an inferior read, and others see it as either neutral or still somewhat positive. Amazon certainly implies 3 stars is a pan since a three star review can be listed that way. When I give a book three stars, it most likely means I've found things to like, there's a chance that I liked many aspects of it a lot -- but enough flaws got in the way that I can't rate it higher. Every once in a while, it truly is a neutral -- everything was sorta okay. That's rare for me.

So, by my scale, a 3 star book means I'm probably still happy to have read the thing. I'm then eager to review it still and it's actually a little more enjoyable to do so, because I have to think about what did and didn't work for me. If I assign 3 stars I have to justify it in a way that I don't with a 5 or 4 star review and I take that seriously.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

Ali Cooper said:


> And also be aware of the potential damage you are doing with your review. If your published opinion of a book means that readers who might like it don't even sample it then you've failed both the readers and the writer.


I don't think the point of a review is to discourage anyone, but to share an opinion and an experience. I've said many times that someone reading my review and coming to a different conclusion is just as valid as anything else. The review still helped someone make a decision, it still provided a hint of what's in the book. I almost always start reviews with a variation on why I choose it. I want to start out with people knowing if they're in the same "demo" as I am -- if what led me to the book is what's tempting them.

Your comment goes both ways. A reader is just as likely to make the decision TO purchase, because the review answered some questions or concerns -- no matter what the reviewer thought of the work. Presumably the writer wants to receive the additional sales and so they have to accept the occasional lost sale as well. A reader mistakenly buying a book because all the reviews are sunshine and rainbows doesn't help the writer long term. Just because a review isn't posted in the official place doesn't mean that people aren't making decisions every day and possibly telling others. The writer has the most investment in keeping their books out of the hands of people who wouldn't care for it.

As to someone missing out on a book they would have liked, I don't see that as being on the lone, sincere reviewer, but on the people who could say something worthy about the book -- the ones who aren't related to or sleeping with the author -- who remain silent. I don't think anyone is obligated to review, but I also don't think that people who don't review ought to put the responsibility of lost book sales on people who take the time. Ideally, a lot of people are sharing their experiences and so no one reviewer carries undue weight.


----------



## Guest (Oct 18, 2010)

My responsibility as a reviewer is to the reader, not the author.  Reviews are not marketing copy (though a good review CAN be used in that way).  Reviews are for the benefit of the reader.  

If I buy a book, I have no obligation to the author to spare their frail egos or not tear their thin skins if I found a book lacking.  I spent my money as a reader, I will speak as a reader, and I will speak TO readers.  

If, on the other hand, an author comes to me and solicits a review, and they give me a comp copy, I will not post a negative review until I have shown it to the author.  Because in THAT case, I am critiquing for the benefit of the author first.  I'll still write the review, but I won't post it publicly unless the author requests it.


----------



## robertduperre (Jun 13, 2010)

Hey Julie, I've been looking for the reviews section on Bards and Sages (where we can read the reviews you guys have written), but can't find it.  Do you have one?  

Just curious is all...


----------



## flanneryohello (May 11, 2010)

In my "other writing life" (with my traditionally published books), I don't post reviews for books published by my publisher or similar publishers. The community of authors writing to that market is fairly small and even though I wouldn't consider many of them "friends", I do feel like posting negative reviews of their work would be bad form. It's not that I'm afraid of hurting someone's feelings, necessarily, but I don't think it would serve me well professionally. But that's because I'm an author--not a critic/reviewer. As someone upthread mentioned, I'm also aware that I can be very critical of writing style and editing, and this is me-as-an-author reacting, not me-as-a-reader. That's not to say that I would give bad editing a pass if I were only a reader, but I know that many times when I read a book, I cringe at stuff that I would have handled differently, or that I know my editor would have quashed. A review coming from that perspective really isn't for other readers, so why post it? Much of that stuff is subjective and I totally know that. I also know that much of what might bother me as a fellow writer wouldn't mar the experience for a reader-only.

I would equate the KB situation to that one. I doubt highly that I would publicly post reviews of indie books as an indie author. Fear of community upset and retaliation is certainly a thought in my mind--the reality is, that stuff does happen. Writers are an emotional bunch.

This isn't the same as saying people shouldn't post negative reviews. Certainly they should, if the book merits one. But I'm comfortable leaving that up to readers and reviewers. I have enough to worry about simply being an author. There's no rule that authors must also review all books they read. Having said that, I may post a positive review for a book within my "community" if I felt strongly about it, especially if it didn't have very many reviews already (a book with 100 positive reviews really doesn't need mine, let's be honest). 

I also agree about what other people have said regarding one-star reviews. If I truly, honestly felt a book was worth one star, chances are I would never finish reading it. I just don't have that much time. Most one-star reviews I've read are obviously very emotional anyway...something in the book pushed a button, and the one-star is more about "punishing" the author for something that made the reader angry than offering a true critique of the book. One exception would be for a book that is horribly edited...to me, that's a legitimate basis for a one-star review.


----------



## xandy3 (Jun 13, 2010)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> Ahh, you mean like THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO, THE GIRL WHO PLAYED WITH FIRE, and THE GIRL WHO KICKED THE HORNET'S NEST?
> 
> And, of course, the lesser-known sequels, THE GIRL WITH A BAD MIGRAINE, THE GIRL WHO STUBBED HER TOE, and THE GIRL WHO CAN'T STAY OUT OF TROUBLE ALREADY....


HAHAHAHAHA!!!!! 

exactly 



Ali Cooper said:


> You see I've spent a lot of time on critique sites and what I see over and over is writers saying other peoples' work is wrong because it isn't to their taste or how they'd treat it as a writer. There is too much definitive 'I am right and you are wrong' from opinionated writers. More often, readers see past all this and rate whether a book is a good read. And if it isn't to their taste they don't read it anyway.
> 
> So I'm very wary. I'm not at all sure that reviews by writers are necessarily helpful to readers. Writers also tend to be super-critical of books generally.
> 
> ...


Well Said, Ali.

I've been a member and participant in critters.org for years, and I know exactly what you mean. 
As writers, we are more critical...and often think of ourselves as the arbiter of what is "good" as far as writing, temporarily forgetting the fact that we each have our own voice.

I think there's a blurred line between a helpful critique and a reader review (on amazon.com, bn.com, or other consumer-related sites).

One is helpful to the author...(and maybe can be done with a polite email), and the other is to inform readers whether or not they should buy the book.


----------



## Guest (Oct 18, 2010)

robertduperre said:


> Hey *****, I've been looking for the reviews section on Bards and Sages (where we can read the reviews you guys have written), but can't find it. Do you have one?
> 
> Just curious is all...


http://bardsandsages.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474977775828

That is the current list of all of the books reviewed to date. I moved them off the main site to the Gather group to put a clearer line between our publishing projects and reviews we do for third parties.

http://bardsandsages.com/blog/category/upcomingreviews/

And the above is what I have on my list to review.


----------



## Dailyebookreviews (Oct 4, 2010)

I'm with Julie on this one - the review is for the benefit of the reader.  We're not reviewing the book to help support the writer's mental health.  Yes, a review is an opinion, but it should be an informed opinion.  What was good and what wasn't.  What you liked and what you didn't.  Good writers can write bad books - it happens all the time and isn't a critique on the writer themselves, just on the work they've produced.

I reviewed Joe Konrath's Draculas this morning on Dailyebookreviews.com.  Despite the gushing 5 star reviews over at Amazon.com, I don't think this was a particular great book and I reviewed it accordingly.  I gave my reasons why and highlighted what I thought were its strengths and weaknesses.


----------



## David Derrico (Nov 18, 2009)

D.A. Boulter said:


> But I cannot understand: "You shouldn't give a negative review."


For the record, speaking for myself at least (and I think at least some others would agree), I'm not telling anyone else what to do or not do. A reader has every right to give a good or bad review, so long as it's honest. I just choose not to do it for fellow indies.



swolf said:


> It's the same logic that prevents most writers from engaging in controversial subjects in other forums on this website: push one wrong button and a hacked-off poster can do a great deal of damage to your review resume.


While often unsaid, this is perfectly true. Retaliation happens. And there's not much you can do about it. Better (sadly) to be a bit vanilla in your opinions (you guys will never hear me discussing politics or religion or abortion on these boards) than to offend someone and risk reprisal -- and you WILL offend someone, no matter which side of those issues you come down on. So leaving a bad review for another author just seems to be asking for payback -- because the sad reality is some authors will take it personally and seek vengeance. And, by using our real names, we're just too vulnerable to anonymous Internet users.



flanneryohello said:


> Most one-star reviews I've read are obviously very emotional anyway...something in the book pushed a button, and the one-star is more about "punishing" the author for something that made the reader angry than offering a true critique of the book. One exception would be for a book that is horribly edited...to me, that's a legitimate basis for a one-star review.


I'd agree pretty strongly with this. People's "grading scale" can vary, but most would agree that 1 star is something unreadable, bordering on illiterate. But the vast majority of 1-star reviews are NOT on books by illiterate authors. When I see a 100% negative review, that doesn't point out one redeeming quality, that accuses the author of writing at a juvenile level (when that's clearly not the case), the odds are that it was either written out of malice, or the book pushed some button in that particular reviewer.


----------



## flanneryohello (May 11, 2010)

David Derrico said:


> I'd agree pretty strongly with this. People's "grading scale" can vary, but most would agree that 1 star is something unreadable, bordering on illiterate. But the vast majority of 1-star reviews are NOT on books by illiterate authors. When I see a 100% negative review, that doesn't point out one redeeming quality, that accuses the author of writing at a juvenile level (when that's clearly not the case), the odds are that it was either written out of malice, or the book pushed some button in that particular reviewer.


That's the way I would interpret what honestly deserves a one-star review (unreadable, illiterate). I have a handful of one-star reviews on an erotic romance I wrote, and every single one complains about the amount of sex depicted or type of sex. Many of them mention that the actual writing is good, though. Some even say something to the effect that I am "too good" a writer to have done x, y, or z (whatever it was that pushed their button). I don't love one-star reviews (though I'm pretty sure that a one-star review that complains that something is too "dirty" probably sells more books than not!), but I don't take these too much to heart, because I know the book is competently written but just didn't appeal to that particular reader. The one-star speaks only to the reader's personal reaction and really nothing that was objectively wrong with the book (particularly in light of the far greater number of four- and five-star reviews).

I would definitely never post a one-star review of another author's work. If the book was really that bad (bordering on illiterate), there's no way I would read it. But if the book was readable and competently written, I can't imagine why it would seem like a good idea to trash it just because it didn't work for me personally. Especially not an indie book that might cost $0.99 to $2.99!


----------



## xandy3 (Jun 13, 2010)

David Derrico said:


> For the record, speaking for myself at least (and I think at least some others would agree), I'm not telling anyone else what to do or not do. A reader has every right to give a good or bad review, so long as it's honest. I just choose not to do it for fellow indies.
> 
> While often unsaid, this is perfectly true. Retaliation happens. And there's not much you can do about it. Better (sadly) to be a bit vanilla in your opinions (you guys will never hear me discussing politics or religion or abortion on these boards) than to offend someone and risk reprisal -- and you WILL offend someone, no matter which side of those issues you come down on. So leaving a bad review for another author just seems to be asking for payback -- because the sad reality is some authors will take it personally and seek vengeance. And, by using our real names, we're just too vulnerable to anonymous Internet users.
> 
> I'd agree pretty strongly with this. People's "grading scale" can vary, but most would agree that 1 star is something unreadable, bordering on illiterate. But the vast majority of 1-star reviews are NOT on books by illiterate authors. When I see a 100% negative review, that doesn't point out one redeeming quality, that accuses the author of writing at a juvenile level (when that's clearly not the case), the odds are that it was either written out of malice, or the book pushed some button in that particular reviewer.


Good points. Retaliation happens. I've witnessed it first hand, and even experienced it once or twice.

I have often purchased & read some books that were given 1-2 star scathing reviews, and honestly the books were actually interesting, and well written. I've often considered that maybe the reviewer was just jealous of the author's talent or offended by a message the author was conveying.

Whenever I see a well-written book that was deemed "poorly written" by some angry reviewer, I consider the source. They probably are envious, or maybe just want to lash out at the author for some childish reason.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

Let me start with I am a reader only, I don't write, like anything   I have a hard enough time putting my thoughts in a review.

I have been reading this thread with interest but also with a little bad feeling. I guess I understand the sentiment behind you writers wanting to protect "your own". But its a little like you against us or them and I have to be honest, I will be looking more closely at the reviews or should I say reviewers of indy books now. 

Sorry, it just feels a bit wrong to me to only want to review the good reviews and in addition, who is to say that the review of a author for an author would not have been a 3 star, but because of the personal reasons to not want to hurt one of their own, it turns to be a 4 star. If the review was for a traditionally published author would that still be the 4 star? Or would it be the more honest 3 star. Or even 2 star. 

Sanitized review system maybe? Is it still completely honest then? 

This all leaves me, the reader, a little hanging confused.


----------



## xandy3 (Jun 13, 2010)

Atunah said:
 

> Let me start with I am a reader only, I don't write, like anything  I have a hard enough time putting my thoughts in a review.
> 
> I have been reading this thread with interest but also with a little bad feeling. I guess I understand the sentiment behind you writers wanting to protect "your own". But its a little like you against us or them and I have to be honest, I will be looking more closely at the reviews or should I say reviewers of indy books now.
> 
> ...


It's not so much wanting to "protect our own" or "us against them" as it is, as I said, not wanting to cause more harm than good and have that author (sometimes even without first reading your book) strike back with an equally bad review, or even a worse one. It happens.

The review system for amazon is not perfect, NOT because of it being "sanitized" but because of the "retaliations" we talked about in this threat, and trolls as were mentioned in another thread. A "lunatics run the asylum" kind of thing. But it is what it is.

NONE of us here (as far as I have read) have claimed to give a not-so-good book a 4-5 star review, just to "protect our own." In fact, if you read more closely we're all really opposed to doing that.

And, there are plenty here (and elsewhere) who have no problem with giving a 1-2 star review.

Look at it this way: You should be taking reviews for what they're worth anyways--one person's opinion. Download the sample, and you can judge whether the book is worth publishing a bit better. 
I've seen CP books get 5 star reviews that they really didn't deserve, just as much as indie books. It is what it is.

A few months back, I came across a rather blah indie book where all the reviews were 5 star. Yeah, it could be all their friends and family....but whatever. I still respect other people's opinions. There were probably a few who read the book, and then hated it...but kept silent.

Really, honestly I think that every book gets a bad review sooner or later...I don't have one yet, but I'm sure it's coming  LOL


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

Yes, makes perfect sense  l

One thing I wanted to also throw in there because the fear of retaliation was brought up. 
As a Reader, I don't mind seeing 1 or 2 stars or 3 stars on books. If I see nothing but OMG so awesome 5 stars and a few 4 stars only, I might wonder more than if I see some 3 stars in there and lower even. I don't really consider 3 stars "bad".

Maybe indy authors are a bit more sensitive to those reviews as lots of them struggle to get a number of reviews to built up. Don't be afraid of those reviews please, it doesn't make me not want to try a book for that reason. I might be more turned off by reviews that read like ads than I am of a bad one. 

Just don't treat reviews as something to support authors amongst authors. The reviews are for us the Readers. We are the customer and most of us want to read all sides and all opinions. What might be a "bad" thing or a issue with one reviewer, might actually make me more interested in the book because of it. Does that make sense?

I would hate to see "hostage" type reviews because of fear to get some weird 1 star review. Those are easy to spot, really. Those of us that like to read, can read between those lines, really  
We can tell the difference between a legitimate critique or a OMG you sux one.  

I for one have made a pact with myself to try to review all the indy books I read. Its scary for me too, as I don't write well and my reviews might not be as desirable to a author than a well thought out and nicely paragraphed cliff note. . I swear I sit there with envy sometimes when I read reviews of well spoken folks. Me? I babble  . My excuse? English is not my first language, so there.


----------



## G.L. Douglas (Jun 27, 2010)

Personally, in my humble opinion, I feel that the review process should be more on the aspects of correct writing and well-done aspects of crafting an excellent novel, even if the reviewer doesn't enjoy that particular genre. 

Tell the potential reader that a book is fast-paced or that it plods along.

Tell me that the characters are exciting and 3-dimensional and grow and change appropriately, or tell me that they are boring and one-dimensional.

Tell me that there were too many unneeded adjectives and not enough good dialog and description where it would have made an enjoyable difference in the story.

Don't tell the entire story, but let potential readers know whether the ending had a "stand up and cheer" positive takeaway value, a sad, but necessary ending, or that it let the reviewer down and didn't really wrap up the story in a good way.

If there was an outstanding quote in the book that really captured your thoughts, mention that quote. That's an indication of great writing, and the authors would be thrilled that you liked it.

Also, reviewers should mention whether or not the book they've read is their favorite genre, or something they don't normally read, but enjoyed, etc.


----------



## MosesSiregarIII (Jul 15, 2010)

Personally, I won't write a review of an indie book (or any work of fiction) unless I can give it 4 or 5 stars, but I have pretty high standards as a reader (that's a curse, btw), so if I give a book 4 or 5 stars, then I think it's quite good and the review itself will be 100% honest.

If I was just a reviewer, or if I wrote reviews under a fake name, I'd write reviews between 1 and 5 stars--no problem. But as a writer, you have to be careful. Make enemies with the wrong person and you could have an army of sock puppets after you for years, so it's just not worth the risk IMO.


----------



## StaceyHH (Sep 13, 2010)

xandy3 said:


> I've often considered that maybe the reviewer was just jealous of the author's talent or offended by a message the author was conveying.
> 
> Whenever I see a well-written book that was deemed "poorly written" by some angry reviewer, I consider the source. They probably are envious, or maybe just want to lash out at the author for some childish reason.


Well, that's a nice ego-assuaging thing to tell yourself when you see a 1 star review. In my experience _most_ reviewers who write a 1 or 2 star review have very valid reasons for doing so, and dismissing their reasons and opinions as envy or childishness is to ultimately miss the point.

That being said, as a reader, I agree that it's poor form for a writer to post a very negative review of another writer's, particularly when both writers are producing in the same or similar genre. But let's take the flip side of writers reviewing other writers' work: 4 and 5 star reviews.

As a reader, I tend to regard many writer reviews of other writers' works with a fair degree of skepticism - especially when many writers are involved in the same community. To me, as a reader, I tend to see these reviews in the same light as reviews by your mom and your cousin - except when there's a fair degree of evidence that the writer has actually read the book, and if the writer tends to review other (traditionally published) books, AND the writer tends to rate the traditionally published books in the same way as they are rating their indie friends' books.

When I go to Goodreads and see an indie with several 5 star reviews, I'll click through on some of the names to see how they rate other works. This scenario is what I typically find: GR Author reviews an indie book - gives it 5 stars and raves about it, I click over to their author profile and see that they have 48 books in their "read" file, mostly mainstream press books, and a handful of indies, a dozen books in their "to-read" file, ALL indies. The handful of "read" indies all have 5 star reviews and extensive reviews, and the 3 dozen or so classics and bestsellers mostly have 2-4 star reviews and spotty or no reviews. How much credence do you think I can give those reviews?

So it's really not just a matter of whether you can give a nice review to writers in your current writing community, but whether you can do so with any objectivity at all?


----------



## CIBond (Aug 28, 2010)

I left a 1-star review but I was the second person to do this for the book.  I did it before I published when I was just starting to sample the Indy world.  I did not really understand how the sample stuff worked so based on four 5-star reviews.  I bought the book.  It qualified, for me, at the time as almost illiterate, poor grammar, missing words, incorrect word use, run-on-and-on-and-on sentence.  I felt tricked by the 5-star reviews.  I left a 1-star review but I wasn’t dishonest, the book was a 1.  I actually kept re-writing my review it because I wasn’t sure how to not be too harsh but still be truthful.  I felt that the 4 and 5 star ratings were a dishonest representation of the work and quite frankly confused me.  I don’t understand how anyone could have given it a 5, I thought at first they might have been reviewing a different book but no, the description fit the thing I read.

I don’t really consider myself a great writer or a harsh review but a “good, buy this book score” from me is typically a 3.  I review on the bell curve, 40% of the published work needs to fall into the 3 range, 25% gets a 4 and 10% gets a 5.  I explain this in my reviews.  I just reviewed Asylum, I was the only one to give it a 3 but it was still a great book and I pointed out many times that readers would enjoy it and should buy the book.  I did list the flaws that I found and basically… it was very similar to Stephan King’s It in some ways.  Not in all ways of course it is a unique story but I would give It a 4.  How could I give Asylum a 4 as well when it wasn’t written to the same level?  

A 3-book is grammatically correct, intelligently written with an interesting and somewhat unique story line.  It can’t be hard to read, that will drop it into 2-land because if I have to struggle with the English or sentence structure I am not able to enjoy the story.  

A 4-book needs to be technically flawless- Excellent POV control  (no “head hopping”) and each POV character needs to have a unique voice, vivid descriptions, actions tell the story, too much narration means you aren’t showing the reader in action, scenes that begin and end appropriately, engaging characters who develop, good plot, the writer doesn’t loose momentum.  

A 5-book is a 4 plus.  I like Kim Harrison, I often find her world irritatingly childish and her main character annoying but… she is a master at her craft.  

I know the way I look at writing tends to strip away my personal feelings for the story as I analyze the author’s skills but after being so focused on writing for so long it is automatic.  I actually need to take notes as I read… they are all over the house.  Maybe I should become an editor?  

FIY- Don’t assume because I can see all these flaws that I write well.  I would give my own work a grudging 3.  My plots always seem dumb, my characters flat and uninteresting, my story arc non-existent.  I am hoping my second book will go better.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

If I wanted to be nasty for a living, I'd do one-star and two-star reviews. But I don't make a living off book reviews... so any book that's headed that low on my opinion scale, I just don't finish because I have better ways to spend my reading time.

As a courtesy to the author, I might say some things privately, constructive things. That's it.

I will do 3-star reviews. Because I'll usually finish a 3-star book. And I'll find maybe fewer strengths and more constructive feedback...

...but I'm not paid for book reviews, so I don't have to be nasty for a living.


----------



## StaceyHH (Sep 13, 2010)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> If I *wanted to be nasty* for a living, I'd do one-star and two-star reviews. But I don't make a living off book reviews... so any book that's headed that low on my opinion scale, I just don't finish because I have better ways to spend my reading time.
> 
> As a courtesy to the author, I might say some things privately, constructive things. That's it.
> 
> ...


Really? You think the intent of a 1 or 2 star review is to be nasty? Do you think there's never any circumstances that would warrant honest criticism without nastiness?


----------



## 13893 (Apr 29, 2010)

If independent publishing is going to flourish, we need 1 and 2 star reviews.

Desperately.

Of course, I hope none of my books get 1 or 2 star reviews; but if it's deserved, then it's deserved.

Independent publishing will never thrive without reliable curation - meaning honest, reliable criticism. There are a lot of 1 and 2 star independent books out there, and I praise the reviewer who is brave enough to call out that fact.

I used to review books, but I found that as I got closer to publishing and then actually publishing my own I couldn't do it anymore. I can't hold myself out as a reviewer at places like Amazon now because I can't see myself giving a fellow author, independent or traditional, a 1 or a 2, even if I felt that's what their book deserves. And if I wanted to give a glowing review, readers might not trust the review if they see that I and the author both hang out here at the KindleBoards.

I am not disinterested.

I could see myself posting a review or a shout out here or at my own website, though. Is that hypocritical?


----------



## 13893 (Apr 29, 2010)

I should add that I'm so conflicted about this, because DA Boulter gave Space Junque its first review, and it was a fantastic review. 

And I was so grateful for it.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Look, if we're talking about a huge-name author with Simon and Schuster or someone like that backing them, and they produce manure instead of a novel, AND someone's paying me to review it, maybe I'll tear into a bad novel like I would a bad movie or a bad videogame. But only because someone's paying me to slog through it... which would get me grumpy.

(Example... I got grumpy enough trying to get through the Amazon free sample of Steig Larsson's THE GIRL WITH A STICK UP HER SPINE or whatever it's called... why would I read the rest of it?)

And yes, I'm professional enough to be constructive, but like I said... I don't self-inflict a whole novel I dislike on myself *unless I have to*. I'd *rather *read something I *enjoy*.

And frankly, even when a person is trying to be constructive, if there's not much good to say about a novel, that's gonna sting the writer just as much as if you wrote, "tissue paper is worth more than this book!"

Look, I post my reviews on my blogs... that's the main reason I review anything. Lately I duplicate-post to Amazon, Goodreads and here as well.

No one pays me to read all the way through bad books and then write "Don't read this." My standard is, I don't review things I don't finish, so yeah, the lowest book review I usually give out is 3-stars, because mostly these days I review fellow indies... and I'd rather promote the ones I think are GOOD (or at least promising) than critique and publicly chastise the ones that, for me anyway, aren't... (and like I said, I'll offer anything constructive that I think I can in a private email or PM.)

But that's *my *choice, because it's my blog, my review, and no one is paying me to do anything I don't really want to do.

In fact, I reviewed videogames and DVDs for "pay and freebies" for several years and got so tired of having to give highly negative reviews to so much JUNK I was sent and HAD to review, that I walked away from the job. I didn't care to get so much junk sent my way, and then have to be critical about it, because it made me a more critical person in general and I don't like ME as much when I'm highly critical. At heart, I like to be an encourager. An honest one, sure... so maybe I don't promote some book that I'm not as wild about... but being encouraging and positive makes me LIKE me more.

And when I walked away from that reviewing job, I made the decision that if I do reviews in the future, I at least have to like it a little.... enough to WANT to be helpful. Like it means 3-stars in my book. Dislike = 2 stars and hate = 1 star.

I'll do reviews between 3-5 stars because I actually finish them. I don't finish stuff I don't like... and I don't have to.  Because I'm no longer being paid by anyone to do it.

A review isn't a private critique. I'll do those because it's private and I know the author's still working on it.

I think it's up to me how to define my own reviewing standards... maybe they're more understandable now?


----------



## StaceyHH (Sep 13, 2010)

LKRigel said:


> I could see myself posting a review or a shout out here or at my own website, though. Is that hypocritical?


This is a fantastic way to discover new stuff, IMO. I follow several author blogs (authors who I am a fan of their work,) where they review other writers' work. I love to find new recommendations this way, and have in fact found some fantastic emerging writers this way.


----------



## xandy3 (Jun 13, 2010)

StaceyHH said:


> Well, that's a nice ego-assuaging thing to tell yourself when you see a 1 star review. In my experience _most_ reviewers who write a 1 or 2 star review have very valid reasons for doing so, and dismissing their reasons and opinions as envy or childishness is to ultimately miss the point.


Except that I was ABSOLUTELY NOT speaking about myself/any of my own reviews. please consider that before you judge... 
Nor was I necessarily speaking of well-written, well worded eloquent reviews that made a valid point. But more, "LYK OMG THIS BOOK SUX" type of reviews. sorry if I was unclear).

I've witnessed first hand, as I've said...
in reviews for a friend's books. Not my own (though I have experienced it in a writer's critique group).

_*I'm talking about looking at the reviews themselves and how they're worded*_. Not just how many stars.  If it sounds like a logical analysis, that's fine. If it reeks of a childish mean-girls attitude, then it's probably just jealousy. I think most of us can tell the difference.

Sorry if it came out a bit snippy, but I'm sick, tired, and moody. And I hate being misunderstood.



LKRigel said:


> If independent publishing is going to flourish, we need 1 and 2 star reviews.
> 
> Desperately.
> 
> Of course, I hope none of my books get 1 or 2 star reviews; but if it's deserved, then it's deserved.


No doubt, but it doesn't necessarily have to be us posting them to each other. I say leave that to the general public. Maybe that's naive of me, but I think we don't want to open ourselves to backlash from each other, which could possibly make us look like a bunch of amateurs all snipping at each other, acting like kids.

Pardon me reverting to my previous smartassedness, but like I said. Ill. Tired. Moody.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Let me also offer this:

I am not beyond offering constructive critiques or voicing concerns in a review. In fact, although I liked MY BLOOD APPROVES enough to give it an honest 4-star review, read my review of it and you'll see some concerns voiced about the book.

In a 3-star review, I'd have even more.

But for me, if a book is a 1-star or 2-star candidate, I just don't have enough positive things to say to make the review feel balanced. It ends up feeling all-negative to me.

I don't need that in my life, so I stop reading books like that and move on to other books I enjoy more.

I'm a WRITER first. I enjoy helping, promoting and encouraging writers I actually LIKE. The ones I don't? I don't. Exclusion is its own critique...

Doing reviews is more of a sideline/hobby. I mean, I used to read and collect comic books... should I buy, read and collect THE MIGHTY THOR when I absolutely CAN'T STAND that character? Heck, no! Life's too short..


----------



## StaceyHH (Sep 13, 2010)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> (Example... I got grumpy enough trying to get through the Amazon free sample of Steig Larsson's THE GIRL WITH A STICK UP HER SPINE or whatever it's called... why would I read the rest of it?)


So exactly how many posts on KB are you going to insert a dig on Larsson's novels? Perhaps you impugn the motives of other reviews because you anticipate that they are all like you? Because you seem to be incapable of disliking that particular book without epithets and ridicule.



> And when I walked away from that reviewing job, I made the decision that if I do reviews in the future, I at least have to like it a little.... enough to WANT to be helpful. Like it means 3-stars in my book. Dislike = 2 stars and hate = 1 star.


That's YOUR interpretation. Your interpretation may coincide with rating definitions on some sites, but clearly, from just this thread alone, readers have demonstrated that for them, a 2 star can be something that was deeply flawed but still readable, and a 1 is simple dislike. But you can make it about "hate" if you want to. Explains a lot.



> I'll do reviews between 3-5 stars because I actually finish them. I don't finish stuff I don't like... and I don't have to.  Because I'm no longer being paid by anyone to do it.
> 
> A review isn't a private critique. I'll do those because it's private and I know the author's still working on it.
> 
> I think it's up to me how to define my own reviewing standards... maybe they're more understandable now?


That's fine, those are YOUR reviewing standards. _[edited by moderator]_

I think this thread makes it even more clear why it's so hard for indies to get good, honest critiques. I appreciate the writers who are not slamming people for writing a disappointed or negative review, but there are more than a few people who are making _even this thread_ about less-than-effusive reviews into a personal issue.


----------



## 13893 (Apr 29, 2010)

T.L. Haddix said:


> LK, I think it is fine to do reviews on your own website or here. However, it would be sort of a promotional thing. I hope you don't get upset at my saying that. I don't mean it in a disrespectful way.


Actually, this is exactly how I feel about it. It would be promotional. I don't think that's a bad thing, but I do think it's technically different than a "review" -- like I said, a shout out about a book I liked that I wanted other people to know about. That's why I'd limit posting it to my website or here, places where people know me and understand where I'm coming from -- that I'm not a reviewer but an author.

I think readers would want to know that, and then they can give the recommendation the weight they want to give it.


----------



## amanda_hocking (Apr 24, 2010)

I read this whole thread, and here are some of my thoughts. 

I have several one star reviews. I just counted to be sure. Between Goodreads and Amazon over a six different books, I have twenty-one 1-star reviews. (My five star reviews still outweigh all my other reviews, though). I do not enjoy getting them, but I'm glad they're there. As someone else said earlier, it legitimizes my book. I wouldn't trust a book that only had 4 and 5-star reviews. Some of the 1-star reviews have been very helpful. I've definitely improved as a writer because of them. 

Sometimes, I feel like I get reviewed with kid gloves because I'm indie. This bums me out. Yeah, I like 4 and 5-star reviews, but I like to feel like I earned them. But sometimes I think I get graded on a different curve. Not every time, and I do think that I earned most of my good reviews - as in the person that wrote them really enjoyed my books and really believed it. But I want to earn every review I get, and if you don't like my book, you should say so - even if I'm indie.

A lot of people have said that they don't review indie books but they do review traditionally published ones. This bothers me on two different levels. First, I think that as indies we want to treated the same way as every other book. We want the same respect and prestige, but then we ask to be held at a different standard them. That's not right. To get respect means we actually have to earn it. Part of that is admitting sometimes indie books are bad. Sometimes they deserve 1, 2, or 3- star reviews (although, I don't think 3 is bad - one of my best reviews on one of my books is a 3-star from somebody on this board.) And if we're not giving them out, then we're enabling the problem. And if we're only giving out 5-star reviews, all 5-star reviews become meaningless because that's all anybody gets. I want my good reviews to count. 

Secondly, I've been fortunate enough to do well as an indie author. In fact, I'm doing better than some traditionally published authors. And the thing is, that had I gone a different route and been traditionally published, I'd still feel the same way about reviews as I do now. I haven't changed. So if you were to give a 1-star review to me because I was published through Random House, I'd still feel the same way about it as I do now. If you're doing to it spare feelings, it doesn't. Just because someone is traditional doesn't mean that reviews don't count.

Some people might make the argument that if I'd been traditionally published, the novel might have been more properly vetted and edited. Because of this it should be a better product than indie books, and therefore, traditionally published books should be held to a different standard. But the fact is that none of that matters to a reader. And that's kind of the point. An indie book should be indistinguishable from a traditionally published. That should be the goal. And if it's not, for whatever reason, the reader has a right to say so.

I don't write a lot of reviews, mostly because I don't like writing reviews. I tend to only review things if I really hate them or if I really love them. I'm trying to do it more, but that's just not my thing. Long verbal rants are more expertise in that area. 

But if you are someone that writes reviews, and you want to be a credible reviewer, you need to do negative as well as positive. 

I enjoy KB a lot. I think it's a really swell place and a really supportive atmosphere, which I dig. But I think part of what's awesome is the ability to be honest with each other. 

I'm using Julie (Bards and Sages) as an example because I think she always tells it like it is. We've had minimal personal interaction, but she's always been very nice and gracious with me. If she were to review my book, I know she'd be harsh. But I also know that it doesn't come from an evil place. She says stuff both to inform the reader and help the writer. If she gave me a 1-star review, I'd be bummed, but I think I'd also come away with a great deal of feedback that I could use to further my writing. After a day or two of sulking,  I'd come back twice as strong, and I'd thank Julie for honesty. 

You know why? Because I'm a professional writer, and that's the professional thing to do. 

So... if the question is: Should you leave negative reviews? It's up to you what you feel comfortable with. 

If the question is: Should indie authors get negative reviews? Yes, yes, absolutely yes. Constructive negative reviews are the only way indies as a group will receive credibility and learn from our mistakes.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

StaceyHH said:


> So exactly how many posts on KB are you going to insert a dig on Larsson's novels? Perhaps you impugn the motives of other reviews because you anticipate that they are all like you? Because you seem to be incapable of disliking that particular book without epithets and ridicule.


Ahh, but I'm NOT talking about others' motives or impugning others. RE-READ MY POSTS. I'm talking about MY standards for ME, and MY opinions. I used the "I' and "me" pronouns throughout. That's all.



StaceyHH said:


> That's YOUR interpretation. Your interpretation may coincide with rating definitions on some sites, but clearly, from just this thread alone, readers have demonstrated that for them, a 2 star can be something that was deeply flawed but still readable, and a 1 is simple dislike. But you can make it about "hate" if you want to. Explains a lot.


I never said it was anyone else's standards but my own. Yes, it's MY interpretation because MY reviews are MINE. You're taking offense at ME for MY standards... I'm not putting them off onto ANYONE else... and by contrast, you're becoming very personal and insulting.

_[edited by moderator]_



StaceyHH said:


> I think this thread makes it even more clear why it's so hard for indies to get good, honest critiques. I appreciate the writers who are not slamming people for writing a disappointed or negative review, but there are more than a few people who are making _even this thread_ about less-than-effusive reviews into a personal issue.


No, Stacey. You got personal with me... for voicing MY standards in MY reviews. I never fingerpointed or talked about anyone else's... I was talking about ME. _[edit by moderator]_


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

Well said, Amanda.


----------



## amanda_hocking (Apr 24, 2010)

Monique said:


> Well said, Amanda.


Thanks, Monique. I appreciate your feedback. And I would appreciate it even if it were negative, because we're adults and you're a nice person.

And that's good way to be here at the KB.


----------



## StaceyHH (Sep 13, 2010)

I agree right down the line with each point Amanda made.


----------



## amanda_hocking (Apr 24, 2010)

The Twitter just said this to me, and it seems really relevant: "Your most unhappy customers are your greatest source of learning. - Bill Gates"


----------



## kcmay (Jul 14, 2010)

Amanda, you said it so well. Thank you. I agree 100%. I'm a professional writer, I want to be treated like one, and if my writing doesn't measure up, I hope to be told how and why so I can improve.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

This isn't about accusing any one person of being vindictive.  There is no doubt there exists a certain percentage of writers who can accept a bad review as constructive criticism, and learn from it.  (I'd like to think I'm in that group also.)  However, there is also a certain percentage who won't take it well, and all it takes is to run into one of those and you have problems.


----------



## Guest (Oct 19, 2010)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> But for me, if a book is a 1-star or 2-star candidate, I just don't have enough positive things to say to make the review feel balanced. It ends up feeling all-negative to me.?


Balanced means "fair and impartial" not "I must say an equal number of good things to counter the bad." If you are being honest and not malicious, then you have no obligation to worry about _having_ to say positive things.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Balanced means "fair and impartial" not "I must say an equal number of good things to counter the bad." If you are being honest and not malicious, then you have no obligation to worry about _having_ to say positive things.


True, Julie... but this is how I'm built... for my reviews. If I can't find enough positives, and I dislike the book enough not to finish it, I'm not going to review it. It doesn't make the books I do review in the 3-star to 5-star range worth less... because 1-star and 2-star books do exist for me. I just don't finish them or review them.

What would invalidate my 3-star, 4-star and 5-star reviews is if I artificially inflated my assessment of a book's rating when the book didn't deserve it.

That's not what I do, though. I just don't finish books I dislike at 1-star and 2-star levels, and therefore don't review them. No artificial or dishonest ratings in that practice.  Again, reviewing books are a sideline for me, a hobby. No one's paying me to read-to-completion anything I don't like and then talk about why I don't like it. I walked away from a job like that.

I don't just give 5-star reviews, either. I give a range (3, 4, and 5) and my reviews will at times have concerns and criticisms in them. But no one can tell me I must finish reading 1-star and 2-star books, and then go to the trouble of reviewing them, unless they're signing a paycheck for me. And then I'd have to be willing to do that... I did that for years. I don't anymore. That's my choice, but it doesn't mean the 3-star to 5-star ratings I give out were not earned... it means, at worst, I actually liked the book enough to finish it... where it falls in the 3-5 range reveals how much I liked it in the process of reading every page.


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

If a reviewer gives every book he reads 5 star reviews....then his reviews are meaningless and they add nothing to the question of "is this a good book and would I like it?"

In fact I usually start to think he has ulterior motives and he loses all credibility.


----------



## Guest (Oct 19, 2010)

I noticed that many people brought up the subject of retaliation as a reason they don't post negative reviews. This brings to mind the saying "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Perhaps we can paraphrase that to say "All that is necessary for illiteracy to triumph is for talent to remain silent." If we allow people to terrify us into submission, if we allow people with no talent to keep us silent out of fear of retaliation, we effectively endorse their work AND their poor behavior. The hacks wins.

Someone earlier mentioned that she considers reviews by indie writers for other indie writers suspect because she always sees the four and five star reviews. _She's right_. By only posting the good reviews and never breathing a negative word, we bring into question our own competence and honesty as writers. If we are too afraid to leave a negative review out of fear of retaliation, if we place our _star rating _ above our _credibility_ as authors, we don't DESERVE to be respected by readers.

This is my thinking. In my mind, the CRAFT is more important to me than my sales volume. Some people have no business killing trees (virtual or otherwise). If me speaking the truth costs me a few sales, that is the price I am willing to pay to protect the craft that I love. I'm not going to sit by scared out of my mind that I might get a negative review if I tell someone to take a course in grammar or tell him to get an editor or if I leave a bad review.

Bad writers DO reflect on all of us...but only when we silently endorse them. If we don't call them out because of fear, we destroy our individual credibility as authors. If we appear to like everything we read (i.e. only post good reviews) then the reader may begin to question if we have any ability to even judge quality over substandard work.


----------



## xandy3 (Jun 13, 2010)

amanda_hocking said:


> I don't write a lot of reviews, mostly because I don't like writing reviews. I tend to only review things if I really hate them or if I really love them. I'm trying to do it more, but that's just not my thing. Long verbal rants are more expertise in that area.
> 
> If the question is: Should indie authors get negative reviews? Yes, yes, absolutely yes. Constructive negative reviews are the only way indies as a group will receive credibility and learn from our mistakes.


I think that's the way most people think. They tend to post reviews when they're passionately FOR something or AGAINST something.

To the second thing I've quoted you saying: Constructive is the operative word.


----------



## J Dean (Feb 9, 2009)

If you didn't like it, and you have a good reason for not liking it, then by all means be public about it.  So long as you're doing it in the right spirit, there shouldn't be a problem.

If a person doesn't like my works, I really am the type of author who wants to hear it, so that I can write better in the future.  And I'm sure that I'm not the only one on this site who is like that.


----------



## Jnassise (Mar 22, 2010)

> Constructive is the operative word.


Depends on what you mean by constructive.

I don't think its the reviewer's job to tell you how to fix something that is inherently wrong with the novel - that should have been the editor's job. The reviewer should point out areas of strength and weakness and not feel obligated to tell how they might have been avoided. Reviewers aren't writing instructors - they are reviewers.


----------



## xandy3 (Jun 13, 2010)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> I noticed that many people brought up the subject of retaliation as a reason they don't post negative reviews. This brings to mind the saying "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Perhaps we can paraphrase that to say "All that is necessary for illiteracy to triumph is for talent to remain silent." If we allow people to terrify us into submission, if we allow people with no talent to keep us silent out of fear of retaliation, we effectively endorse their work AND their poor behavior. The hacks wins.


I never really thought of it that way. And, it is a good point. Nasty stuff like "F** YOU, YOUR BOOK SUX" doesn't have to be tolerated, and can always be reported to Amazon (or whoever).



Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Someone earlier mentioned that she considers reviews by indie writers for other indie writers suspect because she always sees the four and five star reviews. _She's right_. By only posting the good reviews and never breathing a negative word, we bring into question our own competence and honesty as writers. If we are too afraid to leave a negative review out of fear of retaliation, if we place our _star rating _ above our _credibility_ as authors, we don't DESERVE to be respected by readers.


You know, one time a vanity-published friend of mine asked why I didn't ask my friends and family to review my book (it was very clear that she had).

A bunch of glowing reviews with people with the same last name as me would not help me obtain any credibility.



Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> This is my thinking. In my mind, the CRAFT is more important to me than my sales volume. Some people have no business killing trees (virtual or otherwise). If me speaking the truth costs me a few sales, that is the price I am willing to pay to protect the craft that I love. I'm not going to sit by scared out of my mind that I might get a negative review if I tell someone to take a course in grammar or tell him to get an editor or if I leave a bad review.
> 
> Bad writers DO reflect on all of us...but only when we silently endorse them. If we don't call them out because of fear, we destroy our individual credibility as authors. If we appear to like everything we read (i.e. only post good reviews) then the reader may begin to question if we have any ability to even judge quality over substandard work.


I'd always taken the stance that a book without reviews gets ignored....
So, not posting a review (and not calling any attention to it whether negative or positive) would cause the book to drop off the radar.

But what you've said brings up the matter of artistic integrity. And, that's really something to take into consideration.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

Amanda is right. I've also seen first-hand that she knows how to handle a "mixed bag" review. 

I've said before that there are advantages to being traditionally published. There has usually been rejection along the way and then professionals steering you in the right direction. There's a point where you realize you have a boss and that you have to adapt your story to please an editor. You know that you're representing your pub and you tend to act accordingly. 

Skipping all of that to become self-published means that you miss what this teaches you -- which is to grow a thick skin. It's painful the first time someone takes apart your story and really shows you the (perceived) weaknesses. Before that happens, most writers think they can handle it, but seeing the corrections and edits of even a quite good work toughens you up. It makes you better though. Almost without exception, it makes you much better. 

Indie writers start at a different place and often with several pivotal experiences missing. A lot are still cushioned in the love of friends and family. Some feel they've been honestly critiqued because the neighbor said the hero's name should be Rafe instead of Ralph. They either think they can handle real reviews because they're under the impression that people have already been honest or because they think their book is destined to bowl over anyone with any taste whatsoever. 

Whether an author is traditionally published or self-pubbed is not the reader's problem though. They deserve a good result that's not based solely or Aunt Edna liked it. In the latest round of this thread the word "constructive" is getting a ton of use, but that goes back to the assumption (unique to writers) that reviews are to make writers better. If a reader sees something they can take away from a review, that's terrific. However, Amazon is not a writers workshop. No one here is advocating being cruel, but if the writer had been traditionally pubbed it would have been an opportunity to gain some distance and leave the mindset that everyone reading the book is doing so to help the writer. (Not that I haven't seen traditionally pubbed writers lose it over a negative review.)

When you skip steps, it becomes all the more important to act the professional and to play catch-up with the learning process. People are going to be looking at you, at your work, to determine if you're the real deal. Using the self-pubbed title as a way to ask for mercy, a head start beyond the one already taken, or to be graded differently, helps no one. To review more generously than you would someone who is traditionally published, without acknowledging you're doing so, is to defraud the reader. As a writer, to give the impression you can't handle it, as if being self-pubbed is to be special ed. is to -- imo -- forfeit being taken seriously. Never at that point talk about why you can't get reviews. 

The people here who I've seen handle reviews with grace are not coincidentally the ones I am optimistic will have long term success.


----------



## Guest (Oct 19, 2010)

xandy3 said:


> I never really thought of it that way. And, it is a good point. Nasty stuff like "F** YOU, YOUR BOOK SUX" doesn't have to be tolerated, and can always be reported to Amazon (or whoever).


Amazon has been rather helpful in that regard for me. In case it isn't obvious, ***** has been on the receiving end of a LOT of retaliation over the years. I often joke that I am not doing my job if I don't get at least one flaming e-mail or review a week.


----------



## xandy3 (Jun 13, 2010)

Jnassise said:


> Depends on what you mean by constructive.
> 
> I don't think its the reviewer's job to tell you how to fix something that is inherently wrong with the novel - that should have been the editor's job. The reviewer should point out areas of strength and weakness and not feel obligated to tell how they might have been avoided. Reviewers aren't writing instructors - they are reviewers.


Oh, I apologize for not being more clear but I am sick...

IF you go back far enough in this thread, I think I've already pretty much stated the exact same thing you just said. (or maybe it wasn't on this thread...maybe it was elsewhere. I get confused. LOL)

By Constructive, I mean something that is actually of benefit to the _reader_ whether the book is worth reading or not. In other words, not just an angry hate rant at the author, or "LYK OMG DIS BOOK SUX SO BAD! DO NOT REED!!! IT WIL WAST UR LIFE!!"

Now do I really think that fellow indies post stuff like that to each other...? Not really. But you never know.


----------



## julieannfelicity (Jun 28, 2010)

kcmay said:


> Amanda, you said it so well. Thank you. I agree 100%. I'm a professional writer, I want to be treated like one, and if my writing doesn't measure up, I hope to be told how and why so I can improve.


Ditto!



amanda_hocking said:


> The Twitter just said this to me, and it seems really relevant: "Your most unhappy customers are your greatest source of learning. - Bill Gates"


My adopted father used to tell me this all the time. It's not criticism if you're learning from it, it's constructive criticism. I'm only going to get better with each comment/review that tells me what works and what doesn't. I love it! I eat it up!


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

I completely disagree with the idea that since I only post 4 and 5 star reviews, I'm somehow less honest and my reviews are meaningless or less credible.

I do read books that I think rate less than that.  Because I choose not to make those opinions public, doesn't mean I'm dishonest, or that my reviews are meaningless.  I can state without any doubt in my mind, that every 4 or 5 star review I gave out, I believed the book deserved it.  Period.  Just because I choose to not post lesser star reviews, doesn't change that fact.

And Julie, do you have some examples of 1 or 2 star unsolicited reviews you've handed out on Smashwords or Amazon?


----------



## 13893 (Apr 29, 2010)

I think we've got two topics woven together in the same conversation.

1. How should reviewers handle books that deserve 1 and 2 stars (or maybe no stars)?

2. How should authors handle giving reviews?

Re #1: "Reviewer" or "critic" is an honorable and necessary part of the publishing puzzle. In the best of all possible worlds, that person would not be an author or a publisher and would identify completely with the reader's perspective. The critic would be as comfortable giving out a negative review as a positive one -- like the sculptor, cutting away the parts of the marble that don't belong.

Re #2: An author can never (in my opinion) have this necessary distance. At least, I can't. I'm here to tell the world, I am not a disinterested critic.

But I am an _interested _participant. I may love a book and want to tell my readers or the whole world about it. But like Craig, I'm not going to talk about books that I have problems with.

I am not a critic. I am an advocate. So take my recommendations with caution.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

swolf said:


> I completely disagree with the idea that since I only post 4 and 5 star reviews, I'm somehow less honest and my reviews are meaningless or less credible.
> 
> I do read books that I think rate less than that. Because I choose not to make those opinions public, doesn't mean I'm dishonest, or that my reviews are meaningless. I can state without any doubt in my mind, that every 4 or 5 star review I gave out, I believed the book deserved it. Period. Just because I choose to not post lesser star reviews, doesn't change that fact.


That's my way of thinking, too.

If I artificially give out 3-star, 4-star and 5-star reviews to books I don't honestly think deserve them, THEN I have a credibility problem.

If I encounter books I'd rate lower and choose not to review them because I don't finish them... that shouldn't impact my honesty or credibility at all.

It just means life's too short and no one's paying me to waste it by reading to completion books I don't like and then writing about why I don't like them. I have better uses for my time.

Like writing my own novels, reading books I have a chance to enjoy, and many other personal-life activities... 

Also, let me explain something I said earlier... I wrote that sometimes well-intentioned, constructive feedback can sting as much as "this book is worth less than tissue paper" cheap-shots.

I wrote that because of a specific thing I had in mind.

A friend of mine is a pre-YA author. Very literary, most of the time. Historical novels, mostly, for readers in the pre-teen set. She's an excellent writer, has won awards, but the genre of her stories isn't my cup of tea. But that's personal taste and I know she's an excellent writer.

Twice in her career, she's strayed outside of the historical stuff she normally writes. In those books, one of which was just released, she told a more haunted sort of tale. Stories with ghosts in them. Not the bloody vengeance-filled slasher-horror kind. Just... haunted. A sort of literary ghost story, where the ghosts are more like our memories... I'm not describing it well, but... hopefully you get the idea.

So, one of the reviewers of her latest book, SCHOOL LIBRARY JOURNAL, a very professional and prestigious and influential (when it comes to school library sales) magazine, wrote this about her book (not quite verbatim, just the essence of it here):

"As a supernatural tale, if one exhuasts all other possibilities, a reader might bother picking this up. But for most, it will be a hard sell."

SLJ has given her very positive reviews on her historical novels, so something like this is out of the ordinary. And it will pretty much devastate her sales to school libraries.

Now, it's not a "this buk sux" sort of review. It's thoughtful. It's intelligently written and even constructive. But man, that's gonna sting. "This buk sux!" can be easily dismissed. Something like this, not so much.

Am I saying SLJ shouldn't have reviewed her book? No. They are in that game. They review most everything. And if they think the book's a hard sell, great... that's part of their public service. Good for them, I guess. Certainly my friend strayed outside her normal genre and this is their heads-up to book buyers that "this experiment didn't work." Fine.

But I'm not SLJ. And I don't have to be. I don't even pretend to review everything. I review what I like enough to finish. That means I give 3-star to 5-star reviews. And that's OK, too.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

LKRigel said:


> I am not a critic. I am an advocate. So take my recommendations with caution.


Well put.


----------



## Guest (Oct 19, 2010)

swolf said:


> And *****, do you have some examples of 1 or 2 star unsolicited reviews you've handed out on Smashwords or Amazon?


Unsolicited, no. I don't buy crap books to begin with.  I don't snatch up 99 cent books just because they are cheap. I don't buy books that can't pass my minimum expectation of competence. I read previews, reviews, and look at the overall package before I spend a dime on a book. I don't buy books that would rate a one or two star review simply because I chose very carefully when I do buy. I'm a very critical shopper, so if I buy a book it is because it passes my minimum tests that avoid one or two star ratings.

But if you want to see some of my reviews in regard to criticism:

Now I have actually published David's work in the past, and I consider him a friend. But I didn't pull punches in my review, and frankly he would have been disappointed in me if I had.

I actually gave Joe's first book a two-star rating, but he has since pulled he book to rework it. He came to me for a review of his sequel precisely because I gave him the two star review previously. Again, he would have been upset with me for being less than honest.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Unsolicited, no.


Then we're talking about apples and oranges.

If someone asked me to review their book, the unstated agreement is that they're asking me for my honest opinion, and by agreeing to review it, I'm agreeing to give my honest opinion.

In that case, the author is MUCH more likely to accept a bad review without attempting to 'retaliate' in any way.

If you really do think that the craft is important, and speaking the truth is more important than sales, and bad writers do reflect on all of us, you should be out there reviewing these 'crap books' and letting readers know what you think. Instead of 'silently endorsing' them.

Add: BTW, I give you a lot of credit for honestly confronting authors you know with honest criticism. I do the same with fellow authors in my writing group, while they're sitting right in front of me. But we both know those situations aren't the same as p***ing someone off you don't know, and wondering how they're going to get back at you.


----------



## StaceyHH (Sep 13, 2010)

xandy3 said:


> In other words, not just an angry hate rant at the author, or "LYK OMG DIS BOOK SUX SO BAD! DO NOT REED!!! IT WIL WAST UR LIFE!!"


You keep bringing this up, so I have no doubt it happens, but honestly I can't remember ever seeing more than a couple of these, out of thousands of reviews I've read or skimmed in the last ten years.

Regarding those few, it should be obvious that it's not an informational review, and anyone who writes this way on a review site is not likely to be much of a reader anyways.

I doubt most people here are referring to the obviously trolly reviews when they write of criticism.


----------



## Guest (Oct 19, 2010)

swolf said:


> If you really do think that the craft is important, and speaking the truth is more important than sales, and bad writers do reflect on all of us, you should be out there reviewing these 'crap books' and letting readers know what you think. Instead of 'silently endorsing' them.


Sir, I believe YOU were the one that said you would never leave a less than 4 star review, not me. I've BEEN on the receiving end of retaliation...often from people who begged me for an "honest review." I've had people flip out on me over _three star reviews._ As in *CALL MY HOUSE* and freak out on me. I've had to ask Amazon on more than one occassion to remove retalitory reviews from authors who had originally come to me asking for a review, even when I didn't post it but only privately provided feedback. Yes, I've had retaliation for PRIVATE feedback. I had a very nasty situation several years ago at lulu involving someone who had his friends flood the forum over there creating fake accounts and posting all sorts of stuff about me after I offered a review on that site (nasty enough that Lulu almost had to get the authorities involved). Heck, I get retaliation when I don't buy someone's story for the Quarterly journal! You can make all the assumptions you want about who may or may not retaliate. Believe me, the people who actually solicit a review and beg the most for honest reviews are usually the ones least capable of handling it. So your litle implication that I don't practice what I preach is unappreciated.


----------



## xandy3 (Jun 13, 2010)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Unsolicited, no. I don't buy crap books to begin with.  I don't snatch up 99 cent books just because they are cheap. I don't buy books that can't pass my minimum expectation of competence. I read previews, reviews, and look at the overall package before I spend a dime on a book. I don't buy books that would rate a one or two star review simply because I chose very carefully when I do buy. I'm a very critical shopper, so if I buy a book it is because it passes my minimum tests that avoid one or two star ratings.


I'm pretty much the same way. I'm an extraordinarily picky reader (especially as of late). I always download the preview first, and if it's poorly written, or just not for my taste then I don't even bother buying it, let alone reading and reviewing it.

I stopped buying into any "hype" associated with any book, due to recent disappointments. I'd rather see for myself...

ETA: And someone actually CALLED YOU AT HOME!! That's harassment in my book. That's dreadful.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

I know Julie practices what she preaches.

She and I are just on different missions. Both are legitimate.


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

My personal policy as a human being (and an opinionate human being at that) is to never write a negative review of any living author's work. It's a simple rule filled with common decency that respects my own efforts through the night to please those readers who enjoy my work. As authors, our primary expression of criticism is within our own works. To express a negative view of a living author's work paints our motives with the same brush that we've dipped in the toxic turpentine. There is a certain nobility that we are born with, but there is also a nobility that we can strive toward. In that striving, I am never torn when I err on the side of kindness and immerse negative opinions in silence. 

Edward C. Patterson


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

As a reader, I don't really look at reviews all that often. But when I do there are a couple of things I do to decide whether the write up is worth paying attention to.

First of all, if it seems to be at a 3rd grade reading/writing level, I don't pay it much attention. 

I also may look at other reviews the person has given. Because I do want to know whether they tend to like the same stuff as me. I'm looking to see if they've reviewed books that I have also read; if I can work out whether or not we like the same stuff. The more reviews a person has done the more likely I am to be able to find something in common, of course.

When I'm looking at their other reviews I also tend to notice whether they all seem to be 'bad' or all seem to be 'good' as opposed to a mixture. If it's either one, I don't give the review as much weight. Now, I completely understand why people wouldn't like to leave a negative review -- especially if you couldn't get through the book. But if I'm looking at a reviewing profile and all I see are 4 and 5 star reviews I will have the impression that the reviewer might not be a particularly discriminating reader. He likes everything, so his review isn't very helpful.  On the other hand, if there's nothing but 1 and 2 star, he _hates_ everything -- that's not very helpful either! 

So, I guess I would say that, if you're going to review, you really should post on the books you don't like as well as the ones you do. Even if you couldn't finish it. There must be a reason why you couldn't finish it. I don't see a problem with a review that rates the book low and the write up explains that, for the following reasons, the reiviewer couldn't finish it. Then give the reasons. As a reader, I'd want to know that.

But, I'm a fine one to talk. . . .I never leave reviews.  So feel free to take everything I say with a giant salt lick.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Just a thought: Perhaps we're focusing too much on star-ratings.

I click star-ratings on Goodreads and Amazon because it's part of their system and I'm pretty much required to. On my blogs, and here, I don't use a rating system. I just write what I think.

But what matters a whole lot more is what is said in the body of the review.

If people look at a rating-system score only and skip the body of the review, they're missing most of the reviewer's opinion. Judging a reviewer on his/her star-rating average is like judging an author by their Ronnell D. Porter book cover! They all look great on the outside, but...  LOL

For example, when I reviewed MY BLOOD APPROVES, overall I gave it a 4-star rating, which is what I felt it earned.

In the BODY of my review, I raised concerns about the passive nature of Alice, her willingness to let the wants and desires of those around her dictate HER wants and desires, and her inexplicable acceptance of anything the hostile and abusive Peter wanted to do to her -- including the possibility that he might take her life.

I voiced concern about how that dynamic could be read as a tacit endorsement of violence against women, or at least "staying with an abusive partner."

These are genuine concerns about the appeal of the book's three core main characters. And although I had those concerns, I still rated the book 4.0 overall because its strengths made up for that, for me. Yet I included the information becauase I realized that for some other people, their sensitivity to that sort of content-dynamic might be different than mine. (They might even interpret it differently than me.) And so for some people, that content might make it, for THEM, a 2-star book. That's up to them. Ultimately, a book review is just one person's opinion, anyway. And we all have our own.

So I do not shy away from voicing concerns.

But maybe we're too concerned about artificial star-rating levels and not concerned enough about the actual CONTENT of a book review...


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Sir, I believe YOU were the one that said you would never leave a less than 4 star review, not me. I've BEEN on the receiving end of retaliation...often from people who begged me for an "honest review." I've had people flip out on me over _three star reviews._ As in *CALL MY HOUSE* and freak out on me. I've had to ask Amazon on more than one occassion to remove retalitory reviews from authors who had originally come to me asking for a review, even when I didn't post it but only privately provided feedback. Yes, I've had retaliation for PRIVATE feedback. I had a very nasty situation several years ago at lulu involving someone who had his friends flood the forum over there creating fake accounts and posting all sorts of stuff about me after I offered a review on that site (nasty enough that Lulu almost had to get the authorities involved). Heck, I get retaliation when I don't buy someone's story for the Quarterly journal! You can make all the assumptions you want about who may or may not retaliate. Believe me, the people who actually solicit a review and beg the most for honest reviews are usually the ones least capable of handling it. So your litle implication that I don't practice what I preach is unappreciated.


And yet, you're lecturing us about not doing something you refuse to do - which is posting unsolicited one and two star reviews.

No one here is claiming they wanted to open a website to perform reviews, and then claim they didn't want to give out criticism.

As I said, you're attempting to compare apples and oranges.


----------



## CIBond (Aug 28, 2010)

Jnassise said:


> Depends on what you mean by constructive.
> 
> I don't think its the reviewer's job to tell you how to fix something that is inherently wrong with the novel - that should have been the editor's job. The reviewer should point out areas of strength and weakness and not feel obligated to tell how they might have been avoided. Reviewers aren't writing instructors - they are reviewers.


I would disagree with that. I am a reader who writes and in some ways that makes me a stronger critic. I have more tools to analyze why something didn't have as much impact as it should have. I took a look at Asylum (A recommendation that got 3-stars yesterday).

-- This is the review -

This is a recommendation, buy the book. It is cleanly written, grammatically correct, no awkward, run-on sentences. It is an easy read which allows you to enjoy the story rather than struggle with the authors writing ability. Yes, I gave it a 3 but I work on a bell curve, 40% of the novels I read (most published) get a 3 - it is a recommendation score, only 35% get higher review ratings.

Andrew is the lead in this book, a boy who has been diagnosed with schizophrenia despite the telling fact that his symptoms don't match the classical definition of schizophrenia. His parents ship him off to an asylum for "experimental" treatments, he killed his brother in his first "fit" and they are glad to be rid of him. Turns out, as you expect that the asylum has some very dark secrets and the children are magical not sick. Before he goes he meets a psychiatrist who takes a special interest in his case and refuses to just `forget about him" the way that his parents do.

Warning: Writer type crap to follow-- It's me thinking about my craft. If you're a reader then my advice is to buy the book and enjoy. I tend to deconstruct books because editing is part of writing so these are the things that I thought detracted from the story.

POV (point-of-view): Third person is hard to do well; each character has to have a unique voice as they narrate a scene. It is how you connect with the character. In this case each character sounded like the narrator and in some cases the POV was broken when the narrator informed us of something that the POV character didn't notice like the doctor's creepy smile that Andrew didn't see. The worst offender was the crazy boy - absolutely nuts whose thoughts weren't crazy at all. Stephen King's The Stand does a good job of giving each character a unique voice as he narrates. There were also too many POVs, it jumped the reader everywhere and many of them weren't necessary. I would have avoided giving the villains a POV because it de-mystified them and the same information could have been conveyed in other ways. He also gave one of his inhuman-things POV which really took down the suspense of an impending attack - IMHO.

Narrator: Readers like to figure things out for themselves. The narrator handed everything to the reader, unnecessarily telling us that the character had "figured something out." I get it, I understand.

Flashbacks: There was a huge flashback in part one... in fact a flashback within a flashback and since I was in the asylum with Andrew that was what I was focused on, worried about, the large clunky flashback drew my attention away from the urgency of this problem. I would have stuck the earliest one in the beginning as the Prologue and saved the latter one for a dream or a shorter recollection. The actual Prologue didn't really seem relevant as it wasn't about the main characters. 
__

I would be, as a writer, thrilled to get this kind of review. It is much better than the "fluffer" reviews I often see that are useless and no one actually believes anyway. It is a recommendation but it also has constructive comments delivered in as clear a way as I can. I use writer terms, because that's how I think. I might be wrong but I am communicating in the language I know best. It is not an attack and if the author wanted more info I have 3 pages of hand written notes on the book. I'm not e-publishing with the expectations of getting rich or famous. I just want someone to read my crap and tell me honestly what they liked and didn't so that I can improve my craft.

I just don't understand the fear of giving someone a 1 or 2, those are the people who need feedback the most. It is like a &#8230; public service? It will help them grow. If other people agree with the 2 then the writer is forced to confront some issues with his/her skill-set and maybe take a class. A 1 or 2 that you can't back up is useless but one that has a solid list of issues is gold. Embarrassment? Please, I embarrass myself all the time at least in this case it will result in something useful.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

CIBond said:


> I just don't understand the fear of giving someone a 1 or 2, those are the people who need feedback the most. It is like a &#8230; public service? It will help them grow. If other people agree with the 2 then the writer is forced to confront some issues with his/her skill-set and maybe take a class. A 1 or 2 that you can't back up is useless but one that has a solid list of issues is gold. Embarrassment? Please, I embarrass myself all the time at least in this case it will result in something useful.


CI, I think it's great you're giving such constructive criticism along with your reviews. And you're right, self-published authors need that.

However, you say you don't understand the fear of giving someone a 1 or 2 star review, but when I look at the books you've reviewed on Amazon, I don't see any 1 or 2 star reviews for self-published authors. Of your 13 reviews, only one is as low as two stars, and that's directed at a traditionally published author.

Add: Oops, my bad. You do have a one star review on the second page of reviews. I apologize.


----------



## Guest (Oct 19, 2010)

swolf said:


> And yet, you're lecturing us about not doing something you refuse to do - which is posting unsolicited one and two star reviews.
> 
> No one here is claiming they wanted to open a website to perform reviews, and then claim they didn't want to give out criticism.
> 
> As I said, you're attempting to compare apples and oranges.


No, what I am lecturing people on is* IF* you are writing reviews of *BOOKS YOU HAVE READ * and you are refusing to write reviews of *BOOKS YOU HAVE READ * out of fear of retaliation or because you don't want to hurt someone's feelings, shame on you. At no time did I say you should go out and buy obviously bad books in order to leave bad reviews. That is what you seem to be claiming I should do, which is frankly being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative. At no point did I ever say people should buy obviously bad books and review them. _That would be stupid_. But if you DO buy a book and then decide it is bad, then you should leave a review and not be afraid of doing so.


----------



## CIBond (Aug 28, 2010)

swolf said:


> Add: Oops, my bad. You do have a one star review on the second page of reviews. I apologize.


It's on the second page because it was my first review. I felt so bad about giving it that I forced myself to come up with a metric for reviewing and to rank some books in every category. If you can't do that then you aren't using the full spectrum of the star range and you might be cheating someone out of feedback. Once I found an example of each book I went back to the one-star rating and still felt it was deserved. My original review was two pages of critique but then I thought maybe it would be taken badly so I shortened it. I still look at it and think its mean but&#8230; I'm not sure 2 pages of review feedback would look better&#8230; then it would look like I had an agenda or because the author and I write in the same genre that I am trying to "get him" to remove competition. If anything the opposite is true, our books are cheaper. If someone buys a great Indy book they are more likely to come back and get another. I will certainly watch the author of Asylum for more of his work. This novel was rough but I suspect he will grow as an artist, his potential is great.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

I still think the star-rating system is a flawed way of looking at reviews. To just focus on how many stars a book is given and not on the content of the review itself misses the bulk of a reviewer's actual opinion.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

T.L. Haddix said:


> Someone mentioned that by foregoing the traditional publishing route, Indies skip a lot of the criticism they might normally encounter, thus missing the opportunity to build a thick skin. Yes and no. There are Indies who use beta readers and editors, and Indies who don't. Trust me, those of us who use the resources of betas and editors? We get to hear that criticism. And yes, it hurts! I handed my second book manuscript over and the first feedback I got? "I want to just drop a train on your hero." Uh-oh. When I got the script back from my editor the first time (the same week my hero got creamed by the train comment), I cringed. It was more red line than anything. I questioned everything I had written, and for a few days, I was quite pitiful. Moping and sulking, asking "Why me?" constantly. Then I got over it, fixed the book and moved on.


That would be me. I know there are exceptions. I'm sorry I didn't make that clear, but I sometimes think all the disclaimers I add are wishy-washy and unnecessary. It sounds like you had an ultimately good experience, but too many indies don't experience anything like that. They get that first honest review and even the most mild of criticisms stings like acid. They haven't been baptized.


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

T.L. Haddix said:


> Someone mentioned that by foregoing the traditional publishing route, Indies skip a lot of the criticism they might normally encounter, thus missing the opportunity to build a thick skin. Yes and no. There are Indies who use beta readers and editors, and Indies who don't. Trust me, those of us who use the resources of betas and editors? We get to hear that criticism. And yes, it hurts! I handed my second book manuscript over and the first feedback I got? "I want to just drop a train on your hero." Uh-oh. When I got the script back from my editor the first time (the same week my hero got creamed by the train comment), I cringed. It was more red line than anything. I questioned everything I had written, and for a few days, I was quite pitiful. Moping and sulking, asking "Why me?" constantly. Then I got over it, fixed the book and moved on.
> 
> Julie, I agree that it is up to us to hold other Indies to a standard. I just prefer to not do it publicly if the Indie's work needs major reconstruction. You have a very valid point, though - if we do only appear to give good or positive reviews to other Indies, it doesn't matter that we might be sending criticism behind the scenes. It's what the public sees that is what will matter to them.
> 
> The constructive criticism/not the reader's job to edit statement - No, it isn't the reader's job to edit. However, if someone takes the time to put information in a review about specifics, that is a tremendous boon to the writer. Good, bad or ugly, we can use that feedback, and therefore, it is constructive criticism.


We must hold up Indies to a standard. Our own personal standard. Stand and deliver. All roads lead to vetting and the Landis Board of Bottle Washing and Bull Branding Associated Inc. I also think that its important that my suspenders hold up my pants to the stnadards of gravity, otherwise . . . 

Edward C. Patterson


----------



## Guest (Oct 19, 2010)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> I still think the star-rating system is a flawed way of looking at reviews. To just focus on how many stars a book is given and not on the content of the review itself misses the bulk of a reviewer's actual opinion.


I completely agree. I wish there was a way to post reviews without leaving a star rating.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> I completely agree. I wish there was a way to post reviews without leaving a star rating.


Happily, on my blogs and here at KB, there is no star-rating. I only use it on Amazon and Goodreads because it's pretty much required. But it's a complete abstraction.


----------



## SuzanneTyrpak (Aug 10, 2010)

Critics offer a great service to readers and writers--they give the readers a "heads-up" about a book and they give writers publicity.

As I writer (I'm only speaking for myself) I think I'm a lousy critic. For example:

I absolutely hated *The Da Vinci Code*. I forced myself to finish it, because it was so popular--also a manuscript of mine was making the rounds when that book was at it's peak and editors and agents compared my book to *The Da Vinci Code*--they compared every book to The Da Vinci Code, that was all they wanted. Obviously a lot of people loved the book. Here are a few of the reasons why the book made me angry:

1) The research seemed minimal to me (I've spent years studying ancient religion and goddess cults) would most readers notice this? NO!
2) I got especially angry when Brown referenced The Tarot and got something wrong (don't remember what) that would have been extremely easy to verify. (I've made a living as a professional Tarot Reader.) Would most readers notice. NO!
3) I nearly threw the book against the wall due to a technical writing point: point-of-view. Part of the time, Dan Brown used the antagonist's point-of-view, but never, until the very end of the book, did this villain have a villainous thought. HOW WOULD THAT BE POSSIBLE?! (Excuse me for yelling.) Do you think most readers noticed that? NO!

Also I hated almost all the characters, except the bad guy who beats himself up, and I kept hoping the hero would die so the book would end.

But most of the things that annoy me about that book, probably have very little bearing on another person's enjoyment of the book.

I have a very particular way of reading and processing books, because I'm a writer, because I do a lot of historical research, and because I've been involved in women's spirituality for a long time.

But, I don't even have the heart to give Dan Brown a one star review...I think about all his work.

This is my situation. From this link, it's clear some writers can be more removed.

Whew...I feel better now.


----------



## farrellclaire (Mar 5, 2010)

J Dean said:


> If you didn't like it, and you have a good reason for not liking it, then by all means be public about it. So long as you're doing it in the right spirit, there shouldn't be a problem.
> 
> If a person doesn't like my works, I really am the type of author who wants to hear it, so that I can write better in the future. And I'm sure that I'm not the only one on this site who is like that.


You are absolutely not the only one.

I used to critique elsewhere but I don't feel like it's my place to review now. I don't feel right doing it, I don't feel like I _have _ a right to review when I'm not the greatest writer myself. Also, I realised that a good rating in my book (3 stars means I liked it) is an awful one to other people. If we don't all measure up with the same set of standards then the ratings lose their meaning. This is why I try not to rate on Goodreads although I often forget and automatically click the stars. 

As a writer, I'm always going to appreciate an opinion. Sometimes it hurts, but only for a bit and then I look at it from the reviewer's point of view and see exactly why they left the review. Then I learn from it and am better next time. If somebody takes their time to leave a review, I feel like it's pretty amazing of them. It's way too easy to look at a negative/critical review and write it off, there's nearly always something you can learn from it. If somebody buys a book/product, they have every right to say what they think of it - even if it is only a couple of words. For me personally, I am indebted to anyone who has tried to steer me on the right path or who has pointed out my weak areas.

Writers reviewing writers? Totally up to them. There will always be people who say, authors giving other authors 5 stars? Shilling. Authors giving other authors 1 star? Jealousy. No matter what you do, someone has an opinion on it so if you're going to give reviews then at least earn yourself a reputation as a fair, balanced and honest reviewer. Don't lose your credibility by giving a poorly written book 5 stars because it's hard to earn that back and you're doing neither yourself or that author any favours. Remember a chunk of the angry 1 star reviews often come from disappointment because they feel led on by lots of stellar reviews.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> No, what I am lecturing people on is* IF* you are writing reviews of *BOOKS YOU HAVE READ * and you are refusing to write reviews of *BOOKS YOU HAVE READ * out of fear of retaliation or because you don't want to hurt someone's feelings, shame on you. At no time did I say you should go out and buy obviously bad books in order to leave bad reviews. That is what you seem to be claiming I should do, which is frankly being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative. At no point did I ever say people should buy obviously bad books and review them. _That would be stupid_. But if you DO buy a book and then decide it is bad, then you should leave a review and not be afraid of doing so.


There are plenty of free ebooks out there, which are BOOKS I HAVE READ, and the only ones I have reviewed. So, whether or not to buy the book doesn't enter into it.

It's simple - if I like the book, I'll give it a good review. If I don't, I won't give it any review. Easy to understand.

What's _stupid_, is expecting folks who do that, to follow the same rules (or should I say _integrity_  ) as someone who promotes themselves as a critic, and has authors asking them to review their books. Of course, anyone who did that would be expected to generate reviews all over the spectrum, or they wouldn't be taken seriously. It's not that hard to understand the difference between the two.

BTW, there's still plenty of crap out there you're 'silently approving'. Better get to work.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

SWolf,

I think you're barking up the wrong tree taking Julie to task like this.

People accuse her of being a lot of things... (sharp-tongued, too blunt, etc.)... but lacking personal integrity? Never.

I think it would be beneficial to call a cease-fire here; I think you misunderstood each other and aren't that far off in outlook, if you read each other's posts carefully.


----------



## flanneryohello (May 11, 2010)

This thread seemed to go off the rails a bit.

I absolutely think that people who choose to review books should be honest about the books they're reviewing. Personally, I don't choose to review books within the same "community" in which I write. This is not the same as giving bad writers a pass. I have offered authors feedback privately in the past if I felt like they could benefit from it. If someone asks me for a review or feedback, I am honest. But I have no interest in leaving unsolicited reviews for fellow authors--positive *or* negative. Earlier I noted that I _might_ choose to leave a positive review for a book I really enjoyed if that book was short on reviews. In that case I would be helping out a fellow author simply by giving an honest opinion. I've never actually done this, mind you--but I can envision a scenario where I would.

I don't think there's anything wrong with a casual reviewer who chooses only to review books that hit a certain enjoyment threshold for them. Some people just don't have the stomach to write something they know will sting. That doesn't make them dishonest or imply that they are somehow supporting the existence of bad authors by not trashing books they didn't enjoy. It just means they want to support books with promise by writing honest reviews of those books.

Comparing casual reviewers to "professional" reviewers (I would define a pro as anyone who accepts submissions for review, or who makes a practice of reviewing every book they read) is unfair. A casual reviewer is under no obligation to review every book they read. Choosing only to review books you enjoyed doesn't mean your reviews are suspect. It just means you don't care to be negative. It makes perfect sense to me that many authors who casually review books would feel this way. An author knows better than anyone how a negative review can hurt, especially when it's not simply a matter of criticism over editing, etc. If you're writing reviews for pleasure, and possibly to help spread the word on books you've enjoyed, why is it wrong not to want to cause a fellow author pain just because you didn't personally enjoy their book?

Obviously professional reviewers are a different story. If you've chosen to review every book you read, you're probably going to hand out some negative reviews. But to act like people who choose to only review books they liked are somehow hurting all indie books is sort of ridiculous. What hurts indie books are people who LIE in their reviews. People who post five-star quid pro quo reviews.

Poorly written books will eventually get bad reviews. Who says authors have to be the ones to provide them?

ETA: To elaborate on something I said earlier, one reason I hesitate to review as a writer has nothing to do with sparing feelings or fear of retaliation. It has to do with the fact that I don't read a book like your typical non-writing reader would. I've tried samples of books from authors on this board, including a few who swore they sought out editing services, and cringed at what I perceived to be serious craft issues. Sometimes what bugs me most are tics that my own editor(s) have long since beaten out of me. Many times these types of issues are deal-breakers for me, but I doubt that most readers would feel the same. If I wrote a review it would almost be like an editor or writing critique partner was offering constructive criticism. I don't actually feel like that's the point of a reader review. Therefore, I don't write them.


----------



## Guest (Oct 19, 2010)

swolf said:


> There are plenty of free ebooks out there, which are BOOKS I HAVE READ, and the only ones I have reviewed. So, whether or not to buy the book doesn't enter into it.
> 
> It's simple - if I like the book, I'll give it a good review. If I don't, I won't give it any review. Easy to understand.
> 
> ...


You seem to be assuming that I am using the impersonal "you" to mean the specific "you." You are ranting about stuff as if I made a personal attack on you, when I was making general comments regarding whether or not one should allow the threat of retaliation to keep them from leaving a review. You (you specifically) seem to have taken general comments personally. I have no idea why, because apparently everyone else in this thread understood perfectly well what I was saying. Maybe you think you are being funny. Maybe you think you are being witty. But frankly, I have no idea what you are doing drilling home a point that has nothing to do with what I actually wrote.


----------



## CIBond (Aug 28, 2010)

flanneryohello said:


> Poorly written books will eventually get bad reviews. Who says authors have to be the ones to provide them?
> 
> ETA: To elaborate on something I said earlier, one reason I hesitate to review as a writer has nothing to do with sparing feelings or fear of retaliation. It has to do with the fact that I don't read a book like your typical non-writing reader would. I've tried samples of books from authors on this board, including a few who swore they sought out editing services, and cringed at what I perceived to be serious craft issues.


Um&#8230; would that be bad? To provide a critique in a review? To review like a writer? Most people pay serious $$ for that feedback. I would be happy to get it, they are more useful than the generic - I didn't like this book. You can give me 1-star if it comes with three pages of solid critique. 

Seriously, think for a moment of the potential. Say you found my main character unsympathetic and annoying and rather than&#8230; not reviewing the book you informed me about what you feel are the 4-nessessary characteristics of a sympathetic character&#8230; someone else reads the book and your public review and the disagrees with you and they leave a comment perhaps adding a characteristic and their own public review complaining about my ridiculous sex scene and my poor POV control. Then we have a conversation going about how to create a sympathetic character and everyone wins because we all learn something new about the craft or at least mull it over in our writer brains.

But without writers leaving writer-type reviews this never happens. It's a loss. This is why I am reviewing every Indy work I read and giving writer-type comments. Its not arrogance, I am not a famous published author it is just my thoughts which can, and probably will be ignored but it does make the author think... consider...grow?


----------



## flanneryohello (May 11, 2010)

CIBond said:


> Um&#8230; would that be bad? To provide a critique in a review? To review like a writer? Most people pay serious $$ for that feedback. I would be happy to get it, they are more useful than the generic - I didn't like this book. You can give me 1-star if it comes with three pages of solid critique.
> 
> Seriously, think for a moment of the potential. Say you found my main character unsympathetic and annoying and rather than&#8230; not reviewing the book you informed me about what you feel are the 4-nessessary characteristics of a sympathetic character&#8230; someone else reads the book and your public review and the disagrees with you and they leave a comment perhaps adding a characteristic and their own public review complaining about my ridiculous sex scene and my poor POV control. Then we have a conversation going about how to create a sympathetic character and everyone wins because we all learn something new about the craft or at least mull it over in our writer brains.
> 
> But without writers leaving writer-type reviews this never happens. It's a loss. This is why I am reviewing every Indy work I read and giving writer-type comments. Its not arrogance, I am not a famous published author it is just my thoughts which can, and probably will be ignored but it does make the author think... consider...grow?


I'm not judging your choice to review indie books from a writer's perspective. As I've said, I simply choose not to review books. It's not something I enjoy doing. Working full-time and writing my own books keeps me extremely busy, anyway.

I don't disagree that most writers appreciate in-depth critiques of their work, though I personally find it more helpful to give those types of critiques (and receive them) prior to publishing. You know, when they can actually be acted upon if good points are made (though I guess plenty of indie authors tweak their books after publication--I haven't ever had that option).

But a critique is not the same as a review. Reader reviews are a whole different animal, written for a different audience. A critique is intended for the author. A review is intended for the reader. My tendency, as a writer, is to focus on overwriting, overuse of certain words and phrases, grammatical problems, structural problems, etc. Some readers may care about that level of detail, but I'd venture a guess that most wouldn't. Barring serious editing problems, most readers primarily care about whether the story is any good.

The best parallel I can draw is movie reviews. When you read a movie review as a moviegoer, you want to know if it's a good film--is the story compelling? The acting competent? Is it funny, scary, sad, stirring, etc? You don't want to read a critical analysis that employs terminology not widely known outside filmmaking circles to comment on whether the film succeeds from a fellow director's perspective. Sure, some people might be interested in that stuff, but most moviegoers don't read reviews for that type of reaction. They want to know how another casual moviegoer felt about the experience of watching the movie.

Amazon reviews (for example) are exactly the same way. They aren't intended as a place for writers to provide in-depth critique of another writer's work. They're supposed to be a simple "hey, I read this book and here's my perspective on the experience".

If an author asked me for an in-depth critique, I'd be happy to provide it. But personally, I just don't feel the need to offer unsolicited craft-level critique to another author under the guise of leaving a reader review. It seems unnecessary and, to me, a little condescending.

That's just me, though.


----------



## StaceyHH (Sep 13, 2010)

farrellclaire said:


> No matter what you do, someone has an opinion on it so if you're going to give reviews then at least earn yourself a reputation as a fair, balanced and honest reviewer. Don't lose your credibility by giving a poorly written book 5 stars because it's hard to earn that back and you're doing neither yourself or that author any favours. Remember a chunk of the angry 1 star reviews often come from disappointment because they feel led on by lots of stellar reviews.


Yes, absolutely. From a reader's perspective, if I see a book with a raft of 4 and 5 star reviews, read it and think it's full of technical flaws and/or plot holes, I'm going to be more irritated than if I saw a little valid criticism and decided to read it anyways. Particularly when I have reason to believe that the book has mostly been reviewed by the writer's social circle and writer group.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Folks,

let's keep the personalities out of the discussion.  And use our inside voices.  You can disagree, but let's not be disagreeable about it.

EDIT:  I've gone through and removed some things that I believed to go over the line into the personal and thus against Forum Decorum.  It's OK to have strong feelings and even disagree strongly, but there is no need to make personal comments.

Thanks.

Betsy
Writers' Cafe Moderator


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Flannery, your recent posts here have been a welcomed voice of balance and reason. Thanks for chiming in!


----------



## xandy3 (Jun 13, 2010)

Wow, this has really become a heated discussion hasn't it? LOL I hadn't realized that whether or not we indies review each others books was such a "red button" issue.

I think that a lot of people here have misunderstood not giving bad (1-2 star) reviews with giving 4-5 star reviews to bad books. I don't think anyone here claimed to have done that...

And, speaking for myself alone I would never do that.

I think some of us can agree to disagree on some of the issues brought up here. 
Whether or not someone chooses to review a book is that person's choice...but I also think it's good to hear both sides of an argument and make informed decisions. And, I'm not saying that in a wishy-washy way, because I hate wishy-washiness. I'm saying that to just keep an open mind.

The one issue IMO that seems really clouded in this conversation is whether or not the reviews are for the benefit of the _reader_ or the _author. _ IMHO, Critiques (pre-publication, preferably) are for the writer. Reviews on consumer-related sites are for the readers...
but hey, if it winds up benefiting you (the author) in some small way, then that's an added plus.

Bad reviews (and even mediocre 3 star reviews) are bound to happen. Let's face it...we open ourselves up to it by making anything public whether it's a book, or artwork, a song, or a play. 
Again, Speaking only for myself: I fully expected them, since the day I started self-publishing. I'd already gone through the rigor of harsh criticism with criters.org, OWW, and even Elfwood (where I was once accused of plagiarizing myself  ). I think the most important thing is that, when we receive them, we handle it with grace and dignity. I think that I've been specially tuned to handle harsh criticism since age 6....as the result of studying classical ballet.  
I would never retaliate against a critical review, and any flame reviews I would just vote down or report to amazon. To strike back with a negative review of their book would be bad form, and label me unprofessional.

When I give a great, glowing review it _is only because_ I completely loved the book, and want to spread the word about how good it is. Will I ever give an indie author a 1-2 star review? maybe someday, I haven't yet. Then again I haven't purchased or read any really horrible ones. I am a very picky reader, and my "screening process" doesn't allow many bad books to get through...but you never know. I could come across one of those books that starts out great, but then falls flat on the end...
I'd be tactful as possible about how I'd say it though. 
(You're probably all thinking "_YOU? Tactful? Yeah, right!"_  )



flanneryohello said:


> I've tried samples of books from authors on this board, including a few who swore they sought out editing services, and cringed at what I perceived to be serious craft issues. Sometimes what bugs me most are tics that my own editor(s) have long since beaten out of me.


A Little OT: I've read a few books by people who I know for a fact paid for a high-priced professional editing service....And, wanted to tell the author that they should request some of their money back. 
Sad really. You should actually get what you pay for.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Xandy, good thoughts.


----------



## xandy3 (Jun 13, 2010)

Thank you, Craig!


----------



## nomesque (Apr 12, 2010)

xandy3 said:


> Elfwood (where I was once accused of plagiarizing myself  ).


ROTFL!!! That's great.

My thick skin was mostly developed in tech writing positions. You think people get upset about stuff-ups in FICTION?? You should see 'em react to mistakes in a manual! Phew.


----------



## MosesSiregarIII (Jul 15, 2010)

Imagine you're Dave Matthews. You decide that you have some sort of obligation to review every CD (er, collection of mp3s) you hear, even it it's a 1- or 2-star review.

Before too long, people start coming to the conclusion that you're a ____, because you're going out of your way to be negative toward fellow musicians and in a very public way.

Thing is, you're Dave Matthews. There are so many other people in the world who can leave negative reviews for other musical acts. You really don't need to do this.

Now, maybe Dave wants to write a positive review for a band he loves. He's buddies with Trey Anastasio, and everyone knows it, so maybe he writes a very positive review of Phish's next album. No one will think this is an uncool move. They'll think, _Hey there's Dave. Right on._ For example, Robin Hobb did this for Patrick Rothfuss. No problem. Totally cool.

To publicly post negative material about anyone else in your own field is a huge risk, without much upside. You can develop a reputation as someone who is petty, jealous, or arrogant. You can make enemies or lose potential friends and allies. There's not much potential "win" in this option. In what other field is it a good idea to bash your peers? World Wide Wrastling? Okay, granted.

So that's my take. I think writing low-rated reviews of your professional peers is usually a risky, low-upside move from a business _and_ personal standpoint.

Now for a possible exception. Take CIBond's review that he posted on the previous page. This one works pretty well IMO because 1) right up front, he's clear about recommending the book ("This is a recommendation, buy the book."), 2) he's humble in prefacing his criticism with the following: "Warning: Writer type crap to follow-- It's me thinking about my craft. If you're a reader then my advice is to buy the book and enjoy. I tend to deconstruct books because editing is part of writing so these are the things that I thought detracted from the story." And the writer probably will learn some things from his review, while still feeling like his fellow author had his back and recommended his book.

Still, there is some risk with writing such a review. Maybe the guy flips out on him anyway. Who wants to deal with that? Maybe the writing criticism would've been better to send in a private email, as long as the rest of the review remained 100% honest about strengths and weaknesses (without crossing any lines that might be rude or condescending). For my 2 cents, I still say this is a risky way to behave as a pro writer. Do you see many successful authors writing 1-star reviews of fellow writers? If J.K. Rowling did this, she'd be crucified for it.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

Dern it, Moses! Stop editing your post. I keep thinking there's a new one!


----------



## MosesSiregarIII (Jul 15, 2010)

Monique said:


> Dern it, Moses! Stop editing your post. I keep thinking there's a new one!


Ha! Okay, sorry. I added a couple of additional lines at the end of my previous post, though.

Here's another cautionary tale. There's a baseball writer named Rob Neyer who got himself in hot water over writing a negative Amazon review of a fellow baseball writer's book.

A summary of the story from Deadspin.com:

**Start Quote**

All this talk about Amazon reader reviews got us to remembering one of our favorite ESPN.com snafus: Rob Neyer's infamous angry Amazon review. If you've forgotten, or if you never knew, Neyer - whose uncomfortably confessional book Feeding The Green Monster proved once and for all that stat guys shouldn't write about trying to meet girls - once wrote a review of Steve Kettman's One Day At Fenway that contained the line, "How did this project go so terribly wrong? Presumably the author wound up with plenty of source material, and so I can only assume that he lacked either the talent or the time (or both) to shape the material into a decent piece of non-fiction."

Neyer originally did the review anonymously, but when a reporter called him out on it, he fessed up, admitting the book made him so angry, he wanted to "throw it across the room." ESPN.com ended up suspending him, nobody bought Neyer's book and now you can buy the two books together on Amazon for a deal. And Rob is probably very sad we brought this back up. Sorry!

**End Quote**

When Neyer did this, everyone thought he was a dbag. When in doubt, don't do anything that might make people think you're a dbag (Copyright 2010). These are words to live by and they will be included in my second ebook,_ Collected Aphorisms: On Douchebaggery_.


----------



## CIBond (Aug 28, 2010)

MosesSiregarIII said:


> Still, there is some risk with writing such a review. Maybe the guy flips out on him anyway. Who wants to deal with that? Maybe the writing criticism would've been better to send in a private email, as long as the rest of the review remained 100% honest about strengths and weaknesses (without crossing any lines that might be rude or condescending). For my 2 cents, I still say this is a risky way to behave as a pro writer. Do you see many successful authors writing 1-star reviews of fellow writers? If J.K. Rowling did this, she'd be crucified for it.


 Courage is hard, integrity is costly and the cost goes up the more you have to loose. Famous people have a brand to protect and are worried about lawyers. I am no one special so my words don't have any huge import. Let's flip this around for a moment&#8230; and talk about professional writers getting reviews. Do you think J.K. Rowling would be bothered by my writer-perspective? Do you think she would stop counting her millions and be devastated? Do you think that I am the first person to offer more writer-based observations on how a book was written rather than more of a reader's perspective? If it's unprofessional for me to make these comments, how much more unprofessional it is for the writer to object to them, or care at all? If you wrote a book about horseracing and a jockey pointed out some of your inaccuracies in his review would you tell him it was unprofessional for him to point out the flaws in your research and get mad at him?

I may be perceived, by some, as arrogant but my perspective is as valid as anyone else's who reads the book. Whether I choose to express my thoughts in "writer terminology" or dumb it down and say things like "the book jumped all over the place, tee-hee I wonder if there is a word for that?" I am still someone who purchased the book and I am as entitled to leave a review as anyone else. Provided it is honest and not malicious or misleading and I can back it with direct evidence I don't really see the problem.

FYI: This is a quote from Stephan King: "Both Rowling and Meyer, they're speaking directly to young people. ... The real difference is that Jo Rowling is a terrific writer and Stephenie Meyer can't write worth a darn. She's not very good."


----------



## traceya (Apr 26, 2010)

I know so many readers who won't even look at a book without reviews, good and bad. I've never really been much of a reviewer simply because, like Craig, I only review books that really moved or really impressed me. Then a friend told me a story about buying a book that had a majority of 4 and 5 star reviews and when she read it she was bitterly disappointed because the book was very heavily religious and preachy - she's an atheist so no matter how well written the book was for her it was a total turn off. If only someone had mentioned that in a review she could've saved a few bucks and bought something she'd really enjoy.

Reviews are important, just because we're writers doesn't make our opinions less valid and if you can't even finish a book maybe it's important to tell another potential reader that fact and why you couldn't finish it. My 2 star review from Harry DeWulf pointed out some great things about my writing ability but also pointed out that he couldn't get into the story enough to even finish the book. Did it sting? Sure, a little but I learned something - gotta have a great beginning and keep the pace going through to the end.

Julie from Bards & Sages, after I solicited a review, said she couldn't do it because of some pretty fundamental grammatical and technical flaws. Did it sting? Sure but I took her advice, went out and got an editor and I think finished up with a much better book because of her comments.

A 1 or 2 star review might put a dint in our fragile writer's egos but I totally agree with Amanda - we're supposed to be professional and that means being able to take criticism. Not only that but a couple of mixed bag reviews tend to make the book look more professional - like it's not just your friends and family [even our KB family] writing reviews for you.

If you couldn't finish a book because it was poorly written it won't really hurt to say so - you might save the next reader from going through your experience 

Just my two cents and maybe not even worth that 

Trace


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> SWolf,
> 
> I think you're barking up the wrong tree taking Julie to task like this.
> 
> ...


You misunderstand.

I'm not accusing her of lacking personal integrity. I'm taking offense to her accusing me of that. And I'm pointing out that she doesn't even do what she's asking us to do.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> You seem to be assuming that I am using the impersonal "you" to mean the specific "you." You are ranting about stuff as if I made a personal attack on you, when I was making general comments regarding whether or not one should allow the threat of retaliation to keep them from leaving a review. You (you specifically) seem to have taken general comments personally. I have no idea why, because apparently everyone else in this thread understood perfectly well what I was saying. Maybe you think you are being funny. Maybe you think you are being witty. But frankly, I have no idea what you are doing drilling home a point that has nothing to do with what I actually wrote.


Here is your quote:

[quote author=Bards and Sages (Julie)]
By only posting the good reviews and never breathing a negative word, we bring into question our own competence and honesty as writers.[/quote]

That's you, claiming that I (and everyone else in the subgroup) am bringing into question my competence and honesty because I only post good reviews.

[quote author=Bards and Sages (Julie)]
Bad writers DO reflect on all of us...but only when we silently endorse them. If we don't call them out because of fear, we destroy our individual credibility as authors. If we appear to like everything we read (i.e. only post good reviews) then the reader may begin to question if we have any ability to even judge quality over substandard work. [/quote]

And that's you, telling me (and everyone else who does what I do) I'm destroying my individual credibility as an author.

Because we don't live up to your standards, which, as I've pointed out again and again, have nothing to do with what we're doing.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Julie and Swolf...

I'm going to ask you two to retreat to your respective corners and agree to disagree on this one. The back and forth between the two of you has stalled and is not advancing the conversation. I'm calling this match a draw. Move on, please!

Betsy
Moderator







(<==looked for boxing image with hat but couldn't find one appropriate for a family forum....)


----------



## David McAfee (Apr 15, 2010)

This very topic is why I don't write reviews very often. It's too easy for witers (myself included) to take them personally, and it's far too easy to have misunderstandings in cyberspace.

I only review about 1/20 of the books I actually read, maybe less, and usually only if I REALLY like them or REALLY didn't like them. The in-between stuff I usually don't review.


----------



## J Dean (Feb 9, 2009)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Julie and Swolf...
> 
> I'm going to ask you two to retreat to your respective corners and agree to disagree on this one. The back and forth between the two of you has stalled and is not advancing the conversation. I'm calling this match a draw. Move on, please!
> 
> ...


You lost me on the candied apple pic, Betsy...


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

That's "Betsy" in one of her many moderator hats. . .the apple is just extra.


----------



## xandy3 (Jun 13, 2010)

traceya said:


> I know so many readers who won't even look at a book without reviews, good and bad. I've never really been much of a reviewer simply because, like Craig, I only review books that really moved or really impressed me. Then a friend told me a story about buying a book that had a majority of 4 and 5 star reviews and when she read it she was bitterly disappointed because the book was very heavily religious and preachy - she's an atheist so no matter how well written the book was for her it was a total turn off. If only someone had mentioned that in a review she could've saved a few bucks and bought something she'd really enjoy.


Now, that is a good point (and another very red button issue). Sometimes (with paperbacks, that don't feature see inside) it's hard to tell what the story is actually about if there's not a review. 
Or, the reviews posted might be misleading...

I posted a 2 star review for a certain CP book that had _gotten almost everything wrong_ when it came to criminal justice/police procedural issues. The inaccuracies were GLARING, but maybe only obvious to someone with education and experience in the criminal justice field (such as myself). 
But I felt it important to be mentioned.

If, before purchasing and reading said book, I had taken the time to review the 1-2 star reviews I would have seen that many who are not fans of the book pointed out the same thing.

But that's CP....

Oh, and it brings up an interesting thing in terms of retaliation: When you post a negative review of a very popular CP book, notice how the fans come out in droves to support it by voting your review "unhelpful" and posting trollish comments to you...
Hence _Twilight._


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Ann in Arlington said:


> That's "Betsy" in one of her many moderator hats. . .the apple is just extra.


My next short story:

Candy Apple Cowgirl

Randy Ryder and Betsy Rahtick meet at the rodeo, and it's loathing at first sight, when, sitting behind him, she gets her candy apple stuck in his long-haired country boy mullet. But when they go back to her place to extricate his lengthy locks, they discover a mutual attraction, and hold their own private rodeo.


----------



## G.L. Douglas (Jun 27, 2010)

swolf >







< julie


----------



## CIBond (Aug 28, 2010)

xandy3 said:


> Oh, and it brings up an interesting thing in terms of retaliation: When you post a negative review of a very popular CP book, notice how the fans come out in droves to support it by voting your review "unhelpful" and posting trollish comments to you...
> Hence _Twilight._


I wouldn't get too hung up on that. They all think having at 80 year old man stand outside the bedroom window all night so he can watch them sleep for two weeks straight is romantic, instead of calling the police.  They have bigger problems than a lack of objectivity.

I have noticed this "voting" stuff happens with Indy books as well. The book appears and then shortly after you have some 5-star reviews appear from accounts that have never reviewed anything before and they each get voted-up. My reviews don't get voted up much.


----------



## xandy3 (Jun 13, 2010)

CIBond said:


> I wouldn't get too hung up on that. They all think having at 80 year old man stand outside the bedroom window all night so he can watch them sleep for two weeks straight is romantic, instead of calling the police.  They have bigger problems than a lack of objectivity.


----------



## Guest (Oct 20, 2010)

G.L. Douglas said:


> swolf >
> 
> 
> 
> ...











I prefer this one.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

G.L. Douglas said:


> swolf >
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Who would think we're secret lovers in real life.

Oops, I guess it's not so secret any more.


----------



## David McAfee (Apr 15, 2010)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> I prefer this one.


Yeah, I would, too.


----------



## Guest (Oct 20, 2010)

swolf said:


> Who would think we're secret lovers in real life.
> 
> Oops, I guess it's not so secret any more.


You are the Zaboo to my Codex


----------



## David &#039;Half-Orc&#039; Dalglish (Feb 1, 2010)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> You are the Zaboo to my Codex


I'm not sure if I should be happy or upset that I am not nerdy enough to understand this.


----------



## CIBond (Aug 28, 2010)

xandy3 said:


>


It would be interesting if 10 years down the line Team-Edward all started buying The Story of O. ... the fan interviews would all go something like "Well, when I was a teenager I was crazy about this character who watched his girlfriend sleep, drover her to school after damaging her truck, had every class with her, told her who to be friends with, and then drove her home. After that real B&D was the only answer."

Swolf you better start writing you have a whole new fan-base growing up.

-- Sorry, off topic, I'll stop. I read Twilight because it was important in my genre but I couldn't finish the series. I'm still in recovery.


----------



## Jnassise (Mar 22, 2010)

Feeling like an idiot this morning - what's CP?

-J


----------



## MosesSiregarIII (Jul 15, 2010)

CIBond said:


> Courage is hard, integrity is costly and the cost goes up the more you have to loose. Famous people have a brand to protect and are worried about lawyers. I am no one special so my words don't have any huge import. Let's flip this around for a moment&#8230; and talk about professional writers getting reviews. Do you think J.K. Rowling would be bothered by my writer-perspective? Do you think she would stop counting her millions and be devastated? Do you think that I am the first person to offer more writer-based observations on how a book was written rather than more of a reader's perspective? If it's unprofessional for me to make these comments, how much more unprofessional it is for the writer to object to them, or care at all? If you wrote a book about horseracing and a jockey pointed out some of your inaccuracies in his review would you tell him it was unprofessional for him to point out the flaws in your research and get mad at him?
> 
> I may be perceived, by some, as arrogant but my perspective is as valid as anyone else's who reads the book. Whether I choose to express my thoughts in "writer terminology" or dumb it down and say things like "the book jumped all over the place, tee-hee I wonder if there is a word for that?" I am still someone who purchased the book and I am as entitled to leave a review as anyone else. Provided it is honest and not malicious or misleading and I can back it with direct evidence I don't really see the problem.
> 
> FYI: This is a quote from Stephan King: "Both Rowling and Meyer, they're speaking directly to young people. ... The real difference is that Jo Rowling is a terrific writer and Stephenie Meyer can't write worth a darn. She's not very good."


Stephen King could tick off 90% of the planet and still be rich for life. And bashing Meyer is cool in many circles (for example, probably with most of his readers). Still, he's offending a lot of Meyer readers and I can't say that's smart. It's just that he can say almost anything he wants and get away with it, or not suffer much of a threat to his lifestyle or career. On the other hand, it is possible to build a brand as a brutally honest, often negative figure. But you've got to have just the right blend of charisma, humor, and sense to pull that off; and you have to be _d*mn good_ at what you do (like King). Most kids should not try that at home.

I disagree with the idea that famous people should behave in a certain professional manner that less successful writers should not, because we have less to lose. If you want to be successful, it's always good to learn from those who are. I don't think any of us are as likely to reach our goals by doing things differently than the successful people who have already walked the trail. The fact remains that in almost no profession do you see successful people writing poor reviews of their peers, which can also be seen as their competition. It's because it's not a classy, professional thing to do and it probably makes _you_ look worse.

You asked, "Do you think J.K. Rowling would be bothered by my writer-perspective?" That's another subject. I'm talking about whether or not it's a smart move to write negative reviews of fellow authors. And who knows, maybe she reads her reviews and she'll remember your name, and then when you hit the bigtime and your publisher asks her for a blurb, she'll say no. More likely the review just makes you look bad. IMO, there's little upside in being negative about your peers, and generally much more to lose than to gain. Why take the risk with a detailed criticism of their work, when if your goal is to really give them feedback on their writing, you could send it to them privately--though even that has significant risk involved.

It doesn't matter that the writer shouldn't take your review personally, at least not for my argument. My argument is that every time you risk offending another writer, it's much more likely to hurt _you_, so why take that risk--especially on a regular basis? Eventually you're going to get burned.

Your perception of their work is as valid as anyone else's, but there are plenty of other people who will probably say what you had to say if the book finds a decent-sized audience. As a writer, you put your own reputation on the line, and there is a possibility of angering other writers or coming across as petty, jealous, or arrogant. I think it's a high-risk bet with little potential payoff.

This is JMO. I'm just arguing for what I think is a smart policy. Your mileage may vary, and I'm not saying that my philosophy is right for everyone else. We're all learning.


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

Jnassise said:


> Feeling like an idiot this morning - what's CP?
> 
> -J


I'm guessing Crime/Police or Criminal/Procedural or something like that

(or possiblye Combat Patrol, Command Post, etc.)


----------



## robertduperre (Jun 13, 2010)

Jnassise said:


> Feeling like an idiot this morning - what's CP?
> 
> -J


Candied Panties?


----------



## J Dean (Feb 9, 2009)

Ann in Arlington said:


> That's "Betsy" in one of her many moderator hats. . .the apple is just extra.


Really? She doesn't look like what I pictured her to look like.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

J. Dean --

No, she used "hat pictures" she finds.


----------



## J Dean (Feb 9, 2009)

MichelleR said:


> J. Dean --
> 
> No, she used "hat pictures" she finds.


Ahhhh... so she is not the depicted female?


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

FENIMORE COOPER'S
LITERARY OFFENCES

by Mark Twain

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Pathfinder and The Deerslayer stand at the head of Cooper's
novels as artistic creations. There are others of his works
which contain parts as perfect as are to be found in these, and
scenes even more thrilling. Not one can be compared with
either of them as a finished whole.

The defects in both of these tales are comparatively slight.
They were pure works of art.-Prof. Lounsbury.

The five tales reveal an extraordinary fulness of invention.
... One of the very greatest characters in fiction, Natty
Bumppo....

The craft of the woodsman, the tricks of the trapper, all the
delicate art of the forest, were familiar to Cooper from his
youth up.-Prof. Brander Matthews.

Cooper is the greatest artist in the domain of romantic fiction
yet produced by America.-Wilkie Collins.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It seems to me that it was far from right for the Professor of English Literature in Yale, the Professor of English Literature in Columbia, and Wilkie Collins to deliver opinions on Cooper's literature without having read some of it. It would have been much more decorous to keep silent and let persons talk who have read Cooper.

Cooper's art has some defects. In one place in 'Deerslayer,' and in the restricted space of two-thirds of a page, Cooper has scored 114 offences against literary art out of a possible 115. It breaks the record.

There are nineteen rules governing literary art in the domain of romantic fiction-some say twenty-two. In Deerslayer Cooper violated eighteen of them. These eighteen require:

1. That a tale shall accomplish something and arrive somewhere. But the Deerslayer tale accomplishes nothing and arrives in the air.

2. They require that the episodes of a tale shall be necessary parts of the tale, and shall help to develop it. But as the Deerslayer tale is not a tale, and accomplishes nothing and arrives nowhere, the episodes have no rightful place in the work, since there was nothing for them to develop.

3. They require that the personages in a tale shall be alive, except in the case of corpses, and that always the reader shall be able to tell the corpses from the others. But this detail has often been overlooked in the Deerslayer tale.

4. They require that the personages in a tale, both dead and alive, shall exhibit a sufficient excuse for being there. But this detail also has been overlooked in the Deerslayer tale.

5. They require that when the personages of a tale deal in conversation, the talk shall sound like human talk, and be talk such as human beings would be likely to talk in the given circumstances, and have a discoverable meaning, also a discoverable purpose, and a show of relevancy, and remain in the neighborhood of the subject in hand, and be interesting to the reader, and help out the tale, and stop when the people cannot think of anything more to say. But this requirement has been ignored from the beginning of the Deerslayer tale to the end of it.

6. They require that when the author describes the character of a personage in his tale, the conduct and conversation of that personage shall justify said description. But this law gets little or no attention in the Deerslayer tale, as Natty Bumppo's case will amply prove.

7. They require that when a personage talks like an illustrated, gilt-edged, tree-calf, hand-tooled, seven-dollar Friendship's Offering in the beginning of a paragraph, he shall not talk like a ***** minstrel in the end of it. But this rule is flung down and danced upon in the Deerslayer tale.

8. They require that crass stupidities shall not be played upon the reader as "the craft of the woodsman, the delicate art of the forest," by either the author or the people in the tale. But this rule is persistently violated in the Deerslayer tale.

9. They require that the personages of a tale shall confine themselves to possibilities and let miracles alone; or, if they venture a miracle, the author must so plausibly set it forth as to make it look possible and reasonable. But these rules are not respected in the Deerslayer tale.

10. They require that the author shall make the reader feel a deep interest in the personages of his tale and in their fate; and that he shall make the reader love the good people in the tale and hate the bad ones. But the reader of the Deerslayer tale dislikes the good people in it, is indifferent to the others, and wishes they would all get drowned together.

11. They require that the characters in a tale shall be so clearly defined that the reader can tell beforehand what each will do in a given emergency. But in the Deerslayer tale this rule is vacated.

In addition to these large rules there are some little ones. These require that the author shall:

12. Say what he is proposing to say, not merely come near it.

13. Use the right word, not its second cousin.

14. Eschew surplusage.

15. Not omit necessary details.

16. Avoid slovenliness of form.

17. Use good grammar.

18. Employ a simple and straightforward style.

Even these seven are coldly and persistently violated in the Deerslayer tale.

Cooper's gift in the way of invention was not a rich endowment; but such as it was he liked to work it, he was pleased with the effects, and indeed he did some quite sweet things with it. In his little box of stage properties he kept six or eight cunning devices, tricks, artifices for his savages and woodsmen to deceive and circumvent each other with, and he was never so happy as when he was working these innocent things and seeing them go. A favorite one was to make a moccasined person tread in the tracks of the moccasined enemy, and thus hide his own trail. Cooper wore out barrels and barrels of moccasins in working that trick. Another stage-property that he pulled out of his box pretty frequently was his broken twig. He prized his broken twig above all the rest of his effects, and worked it the hardest. It is a restful chapter in any book of his when somebody doesn't step on a dry twig and alarm all the reds and whites for two hundred yards around. Every time a Cooper person is in peril, and absolute silence is worth four dollars a minute, he is sure to step on a dry twig. There may be a hundred handier things to step on, but that wouldn't satisfy Cooper. Cooper requires him to turn out and find a dry twig; and if he can't do it, go and borrow one. In fact, the Leather Stocking Series ought to have been called the Broken Twig Series.

I am sorry there is not room to put in a few dozen instances of the delicate art of the forest, as practised by Natty Bumppo and some of the other Cooperian experts. Perhaps we may venture two or three samples. Cooper was a sailor-a naval officer; yet he gravely tells us how a vessel, driving towards a lee shore in a gale, is steered for a particular spot by her skipper because he knows of an undertow there which will hold her back against the gale and save her. For just pure woodcraft, or sailorcraft, or whatever it is, isn't that neat? For several years Cooper was daily in the society of artillery, and he ought to have noticed that when a cannon-ball strikes the ground it either buries itself or skips a hundred feet or so; skips again a hundred feet or so-and so on, till finally it gets tired and rolls. Now in one place he loses some "females"-as he always calls women-in the edge of a wood near a plain at night in a fog, on purpose to give Bumppo a chance to show off the delicate art of the forest before the reader. These mislaid people are hunting for a fort. They hear a cannonblast, and a cannon-ball presently comes rolling into the wood and stops at their feet. To the females this suggests nothing. The case is very different with the admirable Bumppo. I wish I may never know peace again if he doesn't strike out promptly and follow the track of that cannon-ball across the plain through the dense fog and find the fort. Isn't it a daisy? If Cooper had any real knowledge of Nature's ways of doing things, he had a most delicate art in concealing the fact. For instance: one of his acute Indian experts, Chingachgook (pronounced Chicago, I think), has lost the trail of a person he is tracking through the forest. Apparently that trail is hopelessly lost. Neither you nor I could ever have guessed out the way to find it. It was very different with Chicago. Chicago was not stumped for long. He turned a running stream out of its course, and there, in the slush in its old bed, were that person's moccasin-tracks. The current did not wash them away, as it would have done in all other like cases-no, even the eternal laws of Nature have to vacate when Cooper wants to put up a delicate job of woodcraft on the reader.

We must be a little wary when Brander Matthews tells us that Cooper's books "reveal an extraordinary fulness of invention." As a rule, I am quite willing to accept Brander Matthews's literary judgments and applaud his lucid and graceful phrasing of them; but that particular statement needs to be taken with a few tons of salt. Bless your heart, Cooper hadn't any more invention than a horse; and I don't mean a high-class horse, either; I mean a clothes-horse. It would be very difficult to find a really clever "situation" in Cooper's books, and still more difficult to find one of any kind which he has failed to render absurd by his handling of it. Look at the episodes of "the caves"; and at the celebrated scuffle between Maqua and those others on the table-land a few days later; and at Hurry Harry's queer water-transit from the castle to the ark; and at Deerslayer's half-hour with his first corpse; and at the quarrel between Hurry Harry and Deerslayer later; and at-but choose for yourself; you can't go amiss.

If Cooper had been an observer his inventive faculty would have worked better; not more interestingly, but more rationally, more plausibly. Cooper's proudest creations in the way of "situations" suffer noticeably from the absence of the observer's protecting gift. Cooper's eye was splendidly inaccurate. Cooper seldom saw anything correctly. He saw nearly all things as through a glass eye, darkly. Of course a man who cannot see the commonest little every-day matters accurately is working at a disadvantage when he is constructing a "situation." In the Deerslayer tale Cooper has a stream which is fifty feet wide where it flows out of a lake; it presently narrows to twenty as it meanders along for no given reason; and yet when a stream acts like that it ought to be required to explain itself. Fourteen pages later the width of the brook's outlet from the lake has suddenly shrunk thirty feet, and become "the narrowest part of the stream." This shrinkage is not accounted for. The stream has bends in it, a sure indication that it has alluvial banks and cuts them; yet these bends are only thirty and fifty feet long. If Cooper had been a nice and punctilious observer he would have noticed that the bends were oftener nine hundred feet long than short of it.

Cooper made the exit of that stream fifty feet wide, in the first place, for no particular reason; in the second place, he narrowed it to less than twenty to accommodate some Indians. He bends a "sapling" to the form of an arch over this narrow passage, and conceals six Indians in its foliage. They are "laying" for a settler's scow or ark which is coming up the stream on its way to the lake; it is being hauled against the stiff current by a rope whose stationary end is anchored in the lake; its rate of progress cannot be more than a mile an hour. Cooper describes the ark, but pretty obscurely. In the matter of dimensions "it was little more than a modern canal-boat." Let us guess, then, that it was about one hundred and forty feet long. It was of "greater breadth than common." Let us guess, then, that it was about sixteen feet wide. This leviathan had been prowling down bends which were but a third as long as itself, and scraping between banks where it had only two feet of space to spare on each side. We cannot too much admire this miracle. A low-roofed log dwelling occupies "two-thirds of the ark's length"-a dwelling ninety feet long and sixteen feet wide, let us say a kind of vestibule train. The dwelling has two rooms-each forty-five feet long and sixteen feet wide, let us guess. One of them is the bedroom of the Hutter girls, Judith and Hetty; the other is the parlor in the daytime, at night it is papa's bedchamber. The ark is arriving at the stream's exit now, whose width has been reduced to less than twenty feet to accommodate the Indians-say to eighteen. There is a foot to spare on each side of the boat. Did the Indians notice that there was going to be a tight squeeze there? Did they notice that they could make money by climbing down out of that arched sapling and just stepping aboard when the ark scraped by? No, other Indians would have noticed these things, but Cooper's Indians never notice anything. Cooper thinks they are marvelous creatures for noticing, but he was almost always in error about his Indians. There was seldom a sane one among them.

The ark is one hundred and forty feet long; the dwelling is ninety feet long. The idea of the Indians is to drop softly and secretly from the arched sapling to the dwelling as the ark creeps along under it at the rate of a mile an hour, and butcher the family. It will take the ark a minute and a half to pass under. It will take the ninety foot dwelling a minute to pass under. Now, then, what did the six Indians do? It would take you thirty years to guess, and even then you would have to give it up, I believe. Therefore, I will tell you what the Indians did. Their chief, a person of quite extraordinary intellect for a Cooper Indian, warily watched the canal-boat as it squeezed along under him, and when he had got his calculations fined down to exactly the right shade, as he judged, he let go and dropped. And missed the house! That is actually what he did. He missed the house, and landed in the stern of the scow. It was not much of a fall, yet it knocked him silly. He lay there unconscious. If the house had been ninety-seven feet long he would have made the trip. The fault was Cooper's, not his. The error lay in the construction of the house. Cooper was no architect.

There still remained in the roost five Indians.

The boat has passed under and is now out of their reach. Let me explain what the five did-you would not be able to reason it out for yourself. No. 1 jumped for the boat, but fell in the water astern of it. Then No. 2 jumped for the boat, but fell in the water still farther astern of it. Then No. 3 jumped for the boat, and fell a good way astern of it. Then No. 4 jumped for the boat, and fell in the water away astern. Then even No. 5 made a jump for the boat-for he was a Cooper Indian. In the matter of intellect, the difference between a Cooper Indian and the Indian that stands in front of the cigarshop is not spacious. The scow episode is really a sublime burst of invention; but it does not thrill, because the inaccuracy of the details throws a sort of air of fictitiousness and general improbability over it. This comes of Cooper's inadequacy as an observer.

The reader will find some examples of Cooper's high talent for inaccurate observation in the account of the shooting-match in The Pathfinder.

"A common wrought nail was driven lightly into the target, its
head having been first touched with paint."

The color of the paint is not stated-an important omission, but Cooper deals freely in important omissions. No, after all, it was not an important omission; for this nail-head is a hundred yards from the marksmen, and could not be seen by them at that distance, no matter what its color might be.

How far can the best eyes see a common house-fly? A hundred yards? It is quite impossible. Very well; eyes that cannot see a house-fly that is a hundred yards away cannot see an ordinary nailhead at that distance, for the size of the two objects is the same. It takes a keen eye to see a fly or a nailhead at fifty yards-one hundred and fifty feet. Can the reader do it?

The nail was lightly driven, its head painted, and game called. Then the Cooper miracles began. The bullet of the first marksman chipped an edge off the nail-head; the next man's bullet drove the nail a little way into the target-and removed all the paint. Haven't the miracles gone far enough now? Not to suit Cooper; for the purpose of this whole scheme is to show off his prodigy, Deerslayer Hawkeye-Long-Rifle-Leather-Stocking-Pathfinder-Bumppo before the ladies.

"'Be all ready to clench it, boys!' cried out Pathfinder,
stepping into his friend's tracks the instant they were vacant.
'Never mind a new nail; I can see that, though the paint is
gone, and what I can see I can hit at a hundred yards, though
it were only a mosquito's eye. Be ready to clench!'

"The rifle cracked, the bullet sped its way, and the head of the nail was buried in the wood, covered by the piece of flattened lead."

There, you see, is a man who could hunt flies with a rifle, and command a ducal salary in a Wild West show to-day if we had him back with us.

The recorded feat is certainly surprising just as it stands; but it is not surprising enough for Cooper. Cooper adds a touch. He has made Pathfinder do this miracle with another man's rifle; and not only that, but Pathfinder did not have even the advantage of loading it himself. He had everything against him, and yet he made that impossible shot; and not only made it, but did it with absolute confidence, saying, "Be ready to clench." Now a person like that would have undertaken that same feat with a brickbat, and with Cooper to help he would have achieved it, too.

Pathfinder showed off handsomely that day before the ladies. His very first feat was a thing which no Wild West show can touch. He was standing with the group of marksmen, observing-a hundred yards from the target, mind; one Jasper raised his rifle and drove the centre of the bull's-eye. Then the Quartermaster fired. The target exhibited no result this time. There was a laugh. "It's a dead miss," said Major Lundie. Pathfinder waited an impressive moment or two; then said, in that calm, indifferent, know-it-all way of his, "No, Major, he has covered Jasper's bullet, as will be seen if any one will take the trouble to examine the target."

Wasn't it remarkable! How could he see that little pellet fly through the air and enter that distant bullet-hole? Yet that is what he did; for nothing is impossible to a Cooper person. Did any of those people have any deep-seated doubts about this thing? No; for that would imply sanity, and these were all Cooper people.

"The respect for Pathfinder's skill and for his 'quickness and
accuracy of sight'" (the italics [''] are mine) "was so
profound and general, that the instant he made this declaration
the spectators began to distrust their own opinions, and a
dozen rushed to the target in order to ascertain the fact.
There, sure enough, it was found that the Quartermaster's
bullet had gone through the hole made by Jasper's, and that,
too, so accurately as to require a minute examination to be
certain of the circumstance, which, however, was soon clearly
established by discovering one bullet over the other in the
stump against which the target was placed."

They made a "minute" examination; but never mind, how could they know that there were two bullets in that hole without digging the latest one out? for neither probe nor eyesight could prove the presence of any more than one bullet. Did they dig? No; as we shall see. It is the Pathfinder's turn now; he steps out before the ladies, takes aim, and fires.

But, alas! here is a disappointment; an incredible, an unimaginable disappointment-for the target's aspect is unchanged; there is nothing there but that same old bullet-hole!

"'If one dared to hint at such a thing,' cried Major Duncan, 'I
should say that the Pathfinder has also missed the target!'"

As nobody had missed it yet, the "also" was not necessary; but never mind about that, for the Pathfinder is going to speak.

"'No, no, Major,' said he, confidently, 'that would be a risky
declaration. I didn't load the piece, and can't say what was
in it; but if it was lead, you will find the bullet driving
down those of the Quartermaster and Jasper, else is not my name
Pathfinder.'

"A shout from the target announced the truth of this
assertion."

Is the miracle sufficient as it stands? Not for Cooper. The Pathfinder speaks again, as he "now slowly advances towards the stage occupied by the females":

"'That's not all, boys, that's not all; if you find the target
touched at all, I'll own to a miss. The Quartermaster cut the
wood, but you'll find no wood cut by that last messenger."

The miracle is at last complete. He knew-doubtless saw-at the distance of a hundred yards-that his bullet had passed into the hole without fraying the edges. There were now three bullets in that one hole-three bullets embedded processionally in the body of the stump back of the target. Everybody knew this-somehow or other-and yet nobody had dug any of them out to make sure. Cooper is not a close observer, but he is interesting. He is certainly always that, no matter what happens. And he is more interesting when he is not noticing what he is about than when he is. This is a considerable merit.

The conversations in the Cooper books have a curious sound in our modern ears. To believe that such talk really ever came out of people's mouths would be to believe that there was a time when time was of no value to a person who thought he had something to say; when it was the custom to spread a two-minute remark out to ten; when a man's mouth was a rolling-mill, and busied itself all day long in turning four-foot pigs of thought into thirty-foot bars of conversational railroad iron by attenuation; when subjects were seldom faithfully stuck to, but the talk wandered all around and arrived nowhere; when conversations consisted mainly of irrelevancies, with here and there a relevancy, a relevancy with an embarrassed look, as not being able to explain how it got there.

Cooper was certainly not a master in the construction of dialogue. Inaccurate observation defeated him here as it defeated him in so many other enterprises of his. He even failed to notice that the man who talks corrupt English six days in the week must and will talk it on the seventh, and can't help himself. In the Deerslayer story he lets Deerslayer talk the showiest kind of book-talk sometimes, and at other times the basest of base dialects. For instance, when some one asks him if he has a sweetheart, and if so, where she abides, this is his majestic answer:

"'She's in the forest-hanging from the boughs of the trees, in
a soft rain-in the dew on the open grass-the clouds that
float about in the blue heavens-the birds that sing in the
woods-the sweet springs where I slake my thirst-and in all
the other glorious gifts that come from God's Providence!'"

And he preceded that, a little before, with this:

"'It consarns me as all things that touches a fri'nd consarns a
fri'nd.'"

And this is another of his remarks:

"'If I was Injin born, now, I might tell of this, or carry in
the scalp and boast of the expl'ite afore the whole tribe; or
if my inimy had only been a bear'"-and so on.

We cannot imagine such a thing as a veteran Scotch Commander-in-Chief comporting himself in the field like a windy melodramatic actor, but Cooper could. On one occasion Alice and Cora were being chased by the French through a fog in the neighborhood of their father's fort:

"'Point de quartier aux coquins!' cried an eager pursuer, who
seemed to direct the operations of the enemy.

"'Stand firm and be ready, my gallant 60ths!' suddenly
exclaimed a voice above them; wait to see the enemy; fire low,
and sweep the glacis.'

"'Father? father!' exclaimed a piercing cry from out the mist;
'it is I! Alice! thy own Elsie! spare, O! save your daughters!'

"'Hold!' shouted the former speaker, in the awful tones of
parental agony, the sound reaching even to the woods, and
rolling back in solemn echo. ''Tis she! God has restored me my
children! Throw open the sally-port; to the field, 60ths, to
the field! pull not a trigger, lest ye kill my lambs! Drive
off these dogs of France with your steel!'"

Cooper's word-sense was singularly dull. When a person has a poor ear for music he will flat and sharp right along without knowing it. He keeps near the tune, but it is not the tune. When a person has a poor ear for words, the result is a literary flatting and sharping; you perceive what he is intending to say, but you also perceive that he doesn't say it. This is Cooper. He was not a word-musician. His ear was satisfied with the approximate word. I will furnish some circumstantial evidence in support of this charge. My instances are gathered from half a dozen pages of the tale called Deerslayer. He uses "verbal," for "oral"; "precision," for "facility"; "phenomena," for "marvels"; "necessary," for "predetermined"; "unsophisticated," for "primitive"; "preparation," for "expectancy"; "rebuked," for "subdued"; "dependent on," for "resulting from"; "fact," for "condition"; "fact," for "conjecture"; "precaution," for "caution"; "explain," for "determine"; "mortified," for "disappointed"; "meretricious," for "factitious"; "materially," for "considerably"; "decreasing," for "deepening"; "increasing," for "disappearing"; "embedded," for "enclosed"; "treacherous;" for "hostile"; "stood," for "stooped"; "softened," for "replaced"; "rejoined," for "remarked"; "situation," for "condition"; "different," for "differing"; "insensible," for "unsentient"; "brevity," for "celerity"; "distrusted," for "suspicious"; "mental imbecility," for "imbecility"; "eyes," for "sight"; "counteracting," for "opposing"; "funeral obsequies," for "obsequies."

There have been daring people in the world who claimed that Cooper could write English, but they are all dead now-all dead but Lounsbury. I don't remember that Lounsbury makes the claim in so many words, still he makes it, for he says that Deerslayer is a "pure work of art." Pure, in that connection, means faultless-faultless in all details-and language is a detail. If Mr. Lounsbury had only compared Cooper's English with the English which he writes himself-but it is plain that he didn't; and so it is likely that he imagines until this day that Cooper's is as clean and compact as his own. Now I feel sure, deep down in my heart, that Cooper wrote about the poorest English that exists in our language, and that the English of Deerslayer is the very worst that even Cooper ever wrote.

I may be mistaken, but it does seem to me that Deerslayer is not a work of art in any sense; it does seem to me that it is destitute of every detail that goes to the making of a work of art; in truth, it seems to me that Deerslayer is just simply a literary delirium tremens.

A work of art? It has no invention; it has no order, system, sequence, or result; it has no lifelikeness, no thrill, no stir, no seeming of reality; its characters are confusedly drawn, and by their acts and words they prove that they are not the sort of people the author claims that they are; its humor is pathetic; its pathos is funny; its conversations are-oh! indescribable; its love-scenes odious; its English a crime against the language.

Counting these out, what is left is Art. I think we must all admit that.

[TEXT COURTESY PROJECT GUTERNBURG]


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

NOTE: Samuel (Mark Twain) Clemens and James Fennimore Cooper WERE contemporaries, almost.

Cooper died in 1851.

Twain was born in 1835.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

But Craig, doesn't having to go back 115 years to find an example, pretty much prove the opposite of what you're trying to demonstrate?


----------



## MosesSiregarIII (Jul 15, 2010)

It's also one thing for Stephen King (who can get away with it for a number of reasons that I mentioned above) to make a comment about Meyer, but it would be very much another thing if he actually went to her Amazon page for Twilight and wrote a 1-star review with the same comment. Can you imagine seeing one of Twilight's top three reviews, or its 'most helpful critical review' on Amazon being Stephen King saying that Meyer can't write? There's no way he would do that unless he'd lost his mind. He also wouldn't write a picky-sounding 2- or 3-star review on Twilight's Amazon page.


----------



## Guest (Oct 20, 2010)

MosesSiregarIII said:


> It's also one thing for Stephen King (who can get away with it for a number of reasons that I mentioned above) to make a comment about Meyer, but it would be very much another thing if he actually went to her Amazon page for Twilight and wrote a 1-star review with the same comment. Can you imagine seeing one of Twilight's top three reviews, or its 'most helpful critical review' on Amazon being Stephen King saying that Meyer can't write? There's no way he would do that unless he'd lost his mind. He also wouldn't write a picky-sounding 2- or 3-star review on Twilight's Amazon page.


I think part of the issue here is that we are for some reason limiting the discussion to posting Amazon reviews. The literary world is much bigger than Amazon, and traditionally published authors_ do write reviews and criticisms of their peers_. They just don't post them on Amazon. They post them in literary journals, scholarly periodicals, etc. They lecture on each others work and offer criticism, good and bad. Attend a symposium on a specific topic or genre and you can guarantee you will find published authors discussing each others work. I've sat in on workshops where authors have torn into other authors (sometimes, with the author IN THE ROOM!). In academia, if you aren't reviewing your peers, you aren't thinking as far as a lot of people are concerned. The Stephen Kings of the world are few and far between. Look at the bulk of published authors, however, and you will find a lot of peer review both good and bad. It just isn't posted on Amazon with a little star rating next to it.


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> NOTE: Samuel (Mark Twain) Clemens and James Fennimore Cooper WERE contemporaries, almost.
> 
> Cooper died in 1851.
> 
> Twain was born in 1835.


PS: Cooper started writing after reading Jane Austen and declared that she couldn't write and he could do better.  Some things never change and every generation of authors continue to feed new Pharisees.

Edward C. Patterson


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Actually, I find Twain's essay to be quite a timeless work of literary criticism of the highest order. If the simple passage of time made something irrelevant simply by its passage, what is the cutoff point? Twain's essay was used in high school English when I went to high school in the early 1980s. What's the statute of limitations for truthful observations to be relavent?

I'm not suggesting a particular agenda, here. I don't do the sort of literary criticism Twain does; read my other posts, or my reviews, for an idea of that.

I just love the essay. It's food for a writer's soul. Everything Twain wrote in this essay is relevant to good writing today.

If the simple passage of time made such things irrelevant, I suppose we should toss out the U. S. Constitution and just about every world religion's holy books, as they were all written well before Twain's essay, LOL! 

And then all we'd be left with... depending on your statute of limitiations on literary relevancy... is... DIANETICS, by L. Ron Hubbard! But not for long... Hee hee...


----------



## MosesSiregarIII (Jul 15, 2010)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> I think part of the issue here is that we are for some reason limiting the discussion to posting Amazon reviews. The literary world is much bigger than Amazon, and traditionally published authors_ do write reviews and criticisms of their peers_. They just don't post them on Amazon. They post them in literary journals, scholarly periodicals, etc. They lecture on each others work and offer criticism, good and bad. Attend a symposium on a specific topic or genre and you can guarantee you will find published authors discussing each others work. I've sat in on workshops where authors have torn into other authors (sometimes, with the author IN THE ROOM!). In academia, if you aren't reviewing your peers, you aren't thinking as far as a lot of people are concerned. The Stephen Kings of the world are few and far between. Look at the bulk of published authors, however, and you will find a lot of peer review both good and bad. It just isn't posted on Amazon with a little star rating next to it.


Good points, because there is a difference between writing a professional critique or critical essay in a professional journal versus writing a reader review on Amazon.

Take Michael Moorcock, for example. He wrote a famous (infamous?) essay called _Epic Pooh_ that likened Tolkien's work to Winnie the Pooh. He also criticized Heinlein and Lovecraft on political grounds in another essay. But if he'd written critical comments like these on their Amazon pages (if Amazon existed at the time), it would be considered a very unprofessional move. As it is, he has a rep for being critical anyway, but making those comments on Amazon would cross over a very big line. It would hurt _him_ to do that.

Workshops are also a different thing, but even there I'd want to be careful about not being too negative because you could still develop a poor reputation around your peers. That mainly comes down to _how_ you say things. The same words can sound kind or unkind depending on the tone in the person's voice and what else a person says around the critique.

It's also generally more acceptable to critique successful works like a Tolkien or Heinlein. And someone as established as Moorcock also has more authority to speak from. With success comes criticism, but criticism can look more mean or petty when it's about a relatively unknown writer--this is something to be careful about. And even if you critique a very successful book, you still have to be careful not to come across as arrogant (unless arrogance is part of your 'brand'). I am not saying this to anyone here. It's a general observation.


----------



## CIBond (Aug 28, 2010)

MosesSiregarIII said:


> Your perception of their work is as valid as anyone else's, but there are plenty of other people who will probably say what you had to say if the book finds a decent-sized audience. As a writer, you put your own reputation on the line, and there is a possibility of angering other writers or coming across as petty, jealous, or arrogant. I think it's a high-risk bet with little potential payoff.
> 
> This is JMO. I'm just arguing for what I think is a smart policy. Your mileage may vary, and I'm not saying that my philosophy is right for everyone else. We're all learning.


I don't see an honest, well thought out critique as negative. It takes me hours making notes, mulling something over. What I actually put in the review is a subset of my notes. I actually see it as a service to the writer I just read (arrogant, yup). They may, of course wish not to receive the service but that's what happens when you publish. I love to talk about the craft of writing, its how people grow. What about Tracy's comment that she found negative feedback very useful? I understand the idea of sending it privately but doesn't that reinforce the idea that Indies aren't honest about each other's work. That we sneak around and cover each other's backs? I think in doing this we discredit the entire industry in a CYA move but that's just my personal thought. I understand entirely that you would want to protect your brand.

Negative comments are illiterate comments. If I submitted a "THIS BOOK SUX" comment no one would be worried because I would have just discredited myself, my opinion would be worthless. The reason there might be a negative reaction to my review of Asylum is because my comments are focused, trained, and well thought out observations. The review speaks for itself. The reviewer might be thought of as arrogant but the main question is - does it have value to the author and to the community as a whole? I think it does.

Would King be sued for leaving a little 1-star rating for Twilight? In this case it's a PR play and I don't think Myers would respond because that would make her look bad. If she just ignores it Stephen King looks like a bully, unless he is known for leaving reviews of everything he reads on Amazon and then it's just one more review. I review every Indy I read so&#8230; it would be just one more review.


----------



## MosesSiregarIII (Jul 15, 2010)

T.L. Haddix said:


> I've reviewed books by certain authors who are in my genre, namely Nora Roberts and Linda Howard, in less-than-flattering lights. Okay, I panned them. They each produced books in the last year or so that just were horrible. Now, I'm looking at those reviews, even though they are honest, going "maybe I shouldn't have done that" since it could come back to bite me down the road. I still have the opinion, but if I want to consider myself a 'real' writer, then in a loose sense, NR and LH are my colleagues. We all write romantic suspense, and we all sell goods in the same stores. From that perspective, I should delete those reviews. However, I didn't leave those reviews as an author, but as a reader.
> 
> This brings up another red button question - should we separate ourselves out into two identities? I have the Amazon ID that my husband and I have used practically since the inception of Amazon. It's our personal account. When I 'became' T.L. Haddix, I created a T. L. Haddix identity for Amazon, just to keep the line separate. It was under the T.L. ID that I did the reviews of NR and LH, and I consciously made that decision. I personally don't think reviewing under one name and writing under another is a good solution. There is too much opportunity for deception.


JMO, but I agree that it's a deceptive thing to write critical reviews under a separate account. That's also the main thing that got Rob Neyer in a lot of trouble (as I mentioned in a previous post to this thread).

My opinion is that unless it's a part of your 'brand' to pan other writers in your field (and that's risky business), then it's a high-risk, low-upside move to write critical Amazon reviews of your colleagues. And if you want to be a writer-critic and post critical essays or critiques in other venues, then I think you need to make sure you are absolutely on top of your game and that you do it impeccably well. In that case, it also helps if you have solid credentials as a writer and critic.

Another factor is karma, if you believe in it. I absolutely do, and because I do I'll say that if you write reviews panning other writers, then you should expect to get the same in return, perhaps even three-fold in return. However, maybe you don't mind that. Maybe you don't care about getting difficult or scathing reviews. In that case, then no big deal. But I think you should always expect that what comes around goes around. If you dish it out, make sure you can take it.


----------



## CIBond (Aug 28, 2010)

An informal poll if you will on the results of honest writer feedback:

Has anyone following this thread considered or bought Asylum based on my honest critique?  Has it made you curious enough to look at the book when you might otherwise have not?  Just curious.

Thanks.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> Actually, I find Twain's essay to be quite a timeless work of literary criticism of the highest order. If the simple passage of time made something irrelevant simply by its passage, what is the cutoff point? Twain's essay was used in high school English when I went to high school in the early 1980s. What's the statute of limitations for truthful observations to be relavent?
> 
> I'm not suggesting a particular agenda, here. I don't do the sort of literary criticism Twain does; read my other posts, or my reviews, for an idea of that.
> 
> ...


You're misunderstanding my point.

I'm not saying that Twain's words are irrelevant. I'm saying that if you have to go back 115 years to find an example of a successful author publicly criticizing another author, all you're proving is that it's a rare occurrence.


----------



## Guest (Oct 20, 2010)

MosesSiregarIII said:


> My opinion is that unless it's a part of your 'brand' to pan other writers in your field (and that's risky business), then it's a high-risk, low-upside move to write critical Amazon reviews of your colleagues. And if you want to be a writer-critic and post critical essays or critiques in other venues, then I think you need to make sure you are absolutely on top of your game and that you do it impeccably well. In that case, it also helps if you have solid credentials as a writer and critic.


Two points: First, I'm probably one of the most critical folks here (I know, I know...shocking). But I don't feel I pan WRITERS. I critique and review books. There is a difference between writing "There is a lack of character development in the story" and "This writer sucks." Second, critiquing books makes me a BETTER writer, because it makes me read critically and think through what does and does not work. It doesn't mean you have to be perfect. Reading critically and being able to articulate a valid criticism are both important to writer growth. For me, writing reviews forces me to think about WHY I do or don't like a book, and by thinking about those things I can apply it to my own writing.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

CIBond said:


> Would King be sued for leaving a little 1-star rating for Twilight? In this case it's a PR play and I don't think Myers would respond because that would make her look bad. If she just ignores it Stephen King looks like a bully, unless he is known for leaving reviews of everything he reads on Amazon and then it's just one more review. I review every Indy I read so&#8230; it would be just one more review.


In all liklihood, if a "Stephen King" left a review on ANYTHING on Amazon, 98 percent of people would dismiss it as not being from THAT Stephen King, anyway...


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

swolf said:


> You're misunderstanding my point.
> 
> I'm not saying that Twain's words are irrelevant. I'm saying that if you have to go back 115 years to find an example of a successful author publicly criticizing another author, all you're proving is that it's a rare occurrence.


And you're misunderstand my purpose. That's not what I was trying to do. I was simply sharing an excellent example of literary criticsm. I love Twain's essay on Cooper. There is no larger point to sharing it than that. I mentioned they were almost contemporaries merely as a point of interest.

Nuff said?


----------



## CIBond (Aug 28, 2010)

MosesSiregarIII said:


> But if he'd written critical comments like these on their Amazon pages (if Amazon existed at the time), it would be considered a very unprofessional move. As it is, he has a rep for being critical anyway, but making those comments on Amazon would cross over a very big line. It would hurt _him_ to do that.


Can someone explain why Amazon so special? It's our stomping ground. I don't guest lecture nor am I invited to host workshops or publish regularly in a literary journal. Amazon holds pages of reviews by everyone, comments on said reviews, links to the people who made the reviews&#8230; it is basically a social media page. It would seem like the appropriate place to leave a review of another Indy writer's work given my level of accomplishment in the literary world. It's my workshop, if you will. I don't think leaving a review there is unprofessional that's the whole point of the page. It's the level of my professional accomplishment at this point which is to say&#8230; none at all and it is obviously why I am leaving my review there. In some ways nothing says less about the value of my review than the fact that it is stuck into a little box with some ridiculous stars over it.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Perhaps a good middle ground to strike is that we must each make our own decisions on reviewing the work of others?

That there is no one right answer for every single one of us?

I think it's reasonable to say that, whatever choice we make individually, it will affect how we're branding ourselves as writers... but each of us might brand ourselves a bit differently, and so long as we make our decisions knowing that, there ought not be too many surprises awaiting us.

Food for thought.


----------



## MosesSiregarIII (Jul 15, 2010)

CIBond said:


> I don't see an honest, well thought out critique as negative. It takes me hours making notes, mulling something over. What I actually put in the review is a subset of my notes. I actually see it as a service to the writer I just read (arrogant, yup). They may, of course wish not to receive the service but that's what happens when you publish. I love to talk about the craft of writing, its how people grow. What about Tracy's comment that she found negative feedback very useful? I understand the idea of sending it privately but doesn't that reinforce the idea that Indies aren't honest about each other's work. That we sneak around and cover each other's backs? I think in doing this we discredit the entire industry in a CYA move but that's just my personal thought. I understand entirely that you would want to protect your brand.


Whether or not the author will take the criticism negatively is something we can't know. Tracy found the negative feedback useful, but not everyone is as mature as Tracy. I think you take a risk when something you write might anger another author, because you don't know how they're going to react. And you also risk coming across in a negative light. It all comes down to how well you do it, though.

For me, let's say I want to write a 4-star review of another author's work (I won't do 3-stars or fewer, and I'm also relatively picky about which books I like). I'll probably lead in with something positive, then carefully mention an area or two that I thought could've been better, and then finish with something positive. The positive comments would have to greatly outweigh the problems, both in my mind and in the written review, otherwise I wouldn't write the review. That's just me, though. Everyone is different.

If I want to share a critique with detailed craft notes with an author, I'll probably email them directly. And in that case, it probably needs to be someone that I already have some kind of friendly relationship with and I'd want to ask them if they're interested before I write my comments up.

Personally, I want to cover my colleagues' backs without ever saying anything less than 100% honest about them. I don't want to make enemies, because there's just about no value in doing so. For the most part, I'd rather let the critics and readers be the critics. Maybe some day if I'm lucky enough to be a successful author that some people respect, then maybe I'll write some critical essays on issues that impact my field. In the meantime, I'd rather just focus on goals for my own writing and only speak well of other writers.

A wise, old friend of mine tried to explain to me once when I was younger that as a rule people don't handle criticism well. As writers, we need to welcome constructive feedback from readers and editors, but I try to remember that people don't like to be criticized.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> And you're misunderstand my purpose. That's not what I was trying to do. I was simply sharing an excellent example of literary criticsm. I love Twain's essay on Cooper. There is no larger point to sharing it than that. I mentioned they were almost contemporaries merely as a point of interest.
> 
> Nuff said?


I would think that if someone provided an example of one author criticizing another, right in the middle of a discussion about whether it's appropriate for one author to criticize another, it would be logical to assume that person was attempting to support the argument that it is appropriate.

Unless, of course, any additional comments from the poster explained that wasn't the point they were trying to make.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

swolf said:


> I would think that if someone provided an example of one author criticizing another, right in the middle of a discussion about whether it's appropriate for one author to criticize another, it would be logical to assume that person was attempting to support the argument that it is appropriate.
> 
> Unless, of course, any additional comments from the poster explained that wasn't the point they were trying to make.


And I've made those additional comments clarifying my intent. More than once. Lighten up!  My own review practices are on the "I don't do heavily negative reviews" side of the fence. We basically agree!


----------



## Travis haselton (Jul 24, 2010)

personaly since I am writing a series of short stories. My specific reason in releasing short stories individually is so I can get feedback on them. This way when the series is complete and I release them all as one big book I can make changes and make the storiesmore entertaining for the reader. And like it has been said, If one plans on being an author they should get ready for some critisism. Alot of times people who like a book won't leave a review but if they are completely dissapointed they will likely leave one.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

I wish this thread into the cornfield.


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Two points: First, I'm probably one of the most critical folks here (I know, I know...shocking).


But you didn't run for the Queen of Mean like I did (and Betsy). Of course, neither of us won - drat that Scarlet.

Miss Chatty


----------



## 13893 (Apr 29, 2010)




----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

LKRigel said:


>


Hey. that's MY wand. 

Edward C. Patterson


----------



## DavidRM (Sep 21, 2010)

Monique said:


> I wish this thread into the cornfield.


As the thread's progenitor...I'm rather curious to see how much further it goes on... 

But, yeah, it's probably jumped the shark already.

-David


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

If a writer announced he or she wanted to review some of your books, how many of you would decline?


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

DavidRM said:


> As the thread's progenitor...I'm rather curious to see how much further it goes on...
> 
> But, yeah, it's probably jumped the shark already.
> 
> -David


"OK, Fonzie, you do what you want. But if you get your legs bitten off by a shark, DON'T COME RUNNING TO ME!"


----------



## Guest (Oct 22, 2010)

DavidRM said:


> But when I don't like the book...I'm torn. Especially if the author is a KB regular, but even if they're not, I don't really think it's my job to rain on their parade. They wrote a book. I didn't like it. Seems simple. Maybe I should even take the opportunity to practice useful critiquing or something. Except...I'm not sure I should do even that, at least not publicly.
> 
> If I wasn't also an author, a part of the community so to speak, I wouldn't care. I'd tender my 1-star opinion and that would be that. I do it to movies all the time (though not in a public forum like a blog). I sometimes do it *during* movies. I paid my $10, I get to mock the guy on the screen and/or the writer who fed him stupid lines. Also, I don't *know* any of the people involved. They're total strangers, and unlikely to be anything else.
> 
> ...


Yes, but you are part of the community.

I don't write bad review - and I don't have others write bad reviews for me. I've noticed this happening.

Think of the Hollywood community. Do you see stars ratting each other out? No, because there's a code - Morse, I believe.

No, not Morse, but the name is not the point. The point is you're an author, while you do have a right to comment, I don't think you should. Communicate with them in private and not at all. That's up to you, but I really wouldn't put negative thoughts down about someone that you really are competing against.


----------



## Paul Clayton (Sep 12, 2009)

SuzanneTyrpak said:


> This is how I feel. I'm a writer, not a critic. Also, chances are if I don't like a book I'm not going to read much of it. I'd rather leave no review at all than give someone a one or two star review. And if I know the writer I might contact them privately. If someone asks me for my opinion, however, I will be extremely honest--and, hopefully, offer constructive criticism.


Let me pile on to say that I agree with both of these writers. If I think it's bad, if I don't like it at all, I won't review it. If it really is bad, I might email the writer with some suggestions. If I don't like it, as a matter of taste, I just won't review it. I don't like these 'hit and run' one or two star reviews that some folks leave all over Amazon. I've gotten a couple and console myself with the knowledge that many 'heavy hitter' writers get these also. But, when you have hundreds of thousands of readers you can sustain the hit. However, if you're just starting out, it could really stifle your career, in my opinion. Anyway, if somebody makes me spaghetti and I don't like the sauce, well, I just smile, wipe my lips and say to myself, maybe desert will be better. It's taste, after all, and everyone's taste is different.

I don't believe in throwing sand in the sandbox.

Best!


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

WPotocki,
So, a non-fiction author (for instance) can't review horror, or sci-fi, or any other genre, because they're in competition with that person? How?


----------



## Guest (Oct 22, 2010)

MichelleR said:


> WPotocki,
> So, a non-fiction author (for instance) can't review horror, or sci-fi, or any other genre, because they're in competition with that person? How?


MichelleR -

I suppose it's a concept. Trying to explain a concept is difficult, but here goes ...

Writing is a community ... a family. Once you become part of that family, you don't spit on a family member's shoes. Yes, you can do it, but you shouldn't.

Let me veer out of the arena of writing for an analogy. I see a girl that's entered the Miss America Pageant. I say, "Man, what a heifer! Talk about thunder thighs!" Okay, not nice, but I'm a viewer and she did put herself into the competition to be judged. Now let's go further and say I actually entered the competition. Do you really believe my making the remark under those circumstances is the same thing? It wouldn't be and I'd better keep my mouth shut about other contestants. And, I know, your contention is that you're not in direct competition because of genres, but a contestant that bad mouths the camera people, the judges and the lighting director is going to find she's not very welcome in that community anymore.

Personally, when in Rome ... By this I mean, if I'm having trouble figuring out what fork or eating utensil to use while eating dinner, I look to the etiquette expert to go first and then follow what she does. Therefore, my favorite horror writer in the world is Stephen King. Love him. So you show me one review of his where he makes fun of - and trashes - the author of a children's book? (Worst drivel I've ever read! And the illustrations! The watercolors are pasty and the children look like redundant camels or bloated cows!) Or slams a romance novelist? Or calls a comedic writer unfunny? He doesn't. Neither does J.K. Rowling or Joyce Carol Oates or ...

Those people could crush underfoot many novelists and wipe out careers with a single blow, but they don't. Instead they only offer the occasional helping hand to get someone up the ladder (especially Stephen King - most generous) Why? Because they get it ... and that's why they are where they are.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

WPotocki said:


> Instead they only offer the occasional helping hand to get someone up the ladder (especially Stephen King - most generous) Why? Because they get it ... and that's why they are where they are.


Generally true of Mr. King... unless you're Stephanie Meyer.

Never mind that I generally agree that Ms. Meyer's no Jo Rowling... but wow, that was atypically viscious of Steve!


----------



## Guest (Oct 22, 2010)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> Generally true of Mr. King... unless you're Stephanie Meyer.
> 
> Never mind that I generally agree that Ms. Meyer's no Jo Rowling... but wow, that was atypically viscious of Steve!


Yeah, well, I'm sure there was something behind it.

When someone acts atypically ...

and bad cases make bad law.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

WPotocki said:


> MichelleR -
> 
> I suppose it's a concept. Trying to explain a concept is difficult, but here goes ...
> 
> ...


1. When I married my husband, I didn't denounce my birth family. You can be a part of more than one "family," I'm almost sure of it. You can be both a reader and a writer and being a writer doesn't mean that readers become sheep for the fleecing or you must have some sort of honor among thieves/omerta mentality.

2. Ever read Danse Macabre? I wrote about Ira Levin and Anne Rivers Siddons in rather mixes bag terms. King has never shied away from discussing other authors. As mentioned, he very publicly talked about Stephenie Meyer. I agree King is a good guy, but to say he doesn't comment on other authors seems like selective reading. But, okay:



> Mystery-suspense writer Michael Connelly is cool. So is George Pelecanos. Elmore Leonard, the true Daddy Cool of American letters, is chillier than your freezer's ice-cube dispenser. Robert Parker used to be cool but isn't anymore. Ditto Patricia Cornwell. James Patterson never was, never will be.
> 
> Gotta say it: Nora Roberts is cool. I don't make the news, honey, I just report it.


He also comments on movies and music all the time -- those things don't appear from the ether. If you're point is that no writer should judge another writer:



> I watched Titanic when I got back home from the hospital, and cried. I knew that my IQ had been damaged.


3. No, two people in _the exact same pageant_ shouldn't trash one another publicly. That still doesn't tell me why the guy who writes spy thrillers can't express an opinion on the latest biography of an opera singer.

4. A critical review is not the same as trashing someone.


----------



## J Dean (Feb 9, 2009)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> "OK, Fonzie, you do what you want. But if you get your legs bitten off by a shark, DON'T COME RUNNING TO ME!"


Alright... that's funny.... VERY funny... 

(Whatever happened to Chuck?)


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> Generally true of Mr. King... unless you're Stephanie Meyer.
> 
> Never mind that I generally agree that Ms. Meyer's no Jo Rowling... but wow, that was atypically viscious of Steve!


I'm thinking he just -- rightly or wrongly -- thought his position would be taken as non-controversial to anyone over 16.


----------



## Guest (Oct 22, 2010)

Considering King writes about journalistic pop culture stuff for Entertainment Weekly, it's possible he fully intended to voice an opinion of his that would be controversial. It's not like Stephanie Meyer is an up and comer. She had already become a sensation when he said that. It's one thing to stomp on someone below you, but she's big enough where she's open to everything people have to say. 

I've read his comments in their entirety before, and I think he makes an intelligible argument about Meyer's style. Whether or not you agree with it is something else, and of course their are her fans who would bat off any criticism.


----------



## terryr (Apr 24, 2010)

traceya said:


> I know so many readers who won't even look at a book without reviews, good and bad. I've never really been much of a reviewer simply because, like Craig, I only review books that really moved or really impressed me. Then a friend told me a story about buying a book that had a majority of 4 and 5 star reviews and when she read it she was bitterly disappointed because the book was very heavily religious and preachy - she's an atheist so no matter how well written the book was for her it was a total turn off. If only someone had mentioned that in a review she could've saved a few bucks and bought something she'd really enjoy.
> 
> Reviews are important, just because we're writers doesn't make our opinions less valid and if you can't even finish a book maybe it's important to tell another potential reader that fact and why you couldn't finish it. My 2 star review from Harry DeWulf pointed out some great things about my writing ability but also pointed out that he couldn't get into the story enough to even finish the book. Did it sting? Sure, a little but I learned something - gotta have a great beginning and keep the pace going through to the end.
> 
> ...


Your two cents are worth gold to me.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

Oh, I think he wanted the discussion and some attention, and knew a few people would disagree, but I also think he thought he was was stating something that seemed pretty evident to most over a certain age. I don't think he knew how many actual melt-downs would occur. I spent an evening watching people sob on YouTube over it, all of them claiming he's just jealous of her greater success.


----------



## MosesSiregarIII (Jul 15, 2010)

WPotocki said:


> Those people could crush underfoot many novelists and wipe out careers with a single blow, but they don't. Instead they only offer the occasional helping hand to get someone up the ladder (especially Stephen King - most generous) Why? Because they get it ... and that's why they are where they are.


That's another good point about why King was able to make a comment (not a review, but a comment) about Meyer. Meyer is no beginner. You're right that he wouldn't talk trash about a new writer, unless he had a very good and unusual reason to do so.

Someone could say, "Yeah, but we're not Stephen King either." No, but Amazon reviews affect sales. I don't want to be the person causing a fellow writer's sales to drop (I'm a writer, not a reviewer or critic); that's got bad karma written all over it--or, if you prefer more basic language, it's got "ticking people off" written all over it.

And even a pan from King would likely sell gobs and gobs and books. As for our fellow writers, why not let readers and critics write the tough (or even picky) reviews? Detailed comments about craft can be emailed. People often use "helping" as a justification for attacking or criticizing, and I say be careful and 'check yourself' whenever you find yourself using that rationale. At the very least, be very careful when reviewing a fellow writer's work.


----------



## Guest (Oct 22, 2010)

MichelleR said:


> 1. When I married my husband, I didn't denounce my birth family. You can be a part of more than one "family," I'm almost sure of it. You can be both a reader and a writer


You can? Really?

I went to your bio and don't see any titles listed.

What are the names of the books you've written? What genre do you write?

I'd like to check them out.

Thanks.


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

MichelleR said:


> WPotocki,
> So, a non-fiction author (for instance) can't review horror, or sci-fi, or any other genre, because they're in competition with that person? How?


slightly different...but I hate when I see a review that is low because the person generally does not like that genre of literature. Don't give a low review to a sci-fi book because sci-fi is "not your thing"

This, of course, seems obvious......but


----------



## Guest (Oct 22, 2010)

MichelleR said:


> Oh, I think he wanted the discussion and some attention, and knew a few people would disagree, but I also think he thought he was was stating something that seemed pretty evident to most over a certain age. I don't think he knew how many actual melt-downs would occur. I spent an evening watching people sob on YouTube over it, all of them claiming he's just jealous of her greater success.


Haha, definitely true. But how could an author have greater success than Stephanie Meyer if they're not being discussed at cheerleading practice?


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

WPotocki said:


> You can? Really?
> 
> I went to your bio and don't see any titles listed.
> 
> ...


I think we're agreed that we'll never read each other's efforts. I write under pen names, I write hardcore, and I've never shared the details here. When I write something more mainstream, I'll be just as promote-y as anyone else. If I'd never written a single word though, it wouldn't change the fact that people can be both readers and writers.


----------



## Guest (Oct 22, 2010)

MichelleR said:


> I think we're agreed that we'll never read each other's efforts. I write under pen names, I write hardcore, and I've never shared the details here. When I write something more mainstream, I'll be just as promote-y as anyone else. If I'd never written a single word though, it wouldn't change the fact that people can be both readers and writers.


What?

So you write here anonymously so your comments won't be connected to the fact you write and reflect on you as a writer?

Hmmmm .... seems you're going against the agenda you're trying to advance and are more in line with my assertion.

If you see the need to invent a personnae to give critical reviews and separate it from your writing life, then I have to take whatever you say with more than a pinch of salt.

Thanks for clarifying.

And again, you really have to stop making assumptions about people you don't know. I read many, many books on a variety of subjects. As for hardcore, I've been accused many times of writing porno. It's not porno. Not because I'm adverse to writing porno or defense - it's because porno makes money. It's the one thing that always sells - no matter what the economy!  That's how I can tell the difference.

You can PM if you wish. I really would be interested in your works. No joke. And I won't spill the beans. It's another badge of honor I wear as a member of the writing community albeit a piss poor member.

What's the Billy Joel song, "Don't go changing ..." so you don't have to write something mainstream for me to like what you do. I'll love you just the way you are!


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Nice!  Two women discussing porn.  I usually have to pay $3.99 a minute for something like this.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

MichelleR said:


> If I'd never written a single word though, it wouldn't change the fact that people can be both readers and writers.


Yes, they can.  Not everyone's a writer... but everyone (who's literate, at least, I guess) is a reader. And that' includes writers.


----------



## Guest (Oct 22, 2010)

swolf said:


> Nice! Two women discussing porn. I usually have to pay $3.99 a minute for something like this.


You still will!

I accept PayPal.

Hurry up because we're about to change into thongs and get in the mud pit!


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

WPotocki said:


> What?
> 
> So you write here anonymously so your comments won't be connected to the fact you write and reflect on you as a writer?
> 
> ...


What are you talking about? My name is Michelle, my last name starts with the letter "R." I talk about the small town where I live all the time. How is this anonymous? How is that creating a personae? Also, every single pen name predates all but perhaps 2 reviews -- which I again do under my real name.

I have no interest in separating my reviewing from my writing, but I do have an interest in my grandmother not finding out I write smut. 

I have no idea what agenda you feel I'm advancing other than saying I like to read, write, and review.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

WPotocki said:


> You still will!
> 
> I accept PayPal.


She's all yours, swolf.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

MichelleR said:


> I have no interest in separating my reviewing from my writing, but I do have an interest in my grandmother not finding out I write smut.


 So you write smut. So long as it's good, well-written smut... more power to ya!

(Sure, it's not my genre... but then, my genres are the right fit for some folks, either... but we're all writers here.)

But 60,000 words of smut is still 60,000 words and they don't write themselves... right?


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> So you write smut. So long as it's good, well-written smut... more power to ya!
> 
> (Sure, it's not my genre... but then, my genres are the right fit for some folks, either... but we're all writers here.)


I have no personal sense of shame over it, just respect for my elders and no need to be whispered about in the grocery store.

I used to hand copies to trusted friends over cubicle walls at work. I think a lot of people around here know I write erotica, just not specifics.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

MichelleR said:


> I have no personal sense of shame over it, just respect for my elders and no need to be whispered about in the grocery store.
> 
> I used to hand copies to trusted friends over cubicle walls at work. I think a lot of people around here know I write erotica, just not specifics.


Good to hear. Like I said, 60,000 words of work is 60,000 words of work.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

WPotocki said:


> You still will!
> 
> I accept PayPal.
> 
> Hurry up because we're about to change into thongs and get in the mud pit!


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

MichelleR said:


> What are you talking about? My name is Michelle, my last name starts with the letter "R." I talk about the small town where I live all the time. How is this anonymous? How is that creating a personae? Also, every single pen name predates all but perhaps 2 reviews -- which I again do under my real name.
> 
> I have no interest in separating my reviewing from my writing, but I do have an interest in my grandmother not finding out I write smut.


I'm kinda in the same boat. I use my first initial so google searches on my name don't bring up my writing.

And my Grandma is dead, so she's in heaven reading my books.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

swolf said:


> And my Grandma is dead, so she's in heaven reading my books.


And promoting them to all her friends. 

I will admit it was tough to tell my dying mother that I'm a published writer, but not being able so show her any of it.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

MichelleR said:


> I will admit it was tough to tell my dying mother that I'm a published writer, but not being able so show her any of it.


Lost my mom a couple years ago. My sympathies.


----------



## flanneryohello (May 11, 2010)

MichelleR said:


> And promoting them to all her friends.
> 
> I will admit it was tough to tell my dying mother that I'm a published writer, but not being able so show her any of it.


Let me interject to say that I can sympathize (not with the dying mother part--my condolences--but with the disappointment of not wanting the people who are most important to you reading your work). When I was first published, I really hesitated before telling my parents. The book was a romance (not erotica), but it included several graphic sex scenes. In the end I did tell my parents because I knew they'd be proud of me (and they are), and I even gave them a copy of the book. Then asked them never to read it. Then followed up that statement by saying that if they ever did, they were forbidden to tell me about it.

Since then I've had three more books published--and have given my parents a copy of each, with the same warning. One of them was an erotic romance, chock full of sex. One was an unconventional story with graphic sex aplenty. The most recent was another romance, but without nearly the number of sex scenes, and much more angst. But still, I ask my parents not to read my work.

Unfortunately, they think all my books are pure "porn" at this point, which is definitely not the case. The fact that I have a number of erotic short stories published as well probably doesn't help dispel the notion that all I write about is sex. But only one of my books is technically classified as erotica. And I hate that my parents make comments about my "porn" and ask when I'm going to write something "mainstream".

*sigh*

At the end of the day, I'm passionate about what I write (heh), and it certainly does sell well. But I do write under a pseudonym, and I do hesitate to tell relative strangers that I'm an author because they will inevitably ask what types of books I write.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> Lost my mom a couple years ago. My sympathies.


Thank you. My sympathies to you as well. It's been about a year and a half now and I'm not sure if that was clear in my post. I can't even begin to express how it's still always with me though. It's a lot better than it was, but still tender to the touch.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

MichelleR said:


> Thank you. My sympathies to you as well. It's been about a year and a half now and I'm not sure if that was clear in my post. I can't even begin to express how it's still always with me though. It's a lot better than it was, but still tender to the touch.


I'm only six months further down the line that you, but you never really get over missing someone like a Mom when they are gone. You move on, you learn that it's OK to miss them and be sad for a moment now and again, but it's never "all better."

I have to admit I've been blessed. I was 42 before I lost Mom. And Dad's still with us. (Lives with my wife and I the past two years.)


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

flanneryohello said:


> Let me interject to say that I can sympathize (not with the dying mother part--my condolences--but with the disappointment of not wanting the people who are most important to you reading your work). When I was first published, I really hesitated before telling my parents. The book was a romance (not erotica), but it included several graphic sex scenes. In the end I did tell my parents because I knew they'd be proud of me (and they are), and I even gave them a copy of the book. Then asked them never to read it. Then followed up that statement by saying that if they ever did, they were forbidden to tell me about it.
> 
> Since then I've had three more books published--and have given my parents a copy of each, with the same warning. One of them was an erotic romance, chock full of sex. One was an unconventional story with graphic sex aplenty. The most recent was another romance, but without nearly the number of sex scenes, and much more angst. But still, I ask my parents not to read my work.
> 
> ...


I know. It's tricky. I was thinking if I actually got pubbed by Ellora's Cave or Samhain, which is erotic romance but pretty mainstream, that I'd go public. Now I think I've been brainwashed by this place and will self-pub, just figuring out what I want to write.

My grandmother knows enough to tease me about writing "dirty stuff," but I will never give her specifics. Of course, it was just a pain to get her to understand that I'm not available during the day because she doesn't consider writing to be real unless you're a big name. Granted, I am sitting here and doing this instead of writing. When she told me at dinner a couple years ago that writing is a hobby, I swear my husband had to force himself not to take cover under the table. Instead, I just cried.



CraigInTwinCities said:


> I'm only six months further down the line that you, but you never really get over missing someone like a Mom when they are gone. You move on, you learn that it's OK to miss them and be sad for a moment now and again, but it's never "all better."
> 
> I have to admit I've been blessed. I was 42 before I lost Mom. And Dad's still with us. (Lives with my wife and I the past two years.)


I was 40. Never met my dad. Starting to sound like Little Orphan Annie.


----------



## Steven L. Hawk (Jul 10, 2010)

Just when I thought this thread was all wrung out... Wpotocki, swolf and MichelleR, you've all gained another fan. Thanks for a great read over the last couple of pages. Woot! 

swolf, I may need to insert this quote into my sig block:



swolf said:


> Nice! Two women discussing porn. I usually have to pay $3.99 a minute for something like this.


----------



## Guest (Oct 23, 2010)

I do not consider every human being that picks up a pen a member of my peer group.  I don't owe anyone anything just because they decided one day to sit down and type a story.  MY peers are those writers that want to improve their craft and work at it.  Not every Joe Schmo who thinks he is gonna get rich uploading an unedited file to Amazon is worthy to be in the community.  

And really, this all-inclusive, hugs-n-kisses nonsense is killing this country.  We have kids that can't friggin figure out how to make change when the register breaks down because they were allowed to use the "new math" where everything is an approximation.  There are schools now where the Honor Roll includes kids with a 2.5 gpa because they don't want people to feel left out.  Excellence in literature means nothing when everybody gets a five star review to boost their egos.  This isn't someone's mom's refridgerator where we use a magnet to hang every ugly fingerpaint the five year old does.  It's a business.  We are selling products to the public.  And the public expects us to have standards.

That doesn't mean we have to personally attack each other.  It doesn't mean we need to be malicious in our criticism.  It doesn't mean we have to resort to name calling or public ridicule.  But it does mean we need to really stop equating the work criticism with mean.  Writing a review that says "this book is poorly formatted and hard to read" or "this book is riddled with typos and bad grammar" is not an attack.  It may merely be a statement of fact.  

If a person does not want to write reviews, don't write reviews.  If a person is not confident he or she can adequately write a review that will be constructive, they don't need to write it.  If you just don't want to put the work in writing reviews because you would rather do something else, that ain't a problem.  But don't claim that NOBODY should ever write a review of another writer simply because writers are all "family."  WE AREN'T.  And even if we were, I can no more let my "family" sell damaged goods to the public than I would let them sell damaged goods in a restaurant or clothing store.


----------



## Guest (Oct 23, 2010)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> If a person does not want to write reviews, don't write reviews. If a person is not confident he or she can adequately write a review that will be constructive, they don't need to write it. If you just don't want to put the work in writing reviews because you would rather do something else, that ain't a problem. But don't claim that NOBODY should ever write a review of another writer simply because writers are all "family." WE AREN'T. And even if we were, I can no more let my "family" sell damaged goods to the public than I would let them sell damaged goods in a restaurant or clothing store.


Sorry, but it's one big dysfunctional family - whether you like it or not.



Love,

Sis


----------



## CIBond (Aug 28, 2010)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> If a person does not want to write reviews, don't write reviews. If a person is not confident he or she can adequately write a review that will be constructive, they don't need to write it. If you just don't want to put the work in writing reviews because you would rather do something else, that ain't a problem. But don't claim that NOBODY should ever write a review of another writer simply because writers are all "family." WE AREN'T. And even if we were, I can no more let my "family" sell damaged goods to the public than I would let them sell damaged goods in a restaurant or clothing store.


Julie had an interesting post that seemed to dissolve into irrelevancy so I left but basically the gist was that she had people take negative feedback badly. She wondered why people could be so unprofessional and was greeted with great sympathy.

By contrast this thread is full of&#8230; don't say anything bad about other writer's work, e-mail them privately, don't put it on the Amazon page it is unprofessional (a large part of this earlier thread is devoted to the conversation that it is in fact what professionals do, critique each other's work and they have been doing it for a long, long time. Amazon is a little low rent for them though.)

Is Indy publishing the "Special Olympics" where you can show up, pee in the pool and still get a metal? Everybody wins because no one can hack constructive criticism. I'm not talking about a slam I am talking about a long, well thought out, writerly critique of what worked and didn't.

I think it is fine if someone chooses not to publish negative reviews, I have no problem with that. But I do think the community needs to defend people who are attacked when they choose to take that risk (provided it is constructive and not a pointless slam). If we don't then we aren't seen as professionals who value and protect honest feedback. I would be the first one to tell my sister she looks fat in that dress. Its not mean its respect. You are an adult you can handle the information and you can use it to improve your craft.

Basically&#8230; I draw the line at money. Someone mentioned not hurting other people's sales as an issue for not putting a critique up. If you are selling a good, like a shirt and it is inferior then people have a right to complain. If you give your work away for free then I will send you a private copy of my critique. If I pay, you should expect me to play. If not then stop charging for your work - it confuses you into thinking you are a professional, ie. The kind of writer who expects readers, all readers to critique them.

Why have I pulled my work? Because I got feedback about typos that horrified me and now I am looking for an editor. We grow with negative feedback, coddling weakens us all.


----------



## MosesSiregarIII (Jul 15, 2010)

CIBond said:


> Julie had an interesting post that seemed to dissolve into irrelevancy so I left but basically the gist was that she had people take negative feedback badly. She wondered why people could be so unprofessional and was greeted with great sympathy.
> 
> By contrast this thread is full of&#8230; don't say anything bad about other writer's work, e-mail them privately, don't put it on the Amazon page it is unprofessional (a large part of this earlier thread is devoted to the conversation that it is in fact what professionals do, critique each other's work and they have been doing it for a long, long time. Amazon is a little low rent for them though.)
> 
> ...


Extensive critiques about writing are great, but I think the detailed ones should be private. Writers don't use Amazon as a place to get feedback on their work from other writers; they can use Authonomy or CritiqueCircle or Critters (or their writing group and beta readers) for that. They use Amazon to sell books to readers and pay their bills. Amazon is for your livelihood. For all of us, it's the key to our ability to make a living as a writer. As a writer, I am not about to hurt another writer's livelihood with a poor review--that's unthinkable for me. Amazon is not the best place for writers to critique each other on the finer points of craft unless it's handled extremely tastefully, and it's too easy to fail at that.

A major component of the argument for critical Amazon reviews by fellow writers seems to be the idea that we need to publicly correct each others' faults. It's often arrogant. And there can be some major pitfalls with this. What if you're more motivated by jealousy than you know? What if you don't know your stuff as well as you think you do? What if you're a much pickier reader than most, which means that your criticisms are things that most readers won't care about? What if you either lose a potential ally or, worse, make an outright enemy? And how many people might be turned off to you--or to the author you're critiquing--for doing this?

Why do it? The author has an email address if you feel you have to "help" him or her.

Because you can't trust your own motivations when it comes to reviewing other writers (especially when you write in similar genres), I think it's better to err on the side of caution: Be positive and be extremely tactful when critiquing another writer. It's too easy to lie to yourself and convince yourself that you're being benevolent when you're not.

We're talking in a lot of abstractions, but it all comes down to how well it's done. We can write reviews that mention what we felt are flaws in a work while still being tactful and professional. But there are still blindspots and pitfalls with this.

Tough feedback can be very helpful in improving our work. But why not just let those come _when on Amazon_ from readers and book reviewers? If a book has problems, those people will cover that ground. Writers don't have to risk sticking their necks out in Amazon reviews to "help other writers." No good deed goes unpunished, especially when you risk offending someone in the process.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

CIBond said:


> Is Indy publishing the "Special Olympics" where you can show up, pee in the pool and still get a metal? Everybody wins because no one can hack constructive criticism. I'm not talking about a slam I am talking about a long, well thought out, writerly critique of what worked and didn't.


I've stopped myself from making this analogy about 10 times, along with the term "handicapable" -- good for you. Why would anyone here argue that they need special treatment when they're perfectly capable and have more resources now than at any point in history? If your work gets panned, that's a shame, but the biggest shame is getting panned for completely correctable things like spelling and grammar. Of all the things a reviewer can complain about, that should never have to come into play in a major way when indie and traditionally pubbed both provide opportunities.


----------



## MosesSiregarIII (Jul 15, 2010)

No, indie publishing is not the Special Olympics. Readers and book reviewers see to that. It's hard enough to be an author, so I don't want to make any other writer's life or career path more difficult than it already is. And I only review works that I think are very good. No pats on the butt for doing "okay."

I don't make a distinction between indie authors and traditionally-published authors, either. I won't review indies differently than traddies (did I just make that word up?). As I look at it, any other fiction writer, especially one in a similar genre as my own work, is in the same business as I am and I only want to treat him or her with respect and as much professional courtesy as I am capable of. This is both for my own self-interest and an attempt to live by the golden rule.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

MosesSiregarIII said:


> This is both for my own self-interest and an attempt to live by the golden rule.


I don't think disagreeing with you precludes believing in the golden rule, particularly if the author/reviewer wants honest reviews as well and is okay with them coming from other authors.

Do you not want any writers here to review you or you just don't want writers her to give you less than a certain amount of stars if they do so?


----------



## MosesSiregarIII (Jul 15, 2010)

MichelleR said:


> I don't think disagreeing with you precludes believing in the golden rule, particularly if the author/reviewer wants honest reviews as well and is okay with them coming from other authors.
> 
> Do you not want any writers here to review you or you just don't want writers her to give you less than a certain amount of stars if they do so?


Other writers can and will do whatever they want. I'm just talking about my standards about how I approach reviewing other writers.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

MosesSiregarIII said:


> Other writers can and will do whatever they want. I'm just talking about my standards about how I approach reviewing other writers.


Fair enough.

So would you agree that a writer who would be fine with a 5 star review but would expect a reviewer to seek permission for a thoughtful 3 star review would be feeding into thinking indie writers should be held to lesser standards and have a head start?


----------



## MosesSiregarIII (Jul 15, 2010)

MichelleR said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> So would you agree that a writer who would be fine with a 5 star review but would expect a reviewer to seek permission for a thoughtful 3 star review would be feeding into thinking indie writers should be held to lesser standards and have a head start?


I think a writer who _expects_ a reviewer to seek his permission to post a thoughtful 3-star review is nuts and is going to have a lot of problems in this business.

However, how I would handle it if I was the reviewer is different. Like I said, I err on the side of caution and I won't write a 3-star review of another writer. I'm not suggesting that's what anyone else should do. That's just me. For me, it's not worth the risks: personally, professionally, or karmically. In a case like that, I might write the author privately with some comments if I thought it was kosher and I'd probably ask first if the person is interested.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

I respect that.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

... and scene.


----------



## DavidRM (Sep 21, 2010)

I don't consider myself timid.

I despise "participation" ribbons and trophies.

I have a very thick skin in regard to reviews/opinions of me, my software, and my writing. (Nothing insulates like scar tissue.)

I don't think that my unwillingness to provide unsolicited negative reviews is going to bring the whole indie fiction edifice crashing down.

I could be wrong on all of these points. For now, though, that's what I'm sticking with.

-David


----------

