- Joined
- Jun 21, 2014
- Messages
- 15
- Reaction score
- 1
Define "bad"
--This brings up a question: Is there any reason writers should read reviews, besides curiosity? I mean, of course it's your choice whether to read them, but is it ever specifically a bad idea not to?
-- However, not reading any reviews might lead to a sense of complacency in some small way. If the critics say, for example, "Mr. F's work is excellent, but he has a problem with depicting action scenes, they're clunky and unconvincing" and that continues to be the pattern with all of this guy's novels AND he fails to act on it (either because he doesn't realize it or his editors don't tell him or he doesn't read the reviews) then down the road it might become a stumbling block. But if you are established, then by that point you should know what you're doing.
Well, until you become a huge bestseller and no one dares criticize you, which isn't a problem I ever expect to have.
"Consider the books this reviewer DOES like. Not much like yours."
Then I drank another pint of vodka and got over it. It also helped to note that even writers I consider literary gods and goddesses get bad reviews! As we say in Rhode Island, whaddayagonnado?
Thinking of using that bold bit as my new sig....Believe me, if I get complacent, if I slack off in any way at all, my READERS will let me know fast.
This is why I think reviews may b e good for selling books, but are truly lousy things for writers to read.
A long time ago, I read something in Publishers Weekly that has always stuck with me. "A good review in the right place can sell 100,000 copies. A bad review in the same place can sell 90,000 copies.
I also know that at one time, and it still may be the case, The Bridges of Madison County had a higher percentage of bad reviews than any bestseller ever. Despite this, the book not only hit the top of the bestseller list, and stayed there for a long, long time, it hit the top three times, once with hardcover, again with paperback, and again when the movie came out.
Reader make bestsellers, and readers make flops, not reviewers. And readers will let you know when you're doing anything wrong, when you get complacent and mail it in, faster, and better, than any reviewer.
Besides, as someone once said, "If you believe the good reviews, you're honor bound to also believe the bad ones."
The best reviewer out there is just one person, and has just one opinion. If you want to believe anyone about your writing, believe the majority of your readers.
This brings up a question: Is there any reason writers should read reviews, besides curiosity? I mean, of course it's your choice whether to read them, but is it ever specifically a bad idea not to?
What was the first bad review you got and how did you feel after reading it?