Authors should never respond to reviews?

[Amarie]

It's strange to me to put authors in some special category. I've never responded to a review ( I don't read 95% of them) but it never occurred to me that some people think I shouldn't. I don't review books, because i have no interest in doing so, but I assume anything I post on the Internet, whether it's twitter or goodreads or a blog post is the same as if I'm saying it in a public space, so I don't control who can respond. Reviews fit in the same category. They are in a public space. If a comment was really crude, I'd block a person, but beyond that I just ignore. I had one person leave a comment on a blog post who was trying to get me to post an angry response, because the person came back several times to look at the post, but I just left it and didn't respond. I found it kind of pathetic they were spending their time on such a thing.

[bearilou]

Originally Posted by shadowwalker

In fanfiction (and I'm a veteran of that arena) authors are expected to respond to comments. Fan/author interaction is integral to fanfiction. But I'll also state that authors who behave badly are also looked on negatively.

But this is not fanfiction. This is 'real world' and if I review a book, I want other readers to engage. The author had his/her say in the book. Now it belongs to the readers.

I was just thinking this (the figment author who was trying to rally the crowd to downvote). I have to wonder if this uptick in activity of young authors and reviewers clashing so hard is a collision of the culture that many of these young authors are coming out of. Namely, fanfiction where the exchange between author and commenter was actively encouraged.

Now, with stepping into professional writing shoes, they're in a whole new world with different expectations and a culture shock arises out of that.

[raburrell]

Well said, Amarie

I guess part of it is that I'm separating a book review from a book discussion to a certain extent. Once it becomes an active discussion, to me, it's something that takes on a life outside the book - if the author wants to participate, I don't see why they can't. Based on the pro/con responses in this thread, it seems to be coming down to personal comfort levels (and I'm not attempting to invalidate anyone's opinion by saying that, just making an observation). I agree with Buffysquirrel that part of what we're seeing is the culture surrounding books is changing, and not everyone is going to be comfortable with how it proceeds.

eta: with regards to fanfiction having a different model, bearilou makes a good point as well. The only thing I'd like to add is the question of whether it would really be such a terrible thing if that became more standard for professional authors as well - sure, there are downsides, but there are benefits as well.

[Axordil]

Books are like kids. You send them out into the world to rise or fall on their own...but no one should be surprised if you take an interest in how they're doing now and then.

In regards to the Rabble project at Kickstarter: I asked about the revenue model. Answer: "the revenue will come from ads--from trad and indie pubbed sources--as
well as revenue from licensing the list to other media outlets."

In other words, a LOT like Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic.

Still pondering. Obviously SP authors and indie publishers have the most to gain from this, and given the people behind it, that's not a surprise. Is that a bad thing, though?

[shadowwalker]

Originally Posted by Axordil

Still pondering. Obviously SP authors and indie publishers have the most to gain from this, and given the people behind it, that's not a surprise. Is that a bad thing, though?

Unfortunately, it seems to be like Amazon reviews - an SP author gets favorable reviews from other SP authors, not necessarily because the book is good but because it's another SP author. It becomes another gaming thing rather than honest reviews. So the value of those reviews is questionable, thus defeating the purpose of such a site.

Personally, I think reviews in terms of reader decision are over-rated. Most people go by recommendations from people they know or who have a good reputation for honesty, at least in my experience.

[slhuang]

Speaking as a reader, I'd LOVE a site like Rotten Tomatoes that has a lot of self-published and small press material on it. I actively want to widen my reading as much as possible, but the problem is, many books that didn't get signed with the big trade publishers didn't get a contract because . . . well, they're not well-written, and it's just too much to wade through on my own. I would love, love, love to be able to find self-published or small press-published books that ARE well-written but don't have a big marketing push behind them for reasons unrelated to quality.

I tend to find Amazon and GR ratings next to useless as a barometer for how much I'll enjoy a book. I don't know if this site would be better, but I do like Rotten Tomatoes more than any other source for movie reviews. You don't get the same sock puppet problem on movies, though, so the site would have to raise the bar pretty high on their review quality, I think. But I'd be interested in seeing if they're able to make something useful here.

[veinglory]

When I got published I found reviewing authors I knew online or any book from a press I was published by to be increasingly uncomfortable. Especially if I didn't love the book. So I stopped reviewing those books. That still leaves me plenty of books to review.

[Axordil]

an SP author gets favorable reviews from other SP authors, not necessarily because the book is good but because it's another SP author. It becomes another gaming thing rather than honest reviews.

The impression I get from their description is that they want to avoid that sort of thing, precisely because it would, as you note, undermine the credibility of the site. Thus the stated goal of vetting reviewers. Now the standards for vetting would be another question...

[shadowwalker]

Originally Posted by Axordil

The impression I get from their description is that they want to avoid that sort of thing, precisely because it would, as you note, undermine the credibility of the site. Thus the stated goal of vetting reviewers. Now the standards for vetting would be another question...

Yeah, the standards would definitely be the question. And considering the background/views of the people setting this up...

[Susan Lanigan]

I've rarely had reviews since my entire published output is short fiction, usually in periodicals, very rarely in anthologies. The two exceptions to this rule have got some reviews, for the most part complimentary. I will quote from the reviews on my website but I won't usually interact with the reviewer unless they wish it.

[paulcosca]

I really wish I had been able to find this thread when it was newer. When you're five pages in, it's tough to say anything that hasn't already been said.

However, it's a boring Wednesday here at work and I might as well throw my two cents in. As a reviewer, I stand behind my work. If I put up a review and the creator of that work has questions or comments, I want to know about it. In fact, if I've been in contact with someone about scheduling the review, I will email them to let them know it is up, and let them know that they can feel free to ask me any questions they have. That happened just today, in fact. And I was delighted to hear back from the author.

I feel like if you are so insecure about your reviews that you don't ever want the author reading or interacting with them, then perhaps you should just write it in a journal for yourself. Reviewers should be a part of the wider conversation, not some distant figure that gets to throw out critiques without anyone responding to them.

[shadowwalker]

Originally Posted by paulcosca

Reviewers should be a part of the wider conversation, not some distant figure that gets to throw out critiques without anyone responding to them.

I don't recall (though it's been a while) anyone saying no one should respond to their reviews. The discussion is about authors responding - and people not wanting to get into heated debates with said authors, or having 'edited' responses because people feel intimidated by the author's presence, hardly reflect 'insecurity' about the review. It just means they believe reviews (and any subsequent discussion) are about the reader, not the author. If the author wants to discuss their book, they can set up a blog.

[Amadan]

Originally Posted by paulcosca

However, it's a boring Wednesday here at work and I might as well throw my two cents in. As a reviewer, I stand behind my work. If I put up a review and the creator of that work has questions or comments, I want to know about it. In fact, if I've been in contact with someone about scheduling the review, I will email them to let them know it is up, and let them know that they can feel free to ask me any questions they have. That happened just today, in fact. And I was delighted to hear back from the author.

I feel like if you are so insecure about your reviews that you don't ever want the author reading or interacting with them, then perhaps you should just write it in a journal for yourself. Reviewers should be a part of the wider conversation, not some distant figure that gets to throw out critiques without anyone responding to them.

It doesn't bother me if authors respond to my reviews. Several have done so.

The issue isn't whether reviewers should stand by their opinions, but whether it's a bad idea for authors to argue with reviewers. (Hint: it is.)

Some have stronger opinions, and think authors should never respond to a review, period. I think that's silly, but it's always risky for an author to engage with reviews.

[thothguard51]

I think there is a time and place for a writer/author to interact with fans, reviewers, and the likes. I don't think its in a review...

But that is just my opinion...

[paulcosca]

If someone wants to take me to task for something I wrote in a review, more power to them. I can justify anything I've written. As an author, I would only address a review if it was false or biased, but that's just me. Certainly I've never felt like I needed to censor myself because I knew the person that I was reviewing. As a theatre critic I've reviewed shows that had friends and colleagues of mine performing. If they didn't do well, then that's what I say. I give them the courtesy of an email with a link to the review, precisely because I want them to know I'm not hiding it.

[Erin Latimer]

I know that authors should never respond to reviews, but I feel like some of the reviewers are so sensitive now (maybe after being attacked by crazy authors) that they'll lash out at anyone who disagrees with their review. Like, I have a problem with some of the reviews on a certain author's books, because I feel like some of them are condescending and mean, (to the point of being personal) but I know if I commented on that review and objected to it, I'd be labeled another "crazy author" even though it's not MY book they're reviewing.

I just stay out of everything now, pretty much.

[jari_k]

Originally Posted by Erin Latimer

I know that authors should never respond to reviews, but I feel like some of the reviewers are so sensitive now (maybe after being attacked by crazy authors) that they'll lash out at anyone who disagrees with their review. Like, I have a problem with some of the reviews on a certain author's books, because I feel like some of them are condescending and mean, (to the point of being personal) but I know if I commented on that review and objected to it, I'd be labeled another "crazy author" even though it's not MY book they're reviewing.

I just stay out of everything now, pretty much.

I don't understand why one reader should want to respond to another's review. At least, if it's the kind of "review" that goes up at Amazon. It's opinion. No reviewer is going to change her opinion because another reader disagrees, is she? Shaking our fingers at people and telling them to be nicer probably won't work, either. It makes more sense (to me) to state our own view of a book, and let the chips fall where they may. I don't tend to review unless I really enjoy a story, anyway.

I don't buy books based on Amazon reviews either. I suppose it goes back to having been a reader long before there was an "online." I always enjoyed going into bookstores and seeing what caught my eye. Front flap, back flap, a quick scan of the beginning. If a "new" author was good, I'd look for the name again. I use the same approach on line. I look for new books in various categories, read the summary, the sample chapter, and decide.

[KingAlanI]

Like some of the other posters in this thread, I have fanfic roots.
I love talking about my work with readers, and I do the same if I'm interested in their work. I welcome the conversation if someone's interested in having it.
However, I have these discussions privately. It sounds like a lot of the trouble stems from the authors' replies being public (comment sections, forums, et cetera)

[Buffysquirrel]

Originally Posted by jari_k

I don't understand why one reader should want to respond to another's review. At least, if it's the kind of "review" that goes up at Amazon. It's opinion. No reviewer is going to change her opinion because another reader disagrees, is she?

I dunno. Sometimes other readers have said things in response to my reviews that have made me view the book in a different way, or see something I'd missed.

[Samsonet]

I, as a reader, responded to a review once, mainly because the reviewer had said everything I wanted to say and I didn't feel like typing pretty much the same things into another review.

[jari_k]

Originally Posted by Buffysquirrel

I dunno. Sometimes other readers have said things in response to my reviews that have made me view the book in a different way, or see something I'd missed.

Come to think of it, I don't know if anyone's ever replied to one of my reviews. Probably not. I've only reviewed at Amazon, and never at any book discussion sites. I've also only written reviews for stories I've enjoyed.

I was answering in light of the post I quoted, but probably didn't state my opinion well. I was a bit sleepy at the time. The idea in the quoted post (I had thought) was about the urge to answer negative reviews that seemed over the top on another author's book. For me, if I were to dislike a story enough to say so in public, I wouldn't be likely to change my opinion just because someone else disagreed. If I'd been rude, I doubt I'd get some manners because someone told me to, either. So, even if it were a book I loved, if someone posted a review stating, "Ick, I hate this!" I wouldn't be tempted to reply. I would assume that person's mind was made up.

I could certainly be wrong about people in general, though. Obviously, we all react individually. From my perspective, it would be pointless to express my disagreement on someone else's review, but that's only one take on it.

[ishtar'sgate]

Originally Posted by jari_k

From my perspective, it would be pointless to express my disagreement on someone else's review, but that's only one take on it.

I agree. Reading is a subjective process from start to finish. I don't happen to like vampire novels. To me the premise is already so far out there that I know I couldn't suspend disbelief and enjoy the novel as I'd like to. For others, that's precisely the reason they enjoy them.

When I review a novel I'm giving my opinion and my opinion is based on the sort of voice and style I appreciate, the genre I gravitate towards and a ton of other things I probably couldn't explain. If someone disagrees with me that's perfectly fine. They also have their opinion and they've a right to have it.

Mean-spirited reviewers are pretty obvious and I simply ignore them. If I strongly disagree with a thoughtful reviewer, someone who is sharing their honest opinion and isn't just ranting, I may write a review, not attacking their review but simply sharing another point of view without reference to the reviewer I disagree with.

[Buffysquirrel]

Originally Posted by jari_k

Come to think of it, I don't know if anyone's ever replied to one of my reviews. Probably not. I've only reviewed at Amazon, and never at any book discussion sites. I've also only written reviews for stories I've enjoyed.

I got quite a lot of responses on my review of Devil in the White City (the review and comments sadly now toast along with my GR account), ranging from my being an idiot to some very thoughtful comments that contributed to a better understanding of the book. But I didn't start to like it any better, that's for sure.

[snc84]

I had an author respond and thank me for a comment on Goodreads. While it was kinda a cool moment and I was like, "That's awesome that she took her time to respond." BUT now when I read her work, it's kind like she is there over my shoulder. She made herself personal to me and now(and it's my own hangup) I feel like I have to like her work. It's hard to be objective when reading a friend's work and that's partly how it feels.

[aikigypsy]

I have an online friend who is also a self-published author, who has thanked me profusely for my reviews of his books, and I'd rather he toned it down.

On the other hand, I left a review of a book from a major publisher which had some very annoying formatting problems with the e-book edition, making parts of it hard to read. The author responded, saying that she would bring it to the publisher's attention and try to get it fixed. That seemed like an appropriate response.