Critics: Good and Bad

[Nateskate]

In my impression, you have to be somewhat thick skinned to expose yourself to review. It's the nature of the game.

Let's face it. If you write a classic, someone somewhere isn't going to like it. How much does negative criticism impact you?

Obviously some have dealt with it more than others.

[vstrauss]

Some of it depends on your temperament. Some people are able to shrug it off. If you're like me, what tends to register is the negative comments; the positive ones somehow have less impact.

But you absolutely do have to develop a thicker skin or you won't survive. I used to be completely prostrated by even the hint of a negative in a review; I've learned to be much more objective and ignore the silly things people say on Amazon, or dismiss reviews where the reviewer obviously didn't read the book or had some sort of personal obsession to grind.

Plus, no matter how upset you may become at the time, it passes. You learn to recognize that.

- Victoria

[Nateskate]

You are not alone. I think many of us are most aware of critical statements.

What is sad, is that some critics are way too callous and out of touch with common opinion. I've seen some books torn apart by one critic, and then praised resoundingly by another. Can a book be a 1/5 stars for one and a 5/5 stars for another? That shouldn't be.

[Jamesaritchie]

It doesn't. I've never had a really bad review, but I wouldn't care. It like they say, if you believe the good reviews, you also have to believe the bad ones. Neither matter in any way.
There isn;t even a reason to read reviews and criticism, that I can see.

The only cristicism that matters in any way is the criticism you get from ordinary readers. They criticise with their hard-earned money, not with words.

[CindyBidar]

Can a book be a 1/5 stars for one and a 5/5 stars for another? That shouldn't be.

Seems to me that's proof how subjective book reviews are, and even more reason not to take them too seriously.

[Fresie]

Oops! Wrong topic! <img border=0 src="http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/happy.gif" />

[Crusader]

Can a book be a 1/5 stars for one and a 5/5 stars for another? That shouldn't be.

Hm. Aside from the actual quality of the prose or story, if the book was about a heroine who had an abortion and lied about it to her husband in Chapter 10--because she already had 3 kids and couldn't bear another--then...

... a critic with beliefs and experiences that are sympathetic might review the book as a 5.

... a critic of unsympathetic beliefs and background might rate it as a 1.

... a critic neither sympathetic nor unsympathetic might give the book a 5, as a "moving and realistic tale'.

... i might read it and find it too boring to review, even with the drama of Chapter 10.

Who, if anyone, is right? And, does it matter?

On a related note: Some books seem intended to display the inside of the author's head. Some books strive to communicate ideas, experiences, or entertainment to "the common man". Other books seem content with a niche audience. And some books seem like they were written to meet a contract/hit a deadline/make a buck.

So, i wonder if any of that is important to a critic: does context change the rating? If a book is understood to be a cheap, trashy thriller for the grocery aisle or airport lounge, should a critic rate it a 5 because it succeeds in that context? Or should the critic judge it without context, by some "universal" standard of book worth, and thus give it a dismal rating?

[Writing Again]

I don't know about a "thick skin" but being emotional and sensitive does not help. Personally I concern myself with what is useful. Even though I have not been published in many years I still consider myself professional.

I always pay attention to reviews and critiques. My mother taught me, "Always listen to your enemies for they take the greatest delight in telling you the hard truths that your friends are either too soft hearted to tell you or love you too much to notice." It took me time but I learned to agree with her.

This does not mean that every bad review is true, correct, fair, or truthful: What it means is that the review is that those that are nor are of no use to you. Nor does it mean that the reviewer hates you: they may give your next book a good review.

What about the reviewer who finds, and points out, a real fault in your writing? If you ignore those reviews how will you ever correct it? What if it is not a fault but a personal choice you will decide, or have already decided, to keep? How do you reply?

Mary Higgins Clark was criticized for "using too much coincidence in her stories: Her reply was interesting:( Note this is a loose translation -- I don't remember the original word for word.) "When I decided to write this type of novel I spent a lot of time in court listening to trials so my books would be accurate to life. The amount of coincidence that takes place in the average murder case is amazing; far more than I have ever included in any of my novels." She still uses coincidence and her fans do not complain.

As for having a thick skin? A professional won't bother with emotional reactions. Either it helps your writing or it doesn't.

What do you do when you receive a letter provisionally accepting your novel and in the letter you are told, "Your character DumDude is a waste of ink. Either get rid of him or flesh him out. And do something with chapter # and chapter #. They are garbage." Editors may baby top selling writers but they do not mince words with wannabes.

Do you jump for joy over its acceptance? Cry because it is lambasted? Call the editor up and tell them what a jerk they are? Or get to work?

[maestrowork]

YOU should know how good your book is (or how GOOD a writer you are). Your agent should know. Your publisher should know. Your fans should know. Your buying public should know.

If a review agrees with what you already know about your writing, congratulations! You've gained a fan. Otherwise, stop reading them and start writing another novel.

Most successful people I know (businessmen, actors, musicans, etc.) don't read reviews. They've got no time.

[vstrauss]

>>So, i wonder if any of that is important to a critic: does context change the rating? If a book is understood to be a cheap, trashy thriller for the grocery aisle or airport lounge, should a critic rate it a 5 because it succeeds in that context? Or should the critic judge it without context, by some "universal" standard of book worth, and thus give it a dismal rating?<<

Speaking for myself as a book reviewer (not a critic: a critic is something different; most book reviews are not written by critics)--one of the most important things a reviewer should do is to read a book on its own terms. If the thriller is a good thriller, it should get a good review, no matter how it compares something more literary and "serious".

Another important thing is to school yourself to recognize quality independent of liking. I've given good reviews to books I didn't like, because I thought they were good books.

It's also important to me personally to be ethical: not to review books I know ahead of time I won't like (if I hate the genre, for instance) in order to do a hatchet job, not to review books by friends, to read every word of the books I review. On the other hand, if everyone loves a book and I think it stinks, I don't feel I can't say so. A corrective review can be a good thing.

(Do I think, when I write a bad review, of how upset I'd get if that review was of one of my books? Mostly no. It goes with the territory, and any writer has got to find a way of dealing with it. Occasionally, though, if it's a debut author, I'll choose not to do the review, because I don't like feeling I may be dumping on someone's budding career.)

Yes, reviews are subjective. You can't help but bring to them your own taste, understanding, and reading history. But within those parameters, you can be ethical and adhere to standards beyond your own personal likes and dislikes. As a reader, I find reviews valuable for winnowing my reading list; this is also true for booksellers and librarians (I'm talking professional reviews here, not reader reactions on Amazon, which can be very thoughtful and intelligent but are much more likely to be illiterate, unhelpful, stupid, or all three). So reviews do serve a useful purpose, and they definitely serve a commercial one.

- Victoria

[vstrauss]

>>Most successful people I know (businessmen, actors, musicans, etc.) don't read reviews. They've got no time.<<

I'd believe Stephen King if he said this. I don't believe anyone else.

- Victoria

[maestrowork]

I know Jodie Foster and Meryl Streep don't read their reviews. I think Stephen King has said that he doesn't care about reviews.

[James D Macdonald]

Reviews. Ignore 'em. If you don't believe the bad ones, you shouldn't believe the good ones.

One important thing: No matter what you think of a review, don't respond to it.

[maestrowork]

But a good review helps sales? And a bad one hampers?

Truth? Myth?

[ChunkyC]

But a good review helps sales? And a bad one hampers?

Truth? Myth?
I'd say it depends on the forum. Amazon: probably not much, if at all. New York Times: hell yeah.

[Nateskate]

There are confident people. I'd doubt that most famous people are confident people. In fact, some are exactly the opposite, driven people.

John Lennon once blamed his fame on a neurosis, that he was driven, and I believe it. I'm not saying he was mentally unbalanced at all. On the contrary, he was a genius. But he was extremely sensitive, and in fact became somewhat anorexic because one critic said he was "The fat Beatle"

I think ignoring critics can be a sign of strength in some cases, but I imagine that few people can resist "hoping" to get a good review, and feeling crushed by finding a terrible one.

[Karen Ranney]

If you can dream--and not make dreams your master,
If you can think--and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with worn-out tools:

Second stanza of If by Rudyard Kipling

Emphasis on this part:

If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;

[Victim 655321]

I think to determine how much reviews actually hurt or help sales, it depends a great deal on what kind of books you're trying to write.

No offense intended.

People that read the big names and paperbacks they see on shelves usually just go with something that grabs them by the synopsis, and read it. Then, from that point, they grow loyal to a specific few writers more than others.

Sci-Fi/Fantasy readers as well as Romance are the same way. Usually aren't too picky, just want something to tickle their romantic inclination or imagination, so they're not too concerned with reviews either, and can become EXTREMELY loyal, but will take a look from time to time to see the best of the best after they're done with their latest 6-book epic. Here's where Amazon kicks in.

Now, if you're writing non-fiction or that indescribable brand of book we just label "fiction/lit" b/c it covers such a wide range that doesn't fit anywhere else? Reviews mean a great deal more here, b/c you're more likely to go for an audience of the reading elite, the people that look for the best of the best, the profound, the truly original, the award-getting kind of book. And the NY Times comes into play here, as this is the kind of book usually slated for reviews. Books like this year's The Line of Beauty, The Plot Against America or Crossing California. Reviews mean quite a bit on that note as far as sales go.

Now, in relation to how you should personally be taking them? I say roll with the punches. If you're not prepared to have someone somewhere take a dump on your baby, you should find another profession. Because you can't please everyone, and maybe that someone has an Amazon ID or a job at the Guardian.

Do it like the musicians do. Play for the fans, not the critics.

[bolshywoman]

Funny, Karen! The same Kipling poem occurred to me as I read this thread, but a different line.

If neither foe nor loving friend can hurt you...

[Nateskate]

On some level, approval and disapproval can be equally problematic, insofar as they can control us, and we can become a slave to the approval of others.

So, there has to be a "higher principle" or a standard by which we are measured, and our works are measured.

Yet, approval is very close to being a "human need", and some are already deficit spending as it is, having never had any foundation to begin with. Those are least secure, and more prone to be put off balance by criticism.

Others, generally have somewhat of a stronger foundation, or even a stubbornness, by which they can wade through disapproval better than others.

Still, the strong can't really judge the weak in this area, because so much of it is emotional, rather than intellectual, although they can certainly give them good advice.

[Jamesaritchie]

There's a saying in publishing that a wonderful review in the right place can sell 100,000 novels, and a horrible review in the same place can sell 90,000 copies.

It's like the old saw that it doesn't matter what is said about you, as long as they spell your name right. It's true.

"The Bridges of Madison County" received more truly horrible reviews than any novel in history, yet it hit the top of the bestseller list three times, and set records for how long it stayed there. Subsequent novels by Waller received better and better reviews, but sold about as well as ice cubes in Alaska.

Reviewers almost have a tradition of blasting books that go on to become bestsellers, and even classics. Just take a look at the reviews and criticism many of our classic novels received when first published. It's hilarious.

Bad reviews only have meaning if the reading public agrees with the reviews. Darned few readers in the general public care in the least what a reviewer has to say about a book, good or bad. Either way, the public tries the book, and if enough like it, word of mouth will make it a bestseller. If enough dislike it, it fades away.

At the absolute best, a review is just one person's opinion, and seldom means anything more than whether or not one person liked or disliked a book. And I don't care what the book is, at least half those who read it will probably dislike it.

[mr mistook]

I'd doubt that most famous people are confident people.


Well, imagine being famous. You have a certain number of millions of folks who really really like you - who are stunned with awe when they see you in the flesh and would never dare say anything to hurt you. Instead they praise you. They hang on your every word. They know your work intimately and relish the smallest details.

And then you'd have that inner core of people - your entourage, or whatever they call it. Your handlers and your special groupies, your close confidants - and all of them make your life and your success their business. They respect and admire you. They watch out for you. They're always around as a buffer to the outside world.

After a while it's got to be very hard to accept that outside that bubble of fame, there is a much wider world that still doesn't know you, and really will never care one fig about your life. So when that kind of indifference touches a famous person in the form of a criticizm - or an overheard remark - I imagine it has 100 times the negative impact that it would for an average joe.

----

I mean look at me? I can count on one hand the people who care whether I live or die, and most of them are too busy to hang out with more than once in a blue moon - and they aren't necessarily thrilled to see me even then! I've spent whole years of my life knowing for sure that no human in my sphere gave the slightest hoot what I did or thought.

And then - when I do go through phases where people notice me - it's almost always BAD :lol I'm so used to people bashing my music and hating my artwork that I've come to see it as a point of pride. What's so sad is, I'm not even trying to be controversial!

-----------

AT ANY RATE:

The only criticizm I'm concerned with now is in the SYW section of this site, and in that circumstance I'm a masochist. Beat Me! I'd much rather have my manuscript thoroughly flogged by good writers than send off a peice of cr*p to a publisher.

Not that I don't enjoy the positive feedback too, but as a novelist, I know I'm still working on my style, and the negative feedback helps me to face my flaws and correct them.

This won't last forever, of course. Some day I'll decide I've learned enough and become set in my ways. And then I'll say "screw you" to the writing critics just like I do to the reading critics.

[Nateskate]

"And then you'd have that inner core of people - your entourage, or whatever they call it. Your handlers and your special groupies, your close confidants - and all of them make your life and your success their business. They respect and admire you. They watch out for you. They're always around as a buffer to the outside world."

Few people have an entourage. If you get that famous, you'll find though that you have an insincere bunch of b#tt Kissers, who are not really in love with you, but with themselves, sycophants who love you for the fact that they get to be a part of your ride, like ramoree (Sp?) that leach onto a shark.

It's not that you can't find sincere people, but you'd have a hard time separating them, making a person suspicious of who they can really trust. Real friends will stick with you when you fall from grace. There's no lack of hanger on-ers when someone is successful.

It's like Whitney Houston in the Body-Guard, you don't know who you can trust.

People are particularly strange. They love to turn someone into an idol, and then they equally love to tear them down. All people want to be loved for who they are, not what they've accomplished. However, they are afraid that if they don't accomplish and keep accomplishing, that no one will even care who they are. If you are loved as a "performer", they will get on your case when you stop performing.

People who are truly famous realize that finding true friends is more valuable than gold, or even fame.

[maestrowork]

You also have millions of people who "hate" you because you're famous, who can't wait to pass judgment like "Julia Roberts can't act" or "Meryl Streep is overrated" or "this is the worst work of Stephen King." Basing on your self-worth on the "outside world" or your "fans" will get you into trouble sooner or later. That's why so many movie stars/authors go to rehab.

[katdad]

Depends on the type of criticism.

If it's hateful and snarky, I ignore it. If it's negative but constructive, I try to learn from it and evaluate it, try to glean something from it, even if I don't agree with the assessment.

But in all cases, you as a writer must develop a thick skin.

[katdad]

Reviews. Ignore 'em. If you don't believe the bad ones, you shouldn't believe the good ones.
Once, when I was writing regular book reviews for a newspaper, I gave a particularly harsh review to a mystery novel.

The author phoned the paper and actually threatened to come to town and beat me up! I was proud of that one.

[Victim 655321]

Many "famous people" are artists in either visual, spoken or written form. And famous or not, artists are artists - and we artists have a tendency to be a bit neurotic and self-defeating.

No amount of instant fame can wipe away that - these quirks just don't disappear. So now they're neurotic AND forced to be in the spotlight. Same quirks, same unresolved issues, just more money and attention to express them with.

[Nateskate]

Snarky, "Now there's a word I can use!"

Hey, maybe some day I'll be famous enough and you can pan the snot out of my book! Oh, that would be a glorious day, not that I'd want you to pan my book, but that would mean it's finally in print.

And I'll promise not to come over to your town and thrash you. In fact, I'd come and give you a big fat hetero kiss.

In fact, perhaps when the day comes, I'll tip you off about my story, that way you can be sure to pan it whether you like it or not. Our little secret joke.

It's best to be panned by a friend they say.

[mr mistook]

It's not that you can't find sincere people, but you'd have a hard time separating them, making a person suspicious of who they can really trust. Real friends will stick with you when you fall from grace. There's no lack of hanger on-ers when someone is successful.

I imagine that a celebrity in that situation - not knowing who to trust, yet needing a friend - might start 'testing' people for their trustworthiness. You might put a person through such a rigorous series of tests that in the end they just plain don't like you anymore. They may still love you, but they might decide there's no winning with you and walk away.

I've never been a celebrity, but I was a popular kid for a little while there once upon a time, and I drove away a few great friends I'll never get back.

Hindsight is 20/20 (*sigh.)

[ChunkyC]

This is an extrememly interesting thread. I've always been thin-skinned and have had to work hard at getting over rejection in all its forms. I used to play in club-level rock bands and I have to tell you that for me one voice shouting "YOU SUCK" from the back of the room can drown out a night's worth of applause.

Nowadays, I write a weekly movie review column for my small town newspaper and have had many folks come up to me on the street to tell me how much they enjoy it. It is always the best feeling in the world. Yet in over three years and nearly two hundred columns, do you know what comments I remember the most? The one time my editor called to tell me that he'd received a few complaints that I was giving away too much of the movie's plot in my recent columns. I felt physically ill.

If I ever get a novel published, I don't think I'll be able to read a bad review without throwing up. It's probably better if I don't read them at all.

[Nateskate]

Katdad separated the helpful critic from the attack critic. Sometimes we can learn from them. Sometimes we need to dismiss them altogether, depending on where they are coming from.

At this point, I think I could be hung from my toes from the public square and pelted with rotten tomatoes, and I think I'd survive it.

My problem is that, insofar as writing, at this point, I wouldn't know whose opinion to trust or not to trust, so I could second guess myself to death.

[maestrowork]

CC, I had one person email me and said I was the worst writer in the world. I really found that funny (not to mention that person couldn't write a decent sentence). I wish I had framed it.

Nowadays, I take criticism as what it is: someone's opinion. If it has merit, I will consider it. If not, I congratulate myself to be successful enough to have someone opine on my work.

For example, my editor told me I should perhaps review more indie movies... and that I seemed to be very generous with my ratings -- nothing rated below a five, ever! I thought about that and I realized it was true: I'm too nice. And also reviewing Indies would give me a niche. Not that I'm going to abandon all studio movies since I don't really live in NY or LA, it's difficult for me to see all Indies.

Anyway, the point is, I know who I am and what I can do. If the opinion would help me do my job better or if it opens up new opportunities for me, why the heck not? Otherwise, I don't really care. I'm still quite thin-skinned on a lot of things, but after so many years in the consulting business, I know how to filter opinions.

[mr mistook]

I used to play in club-level rock bands and I have to tell you that for me one voice shouting "YOU SUCK" from the back of the room can drown out a night's worth of applause.

Hey, at least you got applause. I remember many a gig in my band days where the room would be empty by the third song. :lol Not that we were a lousy band, but the crowds always wanted cover bands and we stubbornly played all originals.

We ususally did better in college towns, but even in that setting many kids wanted originals to sound exactly like the songs they already loved, and we weren't copy cats either.

So the dismissive "You Suck"s and the slighting, "Not My Cup of Tea"s *far* outweighed the positive feedback. But when we did hook somebody, they loved us to death, and thats what I remember. That and my brother's drunken pep-talks. No matter how bad things looked, he was always positive that we were just on the verge of being "DISCOVERED!".

---

My problem is that, insofar as writing, at this point, I wouldn't know whose opinion to trust or not to trust, so I could second guess myself to death.

There's some inner aesthetic at the core of your being - and that's what you use as your "North Star". No matter what the world says or thinks, you must find, and must never lose that point of reference.

Trust the people who can *explain* their opinion. You can tell everything by that. DaVinci might say VanGogh is a childish painter. Vincent can dismiss DaVinci because he obviously goes for a different aesthetic entirely. Vincent can't as easily dismiss Gogan - and if good Paul expains his comments - positive or negative, Vinney knows whether or not he's really trying to help.

[Nateskate]

Hey, fellow musicians! Yeah! We rock.

"Nate- could you turn that down..."

I imagine that a celebrity in that situation - not knowing who to trust, yet needing a friend - might start 'testing' people for their trustworthiness. You might put a person through such a rigorous series of tests that in the end they just plain don't like you anymore. They may still love you, but they might decide there's no winning with you and walk away.

Brilliant insight. That is so true. If we invest in someone, and throw ourselves out there, we want to feel appreciated. And if someone keeps constantly sending the message, "I still don't believe you", it would take incredible patience to stick with them. Some people are like that, but not many.

At some point, people have to take a risk. Love is a risk. But hey, life kinda stinks without it.

[mr mistook]

If we invest in someone, and throw ourselves out there, we want to feel appreciated. And if someone keeps constantly sending the message, "I still don't believe you", it would take incredible patience to stick with them. Some people are like that, but not many.


And God forbid you get two such persons falling in love with one another! :eek

Each one would see the other as the tormentor, and both would be correct!

And yes that would make for a hell of a novel and I CALL DIBS! :b

[mr mistook]

Nate,

My critique of you is that you've started more "hot" threads on this board in a shorter amount of time than anybody in history. You're the life of the party, as far as I'm concerned. If you should ever vanish mysteriously from the cooler, You'll leave a great gaping hole.

I knew another like you, once upon a message board. She breezed in for the summer and started a bunch of crazy threads that got everybody *really* talking and thinking. When she left... well the tumble weeds came rolling in.

So don't for one second think I don't have you pegged as a heartbreaker, you sly devil. ;)

[katdad]

I used to play in club-level rock bands and I have to tell you that for me one voice shouting "YOU SUCK" from the back of the room can drown out a night's worth of applause.

Tell me about it. But the worst is silence. I've sung in quite a few operas, and I remember a deathly silence following one aria, sung by a tenor I knew. He was singing cover (2nd cast) for The Duke in Rigoletto and he screwed up "Parme" terribly.

Arrgh. I was in the chourus in that production, and stood there "attending the Duke" as he butchered the aria. He forgot some lines and then became totally bollixed up and started to sing a part of the aria again, while the orchestra just kept going on track.

The poor guy's face got red, then ashen white. I honestly thought he was going to pass out. We all tried to commiserate with him afterward but he was DOA.

I've done similar, blowing a minor line in Marriage of Figaro, when I was a soloist. Luckily it was only during the secco recitative and we went charging ahead, so it got swallowed up.

[katdad]

And I'll promise not to come over to your town and thrash you.
It was hilarious, actually. The guy lived in Dallas and I was in another city in Texas. He really threatened me, and my editor took it seriously. She called the cops because the guy was quite descriptive, graphic, and seemed to mean it, as least as she thought so.

I wanted to tell him, "Come on, pal, I got a big surprise for you." but my editor nixed this. Sigh. Coulda been a great shootout in the City Room of the paper.

[Nateskate]

Where's Doc Holiday when you need him?

[katdad]

Where's Doc Holiday when you need him?
In the hospital. ha ha.

Seriously I've been a somewhat rowdy boy in my youth and had no real problems if he'd decided to come visit. heh heh

[ChunkyC]

We all know the old "Fight or Flight" adage. I think Katdad and I are on opposite ends of that teeter-totter. :lol What can I say, at heart I'm a chicken-sh*t. Why I want to put myself out there for all the world to eviscerate is beyond me. I must really love writing.

[Nateskate]

Seriously I've been a somewhat rowdy boy in my youth and had no real problems if he'd decided to come visit. heh heh

How rowdy were you Katdad?

Hey Chuck, maybe me and Katdad should swing on by and ride shotgun for you. Between Katdad's snarks, and My pitarks, we'd thrash your enemies but good.

[ChunkyC]

Cool! I could stand between you wearing a fedora and greatcoat draped over my shoulders and chuckle like a maniac while you and katdad pull out their fingernails! Bwuahahaha! :hat

[Nateskate]

I'd give them such a look!