# How not to react to a negative review.



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

If I had a penny for every time an author started a thread in this forum lamenting a negative review (and sometimes not so negative), I'd be sipping drinks with an umbrella in them over in Barbados. Just thought some of you would be interested to see the latest theatrics in author misbehavior. It's a miracle anyone reviews indie authors anymore.

http://cuddlebuggery.com/2012/05/vanity-author-rampages-again


----------



## Rin (Apr 25, 2011)

I love author poopstorms.


----------



## dalya (Jul 26, 2011)

I wish authors wouldn't stir up poopstorms, but that's NEVER going to stop, no matter how many times people post well-meaning advice.

I published a counter-point:

http://dalyamoon.com/2012/05/25/why-im-proud-to-say-im-a-self-publishing-author-even-though-the-group-at-large-is-known-for-certain-behavior/

Excerpt:

These self-pubbed authors! What a bunch of hotheads! What a passionate group of people! But &#8230; can you really fault someone for caring SO MUCH about their art that they're willing to make a total donkey of themselves? *They're just ranting on the internet and embarrassing themselves, they're not kicking puppies or mugging your grandmother.*

Yes, I wish all self-pubbed authors would be exemplary citizens, but I wish that of all people, really-all Canadians, or all women, or all people who look like me, so that others won't judge people who look like me by the actions of others.

Say what you will about the group at large, but most self-pubbed authors would make delightful dinner party guests; at least they're entertaining.

* * *

Added: And they're not eating anyone's faces.

Edited to add: I don't understand this last scandal. Someone was accused of being a bully/t-word by another bully/t-word? Ugh. This is exactly why I am terrified of Goodreads. Seriously, I can barely go on there and post my new titles. That stuff freaks me out.


----------



## R M Rowan (Jul 13, 2011)

D a l y a said:


> I wish authors wouldn't stir up poopstorms, but that's NEVER going to stop, no matter how many times people post well-meaning advice.
> 
> I published a counter-point:
> 
> ...


Only if they're from Miami.


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

R M Rowan said:


> Only if they're from Miami.


Hey, leave me out of this! (Besides, I only do that on the weekends.)


----------



## R. Garcia (Apr 9, 2011)

Just imagine if this author had devoted all the time she spent bashing reviewers actually doing some writing!


----------



## R M Rowan (Jul 13, 2011)

Kevis 'The Berserker' Hendrickson said:


> Hey, leave me out of this! (Besides, I only do that on the weekends.)


Yeah. Well you ARE the 'Berserker'!


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

I prefer the method of throwing someone else under the bus.

"Oh, you think my book's bad? Read this #($* from Kevis!" (Or whoever you want to pick on.)




(No, not really....)


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

Been watching this one for a while. That "author" is not playing with a full deck I don't think. What she did went way beyond ranting on the internet. It crossed the line into cyberstalking. There was another author a long while back that went after a reviewer on a personal basis, digging up personal info and involving family members. This one is right up there with that one. 

Disturbing that one.


----------



## dalya (Jul 26, 2011)

So, the original book in question that started this brouhaha was a BIG book by a BIG 6 Publisher. The author's agent called the reviewer a mean name on twitter (apparently).

I'll admit there's a little schadenfreude that it's not an indie writer THIS TIME.


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> I prefer the method of throwing someone else under the bus.
> 
> "Oh, you think my book's bad? Read this #($* from Kevis!" (Or whoever you want to pick on.)
> 
> (No, not really....)


After staring at all of those BBOS on my KDP screen, I'm wondering if that isn't a good idea. Hmm....


----------



## BrianKittrell (Jan 8, 2011)

Some people take this stuff way, way, way too seriously.


----------



## George Berger (Aug 7, 2011)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> I prefer the method of throwing someone else under the bus.
> 
> "Oh, you think my book's bad? Read this #($* from Kevis!" (Or whoever you want to pick on.)


Just think, if you wrote under enough pen names, you could be your own circular firing squad. 

There's a reason many of my books on Amazon carry warnings in their descriptions, you know.

"You thought that sucked? What part of 'poorly-written, unsatisfying, and quite likely to disappoint you' was unclear, eh? And if you hated that, you really shouldn't read this, that, or my other title, either, 'cause they're easily twice as bad."

Or...

"Yes, yes, you read my chick-lit short story and it was so overwhelmingly terrible that it _literally_ struck you down and killed you. I understand this is upsetting enough that you came back from the dead just to write a nasty review warning other people about this danger, but if you'd just bothered to read the description, you'd see it's _a known problem_ and your postmortem efforts are completely unnecessary..."

_--George, for some strange reason that potentially-fatal short story doesn't sell very well, either..._


----------



## Kent Kelly (Feb 12, 2011)

As a thriller plot, good stuff.  

In real life, not so pretty.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

BrianKittrell said:


> Some people take this stuff way, way, way too seriously.


Brian Kittrell, author of such famous forum posts as "+1" and "LOL" and even "This. So this," has unleashed his latest forum post on the world today. Unlike some of his previous work, his latest offering seems bloated, rushed, and lazy. His triple-use of "way" being the worst example of his work in recent memory, the razor-sharp wit that first gave the world, "Eatin' barbecue tonight!" in response to the Miami cannibal attack no longer seems to be in evidence.

While the cost of reading Kittrell's posts remains even-keel from previous offerings, they seem increasingly less deserving of the time invested. While one can always hope for a return to form, one simply must ask: has this once-brilliant KBer's star already reached its apex, promising only evidence of a continual decline in the future? This reviewer certainly hopes not, but for now: *1.5 stars out of 5*.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

Saw an editor recently wade in to argue with reviewers and now an agent. Classy.


----------



## MegSilver (Feb 26, 2012)

BrianKittrell said:


> Some people take this stuff way, way, way too seriously.


Truer words, truer words...


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

BrianKittrell said:


> Some people take this stuff way, way, way too seriously.


Unfortunately authors (and agents too) sometimes think that negative reviews can hit you in the pocketbook. I really don't know if that's true or not. I've gotten quite a few negative reviews, and my book still sells. But that's beside the point.

If you THINK thousands of dollars are on the line, you can do things that aren't too smart. Like this kind of crap.

Take a breather and don't act on negative reviews. Let it slide. It's much better than getting all kinds of negative attention when this stuff blows way out of proportion.


----------



## Lily_T (Sep 25, 2011)

I was on Goodreads when The Selection brouhaha went down. In the end both the author of the book (who, incidentally, started as a self-pubber) her agent, and the other authors who tweeted/blogged anything that could be even slightly misconstrued apologized again and again. I'm sure the publicity departments at each of their various companies muzzled them within hours.

But no one is going to muzzle this indie author. Even Goodreads is having a hard time of it.


----------



## Zelah Meyer (Jun 15, 2011)

Scary stuff.  

I actually plan to put in the back of my stories that I'm grateful for anyone taking the time to leave a review, good or bad.  I just want readers/reviewers to know that it's safe to say what they think about my work.  It shouldn't be necessary - but these days so many people react badly to anything less than five stars, that I feel I need to offer the reader/reviewer reassurance!

If it's someone's honest opinion, then they're entitled to it.  If it's a personal attack, then I'll report it and/or leave it up to karma to make it fair.

But then - I'm possibly strange like that.  A scathing review from The Guardian newspaper is on the list of career objectives that I'd like to achieve.  You haven't made it as a popular writer until someone writes an article in The Guardian criticising your writing.


----------



## BRONZEAGE (Jun 25, 2011)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> *1.5 stars out of 5*.


NO stars for anyone until I get delivery of my cherry smoothie. Are you listening, TwinCities?


----------



## RuthNestvold (Jan 4, 2012)

Ok, one thing I don't understand. The book in question was traditionally published by HarperTeen. So why is the blogger referring to the author as Vanity Author? It then starts to look like one more thing to blame indies for.  

There was an amazing flame war on Amazon a couple of years ago, also between a traditionally published author and a reviewer. It isn't only self-published authors who react badly to reviews. Hmph. Sigh.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

BRONZEAGE said:


> NO stars for anyone until I get delivery of my cherry smoothie. Are you listening, TwinCities?


Here you go.


----------



## BRONZEAGE (Jun 25, 2011)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> Here you go.


----------



## dalya (Jul 26, 2011)

RuthNestvold said:


> Ok, one thing I don't understand. The book in question was traditionally published by HarperTeen. So why is the blogger referring to the author as Vanity Author? It then starts to look like one more thing to blame indies for.
> 
> There was an amazing flame war on Amazon a couple of years ago, also between a traditionally published author and a reviewer. It isn't only self-published authors who react badly to reviews. Hmph. Sigh.


The "vanity" author in question is the one (3rd person in this tale) who outed the reviewer who had previously savage-reviewed the trad-pubbed author, who also went nutty, but in separate incidents.

1 trad pubbed author and her agent + 1 pseudonym reviewer who writes comical reviews and has a following + vanity author = messy brouhaha.

Coincidentally, Lizzy Ford posted about reputation management today: http://www.yaindie.com/2012/06/fundamentals-avoid-sinking-your-own.html


----------



## Lily_T (Sep 25, 2011)

RuthNestvold said:


> Ok, one thing I don't understand. The book in question was traditionally published by HarperTeen. So why is the blogger referring to the author as Vanity Author? It then starts to look like one more thing to blame indies for.


Because the indie author in question decided (to score some points with the establishment?) go after Wendy Darling (the reviewer).

The community on Goodreads is pretty savvy and largely in favor of keeping Goodreads a reader-centric environment. The rule is: Do no comment if you are an author, especially if you are a self-published author. They take no prisoners.


----------



## BrianKittrell (Jan 8, 2011)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> Brian Kittrell, author of such famous forum posts as "+1" and "LOL" and even "This. So this," has unleashed his latest forum post on the world today. Unlike some of his previous work, his latest offering seems bloated, rushed, and lazy. His triple-use of "way" being the worst example of his work in recent memory, the razor-sharp wit that first gave the world, "Eatin' barbecue tonight!" in response to the Miami cannibal attack no longer seems to be in evidence.
> 
> While the cost of reading Kittrell's posts remains even-keel from previous offerings, they seem increasingly less deserving of the time invested. While one can always hope for a return to form, one simply must ask: has this once-brilliant KBer's star already reached its apex, promising only evidence of a continual decline in the future? This reviewer certainly hopes not, but for now: *1.5 stars out of 5*.


LOL! +1 hehehe

No one seems to read my longer posts these days, plus I'm on a deadline.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Bread and circuses. Bring it on!


----------



## Alan Petersen (May 20, 2011)

It's great traffic bait for the review blogs. I noticed most of their other posts get around 15-25 comments. Some even less than 10 comments but the first drama post received over 75 comments and a lot of attention... so now another drama post about "vanity authors" and it already has over 55 comments. It also gets folks linking to it in forums, etc. They generate great traffic.

It's like Jerry Springer and reality TV.


----------



## BrianKittrell (Jan 8, 2011)

Victorine said:


> Unfortunately authors (and agents too) sometimes think that negative reviews can hit you in the pocketbook. I really don't know if that's true or not. I've gotten quite a few negative reviews, and my book still sells. But that's beside the point.
> 
> If you THINK thousands of dollars are on the line, you can do things that aren't too smart. Like this kind of crap.
> 
> Take a breather and don't act on negative reviews. Let it slide. It's much better than getting all kinds of negative attention when this stuff blows way out of proportion.


Agreed. They _can_ hit you in the pocketbook (you hear about peoples' sales going extinct every once in a while after a negative review), but there's little power in a single negative review or even a handful of them. I'm inclined to think people are smart enough to make decisions for themselves, and I don't think the bad reviews really impact anything until they start becoming, like, the majority of the reviewers saying the same thing. If that's the case, well... the pocketbook really shouldn't be expected to grow on a book that no one is enjoying. It would be like building a new restaurant that serves food no one enjoys, then the owner expecting people to come and eat there solely to help out the owner. In the cases the OP has pointed out, it's also like adding on that all those coming by to eat must report positively to anyone who asks, lest the owner comes to your house late at night, a hatchet in hand and a devil-may-care look in the eyes.


----------



## Guest (Jun 1, 2012)

I'm confused about this story. I went on Goodreads to try to find the source of it, and if the book is the one I found, it clearly mentions "publisher." There is even a comment from Wendy (Don't you just love that name! *Sigh* Sooo pretty, sooo feminine ... oh, sorry!) about authors and publishers and agents acting on behalf of authors and whatever else reacting inappropriately.

The curious thing is the book is rated 3.64 stars, yet Ms. Darling gave it one-star. Of course, she has a right to hate the book, but if you skim down underneath her review, you'll see that Ms. Darling's friends (who this Vanity person alleged were in cahoots and in a flash troll mob) also gave the book a one-star. The reason I know they're friends is because they commented under Wendy's review and are speaking to Ms. Darling in a familiar way. This group all have 'private' accounts so I don't know if they're actually 'befriended' or not, but it's clear that they do pile on with a series of one-star reviews and they do seem as if they know each other because of the banter. Of course, the one-stars could be punitive for this scandal of outing a reviewer, but that is very childish behavior also and I would hope that wasn't the case.

Are we allowed to post links? Well, I'll find out, won't I. This is the link I found. Is this what you're talking about?

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/10507293-the-selection

Then there's message #268 from Ms. Darling that sets things off. If you see later remarks, they are from same group that gave one-star review.

http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/231455953?page=6&utm_medium=email&utm_source=comment_instant#comment_43376093

Does this mean anything? I mean, a group of friends reading a book might have honestly hated it. However, the reviews were posted after the incident because they do refer to it.

===============

Alright found a little more, seems it was Ms. Darling that opened up revealing personal information. The original retorts were from someone posting under "Anonymous." She was certain it was author so she found Twitter conversation between author and agent and posted that as proof. However, it seems that it was the agent that made comments, and author was fine with things. Nonetheless, this "group" continues to attack the author ... and now it's picked up in this thread!

http://goodreadsfollies.blogspot.com/2012/01/reviewer-wendy-darling-joins-fray.html

I'm not sure the author did anything other than get an agent!


----------



## StephenEngland (Nov 2, 2011)

BrianKittrell said:


> Agreed. They _can_ hit you in the pocketbook (you hear about peoples' sales going extinct every once in a while after a negative review), but there's little power in a single negative review or even a handful of them. I'm inclined to think people are smart enough to make decisions for themselves, and I don't think the bad reviews really impact anything until they start becoming, like, the majority of the reviewers saying the same thing. If that's the case, well... the pocketbook really shouldn't be expected to grow on a book that no one is enjoying. It would be like building a new restaurant that serves food no one enjoys, then the owner expecting people to come and eat there solely to help out the owner. In the cases the OP has pointed out, it's also like adding on that all those coming by to eat must report positively to anyone who asks, lest the owner comes to your house late at night, a hatchet in hand and a devil-may-care look in the eyes.


I agree. My sales are still struggling after a pair of 2-stars in the middle of last month, but I have faith that they will recover. Nothing justifies going on a tantrum, organizing a "downvote", creating sockpuppets, or doing anything else. You just move on, do what you can legitimately, and hope for the best. If your book is genuinely good, more reviews will come in, given time.


----------



## Lily_T (Sep 25, 2011)

WPotocki said:


> The curious thing is the book is rated 3.64 stars, yet Ms. Darling gave it one-star. Of course, she has a right to hate the book, but if you skim down underneath her review, you'll see that Ms. Darling's friends (who this Vanity person alleged were in cahoots and in a flash troll mob) also gave the book a one-star. The reason I know they're friends is because they commented under Wendy's review and are speaking to Ms. Darling in a familiar way. This group all have 'private' accounts so I don't know if they're actually 'befriended' or not, but it's clear that they do pile on with a series of one-star reviews and they do seem as if they know each other because of the banter. Of course, the one-stars could be punitive for this scandal of outing a reviewer, but that is very childish behavior also and I would hope that wasn't the case.
> 
> Does this mean anything? I mean, a group of friends reading a book might have honestly hated it. However, the reviews were posted after the incident because they do refer to it.


Wendy Darling is a well-regarded Goodreads YA reviewer. She is known for inserting gifs (animated photos) into her popular reviews. Reviewers like Wendy who put sassy gifs into their reviews irk some of the YA writers who think it cheapens reviews.

That's the context. Now here's how it went down:

Wendy posts a review of The Selection by Kiera Cass on Goodreads.
Kiera Cass and her agent discuss ways to lessen the impact of the review and decide to get their friends to downvote the review.
Kiera Cass's agent also refers to Wendy on twitter as a bitch.
A crazytrain arrives and all parties immediately get on board.
The train crashes and the trad authors and their surrogates who boarded realize that oops they've got something to lose.
Apologies fly thick and fast.
Many Goodread users reiterate the fact that Goodreads is their space and writers should not intrude.
The scandal mostly dies down.
Vanity starts her one-woman crusade against Wendy Darling.
Vanity outs Wendy Darling.
This is a line that none of the traditional authors would ever dare cross.
It is attributed to Vanity being a self-published writer. 
Cue new crazytrain.


----------



## RuthNestvold (Jan 4, 2012)

Ah, thanks for that summary, Lily! I still don't understand (and probably never will), but at least now I have a chronology for my misunderstanding.


----------



## heavycat (Feb 14, 2011)

There are a couple of things here that stand out to me:

_I did not read this entire book. I took notes for the first 88 pages, read to page 168, and then skimmed the rest. I think reading more than half the book qualifies as giving it a fair shot._

I'm sorry, but this is a red flag to me. A reviewer is free to abstain if they feel they can't finish the book, or simply don't want to. Skipping half the material and then presuming to review the work is at best, inconclusive. I would object to a positive review of half-a-book in precisely the same way.

_Our main character's name is America Singer. Guess what she does._

The main character in Neal Stephenson's _Snow Crash_ is named Hiro Protagonist. Guess what he does? Honestly, what difference does it make what the character's names are?

_Juvenile dialogue. A lot of whispering to convey dramatic statements. A plethora of exclamation points._

There are elegant ways to review a book with these elements that do not include the phrase "make you want to pull out your hair." John Updike held as follows:

_If the book is judged deficient, cite a successful example along the same lines, from the author's ouevre or elsewhere. Try to understand the failure. Sure it's his and not yours?_

I would take this one step further. In every work, a conscientious critic can find something praiseworthy. Even with just one simple compliment, you can take what is a dark and horrible thing for an author and turn it into a dignified occasion while bringing into specific relief the shortcomings you call to their attention.

Conversely, to simply heap scorn on an author is cruel, however justified you may feel in your opinion. A human being wrote the words you are so quick to ridicule, often with great care and an open heart. Remember that while you sharpen your pen.

_Putting aside the fact that this probably would have worked better as a straightforward fairy tale without the pseudo-dystopian details, as well as the annoying focus on boys boys boys being the be-all and end-all of this book, _

John Updike responds to this as well:

_Try to understand what the author wished to do, and do not blame him for not achieving what he did not attempt._

_Every scene, every character, and every plot development was predictable and worse yet, a cliché, and the dialogue and machinations felt painfully juvenile throughout the entire story._

This would sound far more credible had the reviewer actually read the entire book.

_use this thread to gossip about updates about the author's career, etc. I am not interested in helping to promote that, however indirectly._

This was an odd statement to me. I am giving the reviewer the benefit of the doubt in presuming they didn't actually intend for this author's career to be damaged in any way. That might lead one to believe this reviewer considers one reviewer-declared shortfall to justify leaving the writing profession.

Whatever the author's reaction, I believe there is a prevailing attitude of superiority on the part of many reviewers who, for whatever reason, cast themselves as the professors in the cultural college of literature, and that authors are their perpetual students, handing in their work as if to be graded by those who have far greater knowledge.

Those of us who have actually studied letters know better. A reviewer is no different than any academic, and they are at best an author's colleague, not their master. They must not only produce a review worthy of the author, but they must also defend their work when called upon to do so. A half-dozen comma-delimited two-word descriptions of how "badly" something is written does not qualify as work that can be defended. It lacks credibility and academic rigor and it fails to recognize the dignity all authors deserve, whatever their ability or accomplishments

Such work would be marked down in any competent academic setting by actual professors of literature who know the difference between criticism and badmouthing.


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

heavycat said:


> _I did not read this entire book. I took notes for the first 88 pages, read to page 168, and then skimmed the rest. I think reading more than half the book qualifies as giving it a fair shot._
> 
> I'm sorry, but this is a red flag to me. A reviewer is free to abstain if they feel they can't finish the book, or simply don't want to. Skipping half the material and then presuming to review the work is at best, inconclusive. I would object to a positive review of half-a-book in precisely the same way.


I agree with you that a review based on an incomplete reading of a book is suspect. That's why I think it's great the reviewer put a disclaimer up front saying she hadn't read the entire book. It's a great way of letting readers know to take her words with a grain of salt. She could have easily done the opposite and withheld that information. Now readers can decide what to make of her review in full context.



heavycat said:


> Conversely, to simply heap scorn on an author is cruel, however justified you may feel in your opinion. A human being wrote the words you are so quick to ridicule, often with great care and an open heart. Remember that while you sharpen your pen.


Couldn't disagree more. It's an author's job to write books and a reviewer's to review them. It's not a reviewer's job to coddle the author or protect their feelings. I know it's trendy to say otherwise, but a review is written for readers, not authors. It's up to readers to decide if a review has merit, not the author. If authors can't accept getting their books slammed every now and then, they're in the wrong line of work. No book is for every reader and to pretend otherwise is the equivalent of thinking there's a pot of gold at the end of every rainbow.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

heavycat said:


> Those of us who have actually studied letters know better. A reviewer is no different than any academic, and they are at best an author's colleague, not their master. They must not only produce a review worthy of the author, but they must also defend their work when called upon to do so. A half-dozen comma-delimited two-word descriptions of how "badly" something is written does not qualify as work that can be defended. It lacks credibility and academic rigor and it fails to recognize the dignity all authors deserve, whatever their ability or accomplishments
> 
> Such work would be marked down in any competent academic setting by actual professors of literature who know the difference between criticism and badmouthing.


Okey Dokey. A reviewer on Goodreads is a reader. A customer of a product. Not a colleague a master or a professor. 
They are readers with an opinion. That is it. We readers don't have to defend anything. We aren't writing a book report, or go to class. We are not the authors friend, beta reader, editor or their teacher. There is no academic setting for reader reviews.

What's with all these demands from a customer that bought a book and actually spend the time to leave a review.


----------



## Guest (Jun 1, 2012)

Hey, you linked to it, it's more promotion regardless of your opinion.


----------



## 60169 (May 18, 2012)

I don't have any problem with a reviewer covering a book that they couldn't finish.  If someone legitimately tries to read my book but can't finish it, I'd like to know it, and I think other people who might read my book deserve to know it.  If a reviewer says "I read the first paragraph and knew this whole book was going to stink" I wouldn't count that as legitimate.  This reviewer read a great portion of the book, though, so I believe she's entitled to post her opinion.

As to the quality of her review, I don't have any problem with it.  Different reviewers have vastly different styles, and each of them will find the proper level of their readers, if they are going to have any at all.  I'm sure there is a Golden Standard For Reviews, but I don't care about it, and I don't think most readers  care about it.


----------



## R M Rowan (Jul 13, 2011)

Atunah said:


> Okey Dokey. A reviewer on Goodreads is a reader. A customer of a product. Not a colleague a master or a professor.
> They are readers with an opinion. That is it. We readers don't have to defend anything. We aren't writing a book report, or go to class. We are not the authors friend, beta reader, editor or their teacher. There is no academic setting for reader reviews.
> 
> What's with all these demands from a customer that bought a book and actually spend the time to leave a review.


Yep. This about sums it up. I liken it to sodas. Sometimes I like Pepsi, sometimes I like Coke (the drink, y'all!), but I NEVER drink Mt. Dew because it makes me angry - and I'm not afraid to say so. Now, if that OPINION causes someone else to avoid Mt. Dew because they already have enough anger in their lives, then wonderful. However, they may have a boring life and are looking for a shake-up, so they partake of the Dew, regardless of how I react to it. I'm not a professional taste-tester and I'm not employed by Coca Cola. I'm just a regular mom who doesn't like to get angry and impatient with my kids for no good reason. Believe me. My kids appreciate my avoidance of the Dew. To respond to the reviews, especially the negative, is to give power to the reviewer's words. When you're already stinging, why on earth would you want to fan the flames and make them hotter? To take the high road and remain silent seems to be the best option. Granted, I'm sure it's REALLY hard sometimes, but I have faith it can be done.


----------



## Edward W. Robertson (May 18, 2010)

Yeah, a good review shouldn't criticize a work for something it's not trying to do, but the same benefit of the doubt should be granted to reviews themselves. Not every reviewer is writing Serious Literary Criticism. Many are just trying to say, "Hey, I liked/didn't like this book, and here are the reasons why. I hope this helps you make a decision for yourself."

There's a weird power dynamic between reviewers and artists/entertainers. I'm a movie critic. I hand down little grades exactly as if I am the teacher and they should be grateful to learn from me. Do you know how much power I wield over the movies I review? None.

Reviews are just the start of a discussion happening far, far below the stage. They're never the final word, and extremely few of them have the power to ever make it up to the people putting on the show.


----------



## jnfr (Mar 26, 2011)

Will I get a great mug from this one? The last big review blow-up (that I heard of anyway) gave me my favorite mug.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

If I ever go off like that, I'm gonna threaten to eat the reviewer's children.


----------



## Guest (Jun 1, 2012)

vrabinec said:


> If I ever go off like that, I'm gonna threaten to eat the reviewer's children.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Here's another way NOT to react to a negative review:


----------



## Craig Halloran (May 15, 2012)

Some people will hate your book, some will love it. Still, it's tough getting a one star review because someone didn't like something in particular. Especially when it is a thorough and well-edited. Plot, point of view, showing and telling, want, obstacle, action, all those things a complete author does. Many readers are unable to put those efforts into context. They review on emotions. Or, there is something the author said that they just hate. Who knows. Look at all of the political books with one star reviews. It has much to do with your beliefs. I'm only guessing of course.

That being said, people who give well-written books one star reviews have the right to do so. It happens and you can't control it. You really put yourself out there when you publish a book. It's not for thin-skinned people. 

For me, I can tell how well a book is written after a few pages. But if it's not my mug of beer, I'll move on. I'm not going to read it or review it. Besides, readers get that inside look and they should be able to tell if it is what they like or not before they buy.

I like westerns, and because I like them, I enjoy most of them. I can't think of a single one I ever watched that I would give a one star review too.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

It doesn't matter *Craig Halloran* (forgot to pull your quote up) to most readers about all these technical aspects of point of view, etc. For many reviews are very personal, and there are some things that just trigger dislike. I know I review on a emotional level. Reading is emotional for me. Its not a technical book review. I don't even know how to do that, as I don't know squat about the technical aspects of writing.

Many readers don't. We just know we hated the character, or I didn't feel the setting, this character peeved me off. For me its the TSTL (To stupid to live) heroine. I will deduct stars if I can't stand characters.

You can't look at this from a writers point. You are to close the the craft of writing. You know all those technical terms and things. I don't. I don't really care to be honest. I want to be entertained and I want to share what I felt about a book with other readers. Something that worked for me, will not work for another reader. Its still the same book, with the same craft in it. But on an emotional level, it just hit us readers on a different level.

There is no sameness when it comes to reader reviews. We are all varied and with different ways of looking at things. But all our opinions are valuable all the same. My 5 star is as right and proper than someones 1 star, if they totally hated the book. They are not me and I am not them. So we all will look at it different.

And no, nobody is lacking anything when they give a 1 star. What does that even mean. Again, they are not you. What you do or would do, does not apply to others. To say they are lacking something is demeaning. I have given 1 stars, I am not lacking anything.


----------



## Lily_T (Sep 25, 2011)

Craig Halloran said:


> Some people will hate your book, some will love it. Still, I find it to be offensive to get a one star review because someone didn't like something in particular. Especially when it is a thorough and well-edited. Plot, point of view, showing and telling, want, obstacle, action, all those things a complete author does. Many readers are unable to put those efforts into context. They review on emotions. Or, there is something the author said that they just hate. Who knows. Look at all of the political books with one star reviews. It has much to do with your beliefs. I'm only guessing of course.
> 
> That being said, people who give well-written books one star reviews are lacking something. It happens and you can't control it. You really put yourself out there when you publish a book. It's not for thin-skinned people.
> 
> ...


That whistle you hear is the crazytrain. 

Just let it blow by you. Do not let yourself be tempted into getting on. The days when reviews=detailed critical analysis are over. Shed a tear, pour out a little liquor, and move on.


----------



## Zelah Meyer (Jun 15, 2011)

I have given one star reviews on Goodreads to some literary classics.

All I'm lacking is the will to ever put myself through reading those particular books again!


----------



## dalya (Jul 26, 2011)

heavycat said:


> Conversely, to simply heap scorn on an author is cruel, however justified you may feel in your opinion. A human being wrote the words you are so quick to ridicule, often with great care and an open heart. Remember that while you sharpen your pen.


I agree with much of Heavycat's thoughtful post.

If reviewers want to put animated gifs and funny things in their review, using the book reviews as a means of drawing attention to themselves, then they can have their fun, and a reasonable counter-response by any author or other reviewer might be to then create a review of the review, complete with animated gifs and funny jokes and equal levels of satire. Fair's fair.

Mocking/satirizing should beget more, but bullying, threats, vitriol, and mob cruelty is like bringing a gun to a water balloon fight.


----------



## Cheryl M. (Jan 11, 2011)

D a l y a said:


> The "vanity" author in question is the one (3rd person in this tale) who outed the reviewer who had previously savage-reviewed the trad-pubbed author, who also went nutty, but in separate incidents.
> 
> 1 trad pubbed author and her agent + 1 pseudonym reviewer who writes comical reviews and has a following + vanity author = messy brouhaha.
> 
> snip


You lost me after the first turn just before the great big oak tree with the tire swing.


----------



## AmberC (Mar 28, 2012)

You lost me at the author video that goes with that book posted on Goodreads. Couldn't get past that. Sorry.


----------



## George Berger (Aug 7, 2011)

Cheryl M. said:


> You lost me after the first turn just before the great big oak tree with the tire swing.


First star on the left, gaily forward 'til morning.


----------



## Cheryl M. (Jan 11, 2011)

George Berger said:


> First star on the left, gaily forward 'til morning.


NICE!  Works on so many levels.


----------



## kurzon (Feb 26, 2011)

I leave DNF reviews for books I couldn't get through all the time.  I usually explain why, and that explanation will help other readers who might have the same issues with that kind of book - or happen to like precisely the things I dislike.  Hell, I have a one star review based on the first LINE of one of my books, and I consider it a very useful review!  I keeps other readers who have the same reading criteria away from that book.  That's the power of reviews - they explain the book more, allowing readers to make decisions.

The review of "The Selection" is a nicely detailed review.  It notes unoriginality of character names (as opposed to Hiro Protagonist, which is more of an ironic comment of a character name).  It notes the problematic set-up of the book, and it noted that the writing/pacing/characterisation was of a quality that the reviewer thought poor.  It was a negative review, but it wasn't an inappropriate one.  If you take a browse through the reviewer's other reviews, you'll see she's primarily positive, but also honest and clear about things she considers problematic.

The agent/author twitter discussion was sheer stupidity.  I posted at the time that people seem to think the internet is a private conversation - that was totally a discussion which should have been private.  Goodreads reacted as it often does - defending the right of a reviewer to give an honest opinion and not be pressured by the reactions of authors (or people linked to the author).  Since it was a relatively well-known reviewer, it got a lot more reaction than many attacks against reviewers would necessarily get - and incensed some enough that they one-rated the book, which is something people will do for all sorts of reasons.  It wasn't the original review which caused this negative reaction - it was entirely the author/agent discussion which caused that review to become one of the top-rated reviews on Goodreads (HUGE lesson for authors there).

I'd noticed that the reviewer had stopped posting as much on Goodreads (she's reviewed one of my books - a short 3 star setting out the bits which did and didn't work for her in the book).  I didn't realise it was because of the continuing negativity surrounding a single review which now has over a thousand comments on it.  That's a real pity - that negative author reaction basically resulted in a reviewer not wanting to review any more.  I doubt it made any real impact on the sales of the book, but it's something this reviewer is stuck with dealing with (unless, of course, she takes down her review, which would be a case of the bully winning).

The whole thing with the author they're calling "Vanity" is tremendously complicated.  This is an author who was banned from Goodreads for having a few dozen sock puppet accounts, and who led a campaign against someone who had negatively reviewed her book.  She's now stirring a pot she wasn't even involved in.

I don't like it when I get negative reviews.  I hope I'll continue to have the sense to recognise that there is no such thing as a universally liked book, and to not to publicly rant about them.


----------



## Hilary Thomson (Nov 20, 2011)

I've glanced at the author's numbers.  She's currently in the top 500 in Kindle sales, and top 1800 in paperback.  She's doing all right, so it seems the bad review isn't hurting her sales very much.  In fact, the controversy appears to be helping her.  Stabbing a nasty reviewer in the back while making a pile of money at the same time must be the ultimate revenge trip.


----------



## Lily_T (Sep 25, 2011)

kurzon said:


> I leave DNF reviews for books I couldn't get through all the time. I usually explain why, and that explanation will help other readers who might have the same issues with that kind of book - or happen to like precisely the things I dislike. Hell, I have a one star review based on the first LINE of one of my books, and I consider it a very useful review! I keeps other readers who have the same reading criteria away from that book. That's the power of reviews - they explain the book more, allowing readers to make decisions.
> 
> The review of "The Selection" is a nicely detailed review. It notes unoriginality of character names (as opposed to Hiro Protagonist, which is more of an ironic comment of a character name). It notes the problematic set-up of the book, and it noted that the writing/pacing/characterisation was of a quality that the reviewer thought poor. It was a negative review, but it wasn't an inappropriate one. If you take a browse through the reviewer's other reviews, you'll see she's primarily positive, but also honest and clear about things she considers problematic.
> 
> The agent/author twitter discussion was sheer stupidity. I posted at the time that people seem to think the internet is a private conversation - that was totally a discussion which should have been private. Goodreads reacted as it often does - defending the right of a reviewer to give an honest opinion and not be pressured by the reactions of authors (or people linked to the author). Since it was a relatively well-known reviewer, it got a lot more reaction than many attacks against reviewers would necessarily get - and incensed some enough that they one-rated the book, which is something people will do for all sorts of reasons. It wasn't the original review which caused this negative reaction - it was entirely the author/agent discussion which caused that review to become one of the top-rated reviews on Goodreads (HUGE lesson for authors there).


It seems to me that one of things that some of the YA authors on Goodreads just Do. Not. Get. is that they have two audiences. One is composed of the young adults the books are ostensibly marketed to, and the other is the crossover market (composed, mostly, of adult women) that can turn a YA book from merely successful into a massive hit. These crossover readers are more well-read and necessarily harsher critics than their teenaged compatriots.

If your storyline is thin because you think the teens won't notice/care you'll get dinged.
If you rely on lazy stereotypes, you'll get dinged.
If your book has problematic characters (sexist, racist, homophobic) and the text lets this go unchallenged, you'll get dinged.
If you think writing for teens means you don't have to be inventive, hardworking, humble and all the other things adult authors have to be you'll get dinged.

Some YA authors take this as a challenge to step up their game. Others act as if the crossover readers are invaders that need to be purged. Hence the unending author/reviewer scandals on Goodreads.


----------



## dalya (Jul 26, 2011)

LilyT said:


> It seems to me that one of things that some of the YA authors on Goodreads just Do. Not. Get. is that they have two audiences. One is composed of the young adults the books are ostensibly marketed to, and the other is the crossover market (composed, mostly, of adult women) that can turn a YA book from merely successful into a massive hit. These crossover readers are more well-read and necessarily harsher critics than their teenaged compatriots. ...


This is its own issue entirely!

I'm an adult and I don't read a ton of YA, even though I write for the genre. Honestly, some of the popular YA authors and series are just not that interesting to me, and I find it really perplexing why some of them are as huge as they are. I have a goodreads account, but I don't dare post what I REALLY think of certain popular books, for fear of backlash. I mean, it's all fun and games until the angry mob comes for you, right?


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Kevis 'The Berserker' Hendrickson said:


> If I had a penny for every time an author started a thread in this forum lamenting a negative review (and sometimes not so negative), I'd be sipping drinks with an umbrella in them over in Barbados. Just thought some of you would be interested to see the latest theatrics in author misbehavior. It's a miracle anyone reviews indie authors anymore.
> 
> http://cuddlebuggery.com/2012/05/vanity-author-rampages-again


Hold on!

Isn't this whole thing about


Spoiler



Kiera Cass


, author of


Spoiler



The Selection


?

The last I heard she was both agented and published by Harper Collins so what does "reviewing indie authors" have to do with it?

She isn't. Trad authors are QUITE capable of acting like jerks. Good lord, Arthur Miller once physically attacked Gore Vidal for having criticised his writing. This is a tea party compared to that feud.


----------



## George Berger (Aug 7, 2011)

D a l y a said:


> I'm an adult and I don't read a ton of YA, even though I write for the genre. Honestly, some of the popular YA authors and series are just not that interesting to me, and I find it really perplexing why some of them are as huge as they are. I have a goodreads account, but I don't dare post what I REALLY think of certain popular books, for fear of backlash.


Likewise. There are some classic YA novels that I loathed even when I _was_ a YA, whose enduring appeal I cannot even begin to fathom, decades later.

One of the things I find most frustrating about writing YA - and I've got a couple YA books out now - is the unavoidable knowledge that something like 80% of ebook readers are adult women. Writing a book that's attractive to YA males and adult women - who are going to read it regardless... - is, as they say, nontrivial. Really, no matter what genre you write as an indie, publishing ebooks, you ignore (or alienate) adult women at your considerable peril.


----------



## Lily_T (Sep 25, 2011)

Well YOU can't because you'll be accused of jealousy and whatnot, but lots of those crossover readers do. Even some of their positive reviews have qualifiers. Whereas the reviews from the young adult readers are usually something in the vein of "I die for this book. So kewl." I think authors look at that and think if the too-old-for-genre readers would take a hike their books would be more well-regarded.

There was a scandal not too long ago when one author wrote a blog post about how she gleefully refused to write a blurb for a former Goodreader's debut novel because she had once given her a thumbs down. A bunch of other authors piled on with oblique reviewers-should-be-nice-or-else-we'll blackball-them-in-the industry posts. I guess they thought that threat was a good one to make because it only really applied to the crossover readers. Well, the mushroom cloud from that blowup is still smoldering. 

Honestly the authors always, always lose. The crossover readers include teachers, librarians and moms. This is not a constituency a writer should want to tick off.



D a l y a said:


> This is its own issue entirely!
> 
> I'm an adult and I don't read a ton of YA, even though I write for the genre. Honestly, some of the popular YA authors and series are just not that interesting to me, and I find it really perplexing why some of them are as huge as they are. *I have a goodreads account, but I don't dare post what I REALLY think of certain popular books, for fear of backlash. I mean, it's all fun and games until the angry mob comes for you, right?*


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Norman Mailer having a hissy over a Gore Vidal NYT review.






Dick Cavatt's closing lines is a winner.

Seriously, people over react to these little tiffs. They're not a big deal. Authors have been having hissy fits over someone criticising their work for hundreds of years.


----------



## John A. A. Logan (Jan 25, 2012)

JRTomlin said:


> Hold on!
> 
> Isn't this whole thing about
> 
> ...


That was Norman Mailer, head-butted Vidal just before they went on a tv chat show together. Mailer said Vidal took it well, went quiet for 10 minutes while stunned then chirped up and chatted like nothing happened. 
(I now imagine Arthur Miller organising his agent and a troop of internet trolls with sock-puppet accounts on Twitter-from-beyond-the-grave....preparing to do battle over this false accusation of assault!)


----------



## kurzon (Feb 26, 2011)

JRTomlin said:


> Hold on!
> 
> Isn't this whole thing about
> 
> ...


The original author was published by Harper Collins. This latest thing is down to a self-published author making a long post about the reviewer who reviewed the original author.


----------



## NathanWrann (May 5, 2011)

I wrote a *HUGE* response for this thread.

Then I read the review.

and deleted my response.

The review on Goodreads is fair. It boils down to "this wasn't a book for me". Not sure if it deserved a 1* because of that but that's not my call.

Everything that followed after the review (Agent smack talk, Author response, 1 Star posse, Friend sock-puppeting) is just all high school bullshit.

This thread has actually turned it into more drama than it really is.


----------



## NathanWrann (May 5, 2011)

I do have to make a mention of one thing though...

There is a fair amount of Self-Publisher "profiling" going on lately where every bit of "bad behavior" is attributed to a self publisher.

So someone (a friend of the author) retaliated because the reviewer's friends slapped down a bunch of 1*s. That friend _happens_ to be a self-publisher so suddenly it's an "indie-Author" issue. She also _is_ a woman. _might be_ a mother. _might be_ black, or white, or asian, or latin. So why only categorize her as a crazy indie author. Why not say "Women Authors are crazy" or "Mothers need to learn to control themselves". The fact is that this is just another example of "profiling".


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

John A. A. Logan said:


> That was Norman Mailer, head-butted Vidal just before they went on a tv chat show together. Mailer said Vidal took it well, went quiet for 10 minutes while stunned then chirped up and chatted like nothing happened.
> (I now imagine Arthur Miller organising his agent and a troop of internet trolls with sock-puppet accounts on Twitter-from-beyond-the-grave....preparing to do battle over this false accusation of assault!)


You're right it was Norman Mailer. Sorry about the brain fart. I was thinking one and typed the other. I feel TERRIBLE accusing Miller of behaving like Norman Mailer who was a real arse. I sincerely apologize to the shade of Arthur Miller! Hopefully, you're wrong about the Trolls-from-beyond-the-grave. *shudder*

The bottom line: People of all types can behave badly. This "OMG-an-indie-did-thus-and-so" is getting very old.


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

JRTomlin said:


> Norman Mailer having a hissy over a Gore Vidal NYT review.


Wow, those two are jerks, and Mailer is such a bully.


----------



## Craig Halloran (May 15, 2012)

Atunah said:


> It doesn't matter *Craig Halloran* (forgot to pull your quote up) to most readers about all these technical aspects of point of view, etc. For many reviews are very personal, and there are some things that just trigger dislike. I know I review on a emotional level. Reading is emotional for me. Its not a technical book review. I don't even know how to do that, as I don't know squat about the technical aspects of writing.
> 
> Many readers don't. We just know we hated the character, or I didn't feel the setting, this character peeved me off. For me its the TSTL (To stupid to live) heroine. I will deduct stars if I can't stand characters.
> 
> ...


Sorry, you are not lacking anything. A poor choice of words on my part. I will modify my post. You, and all readers have every right to rate a book how you see fit. It wasn't my intention to insult anyone.


----------



## Guest (Jun 2, 2012)

Hilary Thomson said:


> I've glanced at the author's numbers. She's currently in the top 500 in Kindle sales, and top 1800 in paperback. She's doing all right, so it seems the bad review isn't hurting her sales very much. In fact, the controversy appears to be helping her. Stabbing a nasty reviewer in the back while making a pile of money at the same time must be the ultimate revenge trip.


Yep.


----------



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson (Aug 25, 2010)

Phew! Was about to shut down and go to bed but when I saw this I was obliged to read the whole thing. Now waaay past my bed time


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

Craig Halloran said:


> Sorry, you are not lacking anything. A poor choice of words on my part. I will modify my post. You, and all readers have every right to rate a book how you see fit. It wasn't my intention to insult anyone.


Thanks. We all use the wrong kind of words once in a while.


----------



## Craig Halloran (May 15, 2012)

Atunah said:


> Thanks. We all use the wrong kind of words once in a while.


Your post gave me some insight I hadn't considered before.


----------

