Authors should never respond to reviews?

Marian Perera · Oct 28, 2014

I was going to have a guest post on a review blog to promote my next book release. Yesterday I received an email from the bloggers. Partly because of recent events, they've decided not to provide feedback about books any more, so they're closing the blog.

One more reason I don't support authors who treat the reading public with entitlement, nastiness or just plain illegal actions like stalking (Hale) or stalking and assault (Richard Brittain). I also don't think that excusing this kind of behavior is a good idea that's likely to benefit readers and writers.

jari_k · Oct 28, 2014

andiwrite said:
I grew up in an area plagued by gang violence, so perhaps what went on at my school wasn't the norm. Anyway though, my point was just that we shouldn't judge her based on some incident when she was a kid.

Look, I grew up with the situation that I had to fight back when jumped, too. I understand the sentiment of not wanting to blame the author for actions she did as a minor. I don't think many people here have even mentioned it.

However, as an adult she posted the hydrogen peroxide incident for public consumption. I can't know why, but my gut feeling is she is still rather proud of it, too.

It also wasn't a "fight" in the sense of an exchange of blows between two teens. It required a different mindset than an ordinary fight, IMO. Even if she'd never posted about that, the current event is bad enough.

I'm not personally trying to say no one should buy her books. Buy the books that make you happy. I seldom think about whether my opinions are "mainstream" or not. They are what they are. Perhaps this is something authors can learn from, if they didn't already know obsessing and stalking behaviors do no one any good.

P.S. I won't be buying it, but it's not the kind of book I'd have enjoyed anyway.

Kevin Nelson · Oct 28, 2014

andiwrite said:
I personally think they should change the title of statutory rape because to at all equate that with actual violent rape is disgusting, imo. But that's another discussion.

It has been changed in the statutes of most U.S. states. See, for example, this handbook on the subject from the U.S. Department of Justice (Sec. II, p.1); or this research report.

As you can see from the latter link, individual states have a whole range of names for the offense: "sexual abuse of a minor," "unlawful sexual intercourse," "sexual misconduct with a minor" and so on. I suppose people keep using the term "statutory rape" because there's no single clear alternative.

jjdebenedictis · Oct 29, 2014

jari_k said:
I'm not personally trying to say no one should buy her books. Buy the books that make you happy. I seldom think about whether my opinions are "mainstream" or not.

There is an ethical middle ground for those who enjoy the art but don't want to support the artist. If I find an author's books fun but their actions distasteful, I simply get their books from the library or a second-hand shop. The author did already get a royalty for that copy of the book -- but they get nothing from me.

Hapax Legomenon · Oct 29, 2014

I've had an author respond to a negative review of mine before, so I know how uncomfortable it can be. So, I've already decided not to respond to any reviews... that doesn't mean I don't read them and my friends don't mock them to me privately, though.

jari_k · Oct 29, 2014

jjdebenedictis said:
There is an ethical middle ground for those who enjoy the art but don't want to support the artist. If I find an author's books fun but their actions distasteful, I simply get their books from the library or a second-hand shop. The author did already get a royalty for that copy of the book -- but they get nothing from me.

That's a good middle ground. As I think about it, even if this were the type of book I'd like, I don't think I'd want to spend any time reading it. Knowing what the author is capable of makes me squeamish about spending time with her creation.

After all my talk about separating book from author, maybe I'm incapable of it, after all. I'd prefer to know nothing about an author whose work I liked, rather than to find something like this.

Liosse de Velishaf · Oct 29, 2014

Kevin Nelson said:
It has been changed in the statutes of most U.S. states. See, for example, this handbook on the subject from the U.S. Department of Justice (Sec. II, p.1); or this research report.

As you can see from the latter link, individual states have a whole range of names for the offense: "sexual abuse of a minor," "unlawful sexual intercourse," "sexual misconduct with a minor" and so on. I suppose people keep using the term "statutory rape" because there's no single clear alternative.

Well, if you define "rape" as sex with lack of consent, then it's reasonable to use the word to refer to stat rape as long as we understand we're talking legal consent.

If we're a hundred percent sure the sex was consensual outside of legal statutes, then sexual misconduct works. But stat rape covers all situations of an adult have sex with someone legally a minor, whereas most other terms don't. I think that's why it's still popular.

I will absolutely not buy books by an author who exhibits this kind of behavior. Ever. I might get them from the library if I really think I'd love them. Luckily, I can side-step the moral quandary here because I'm not interested in the books in question.

RedWombat · Oct 29, 2014

Hooooooly mackerel, just catching up and read the wine bottle thing.

Dude. Dude. DUDE.

Fuchsia Groan · Oct 29, 2014

Liosse de Velishaf said:
If we're a hundred percent sure the sex was consensual outside of legal statutes, then sexual misconduct works. But stat rape covers all situations of an adult have sex with someone legally a minor, whereas most other terms don't. I think that's why it's still popular.

Having read a bunch of detailed reviews of Hale's book but not the book itself (so don't quote me), I believe the "rape" in question is part of the backstory. The heroine's best friend was having a consensual affair with a 39-year-old man before she was found murdered, and he immediately becomes a suspect. The heroine then refers to her friend as "huggable" (i.e., getting "hugged" by multiple guys, in the novel's Fargo-esque lingo), which Blythe sees as an instance of slut shaming.

From what I can tell, Blythe doesn't like the jocular way Hale's chirpy narrator treats all this. Whereas Hale argues that the narrator's voice shouldn't be confused with hers.

Which I agree with. But no writer can make a reader read in a certain way, nor does she have a right to try via confrontation. Hale could have blogged in a general way about some reactions to her novel that bothered her, naming no names and linking to no reviews, and explained reasonably and non-defensively why she chose the technique and tone she did. To my mind, that would have been a legit response if she felt the need to clear up what she believed were misreadings. (Do others agree? Or is even acknowledging negative reviews a problem? I'm curious about this.)

Instead, she fixated on a particular reviewer and started seeing the reviews as a vendetta against her. If you read the reviews, you see a lot of readers acknowledging in polite, balanced ways that the book contains content some will find offensive, given its light tone. Some of those reviewers say they loved the book anyway.

aruna · Oct 30, 2014

Fuchsia Groan said:
Which I agree with. But no writer can make a reader read in a certain way, nor does she have a right to try via confrontation. Hale could have blogged in a general way about some reactions to her novel that bothered her, naming no names and linking to no reviews, and explained reasonably and non-defensively why she chose the technique and tone she did. To my mind, that would have been a legit response if she felt the need to clear up what she believed were misreadings. (Do others agree? Or is even acknowledging negative reviews a problem? I'm curious about this.)

.

I agree with you on all counts. It's perfectly OK having a character say some absolutely despicable things; and that's not to be confused with the author condoning those actions, or the book giving out a message that these things are OK. I haven't read the book so I can't judge in this case, and it might very well be that Blythe was applying a very high standard to the actual characters of the book, which I don't agree with.

I agree with you second point as well; it's possible, once the initial sting has left the author, to deal with the actual issue as a writing subject, not mentioning names and certainly not accusing a reviewer of "reading the book wrong".

I have in th back of my mind a plan to do something similar myself, one day: one reviewer accued my book of having "too many coincidences", whereas I disagree; coincidences DO happen in life (very frequently in my own life; it's kind of spooky!), and in a novel, as long as the plot doesn't depend on those coincidences to move along, I don't see why not. In the book in question there was really only one coincidence that could be actually called a plot-dependent coincidence, but it was easy to change it for the digital edition. So yes, one day, I might write a blog post about "writing coincdences" -- but this is years after the review in question.

eparadysz · Oct 30, 2014

Fuchsia Groan said:
Which I agree with. But no writer can make a reader read in a certain way, nor does she have a right to try via confrontation. Hale could have blogged in a general way about some reactions to her novel that bothered her, naming no names and linking to no reviews, and explained reasonably and non-defensively why she chose the technique and tone she did. To my mind, that would have been a legit response if she felt the need to clear up what she believed were misreadings. (Do others agree? Or is even acknowledging negative reviews a problem? I'm curious about this.)

I agree that would be a much better way to handle it, and I always find it interesting to hear the author's take on a controversial book. This interview with Bennett Madison, for instance seemed (judging by comments) to persuade some people to reconsider impressions they had based on negative reviews.

On the other hand, Maggie Stiefvater wrote a post clarifying her stance on one of her characters which (as I understand) provoked some backlash. Although that one is a fandom response more than reviewers, so a different, and maybe more volatile, situation.

jari_k · Oct 30, 2014

Fuchsia Groan said:
[...]Hale could have blogged in a general way about some reactions to her novel that bothered her, naming no names and linking to no reviews, and explained reasonably and non-defensively why she chose the technique and tone she did. To my mind, that would have been a legit response if she felt the need to clear up what she believed were misreadings. (Do others agree? Or is even acknowledging negative reviews a problem? I'm curious about this.)

I think that would be an excellent way to handle it. Quite different from singling out someone for an argument.

Liosse de Velishaf · Oct 30, 2014

Fuchsia Groan said:
Having read a bunch of detailed reviews of Hale's book but not the book itself (so don't quote me), I believe the "rape" in question is part of the backstory. The heroine's best friend was having a consensual affair with a 39-year-old man before she was found murdered, and he immediately becomes a suspect. The heroine then refers to her friend as "huggable" (i.e., getting "hugged" by multiple guys, in the novel's Fargo-esque lingo), which Blythe sees as an instance of slut shaming.

From what I can tell, Blythe doesn't like the jocular way Hale's chirpy narrator treats all this. Whereas Hale argues that the narrator's voice shouldn't be confused with hers.

Which I agree with. But no writer can make a reader read in a certain way, nor does she have a right to try via confrontation. Hale could have blogged in a general way about some reactions to her novel that bothered her, naming no names and linking to no reviews, and explained reasonably and non-defensively why she chose the technique and tone she did. To my mind, that would have been a legit response if she felt the need to clear up what she believed were misreadings. (Do others agree? Or is even acknowledging negative reviews a problem? I'm curious about this.)

Instead, she fixated on a particular reviewer and started seeing the reviews as a vendetta against her. If you read the reviews, you see a lot of readers acknowledging in polite, balanced ways that the book contains content some will find offensive, given its light tone. Some of those reviewers say they loved the book anyway.

Your suggestion seems reasonable, if Hale insists on publicly commenting on the issue.

Bicyclefish · Nov 3, 2014

Marian Perera said:
One more reason I don't support authors who treat the reading public with entitlement, nastiness or just plain illegal actions like stalking (Hale) or stalking and assault (Richard Brittain). I also don't think that excusing this kind of behavior is a good idea that's likely to benefit readers and writers.

That Wattpad post and Richard Brittain Violently Assaults Book Reviewer are just so WTF. I fear he'll get a slap on the wrist because he admits his "behaviour in the last month has been horrendous". After traveling all the way from London to east of Scotland just to assault a reviewer, he already got out on bail.

Some people expressed doubt it happened as it wasn't found "in the news", but I believe this is the story: Shop worker hit on head in Asda attack in Glenrothes.

brainstorm77 · Nov 7, 2014

I entered a book giveaway not that long ago and won. The book arrived in the mail yesterday and so did a letter addressed to me from the author. It was separate from the package and I thought that was a little strange.

In the letter he congratulated me for winning the book and then went into me reviewing the book. To make a long letter short, he's happy for me to give a positive review, but would prefer that I not give one if I am going to give it a negative review. I haven't read the book, but I kinda feel like not giving a review period now even If I do like it. This is the first time I have encountered this and I have won a lot of book giveaways.

BenPanced · Nov 7, 2014

Wow. Smell him.

jjdebenedictis · Nov 7, 2014

brainstorm77 said:
To make a long letter short, he's happy for me to give a positive review, but would prefer that I not give one if I am going to give it a negative review. I haven't read the book, but I kinda feel like not giving a review period now even If I do like it.

Yeah, that makes me kinda ragey, but it's the same issue as always: To game the public record of reviews of your book is an attempt at fraud. You're trying to dupe people into buying a product deemed substandard by (some) consumers.

It's unethical. Personally, I'd make the letter part of my (negative) review and call the author out for this publicly.

Mr Flibble · Nov 7, 2014

Calling it fraud is..excessive imo

He's not telling her she has to, just that he'd prefer it if she did (duh). Granted could have been worded differently or preferably not at all(IF I'd asked for a review, I would just ask for an honest one) and it's not what I'd call optimal but calling it fraud is a hell of a bloody stretch. Like so stretchy I'm not sure i recognise the word.

I'm pretty sure the law would laugh at you if you tried it unless you were going out of your way to buy reviews or something. Asking someone to be nice isn't fraud. Even if it feels a bit weird. There is a MASSIVE difference between the two

Eta if it is fraud, all those authors who tweet "hey make an author's day, leave a nice review" are all fraudsters too, yes? It's gaming?

Filigree · Nov 7, 2014

It's not really fraud, but desperation. Nothing quite reeks like desperate artists and writers trying *anything* to market their work. I get it. I should be doing the same. But I can't. I have days when I look at all the marketing tweets, Triberr campaigns, event Thunderclaps, and email shout-outs clogging up my media portals, and just want to shut off the Internet.

I was a reader long before I was a writer. I decide who I want to review, and when. People yelling "Buy my book" too often at me are going to get the opposite result.

As for the author who would 'prefer' not to have a negative review of a book he gave out as a prize...too freakin' bad. That alone might make me donate the book unread.

As for the authors who get snotty about anything less than a five-star review, I despise them. Their juvenile behavior makes us all look bad.

Reviews are tools. I have a one-star review that has probably sold as many of my books as the four-and-five-star reviews. Because the reader essentially said "Ewwww, too much plot in my p0rn!" So guess what? The readers who *do* like a bit more plot say "Hmmm" and give me a chance. I only know about it because the latter group email me later about it.

Cyia · Nov 7, 2014

You could always give a non-reviewed comment (At least on GoodReads) stating exactly what you've said here, and asking if anyone else would like your copy as you no longer have a desire to read it.

Viridian · Nov 7, 2014

I'm going to be the voice of dissent here and say: is it really that rude?

I value negative reviews and I think they're good for the community. That being said, honestly, doesn't every writer prefer not to have negative reviews? And as a reader, it's uncomfortable, giving an author a negative review in exchange for a book. Saying "I'd prefer that you not review it if you dislike it" gets both the writer and the reviewer out of a potentially uncomfortable situation.

Now, of course it's up to the reader whether or not they still want to leave a negative review. And it would be ridiculous if the author got angry.

I guess what I'm saying is, it's weird to send a letter like that. But I wouldn't call it crass and I wouldn't call it fraud. More like "socially awkward." The reader is already aware that the author doesn't want a negative review. It doesn't need to be said, and reaching out to the reader to say so is odd.

Sage · Nov 7, 2014

Reviewers who are uncomfortable giving negative reviews are always free to offer that option to the author. I have actually done so in a specific situation where I felt that the author's request for review was too personal for me to give the negative review I would have given the book. I have heard of many reviewers who take that approach with any book. As the reviewer, that is your choice.

What is over the line is the author asking the reviewer not to give a negative review. The reviewer can of course choose to ignore that request, but it sets up the situation already of an author who is preemptively responding to a negative review. When you look at the evidence of this thread and know that there are authors who respond violently to negative reviews, why would you want to set yourself up for that possibility with an author who has already responded to the review you haven't written yet?

I wouldn't call it fraud either, exactly, but... think of it this way. If an author were to have the power to only allow 5-star reviews on Goodreads or Amazon, and nothing else, and so they made sure that that's all anyone saw, that would be fraud, right? Now imagine that the author requests that all her reviewers only give 5 stars or not to review at all, with the expectation that those reviewers will listen to that request. Her intent is to skew the ratings in the same way, she just doesn't have the means to make it happen. So while we might not want to put the label "fraud" on it, there's something fraud-like about it.

Of course, eventually someone would buy based off these ratings (that's the point, right?) and rate it lower. But I'm not sure with small or self-published books how often readers go against that grain. I have one novel that I reviewed after getting a free copy. My 2-star review was the top review for a long time on Amazon with many people giving it a helpful rating, whether because they read it and agreed or because it actually convinced them not to buy, but despite this, practically every other rating was 4 or 5 stars. Of course, it could be just that my tastes run differently from all those other readers...except that I had all those "helpful" votes. So I think it's harder to be the one who breaks the momentum of the high ratings.

Viridian · Nov 7, 2014

Sage said:
Reviewers who are uncomfortable giving negative reviews are always free to offer that option to the author. [...]

What is over the line is the author asking the reviewer not to give a negative review.

Thanks for your point of view, Sage. You make a good point.

I have one novel that I reviewed after getting a free copy. My 2-star review was the top review for a long time on Amazon with many people giving it a helpful rating, whether because they read it and agreed or because it actually convinced them not to buy, but despite this, practically every other rating was 4 or 5 stars. Of course, it could be just that my tastes run differently from all those other readers...except that I had all those "helpful" votes.

I'm a picky reader and a harsh critic, and I rarely like things. That being said, I dislike the idea of my reviews driving readers away. I criticize everything. Literally, everything. It doesn't mean a book is bad. I just happen to notice a lot of bad things. Because of that, I've stopped giving books negative reviews. I don't want to stop sales for a midlist author just because I thought their book was boring and I wrote a 1000-word review picking out every reason why.

That being said, as a reader, I really appreciate negative reviews. Once I picked up a book with shoddy writing, idiotic characters, rape used as a joke, sexism galore... god, it was awful. And all of the reviews were four-star or three-star. Did any of the reviews point out how awful the book was? Nope.

Sage · Nov 7, 2014

Yeah, when I give a negative review, I am very specific as to why, because I think that's only fair to the other potential readers (who are my audience as a reviewer, not the author). I'm also willing to say, "if this doesn't bother you, then you may love this book." I'm actually a very positive reviewer (my GR average is 3.99 stars), and I rarely give less than 3 stars, but I also pick out things that bothered me, even in my 5-star reviews.

Viridian · Nov 7, 2014

That's an excellent way to do things. I remember reading a two-star review recently that I really appreciated. They didn't say "this book is boring," they said "this book had a lot of plot, which was not what I was expecting given it's m/m erotica, and I kept skipping scenes so I could get back to the main couple." Despite being a negative review, it actually nudged me towards buying the book, because I happen to like erotic romance novels with too much plot.

You don't need to spray-paint "this is my personal opinion!" across your review, but it's good to keep in mind.

Authors should never respond to reviews?

starting over

Aspiring to authorship since 1975

is watching you via her avatar

Runs With Scissors

Becoming a laptop-human hybrid

On a wing and a prayer

Pedaling Pescado

practical experience, FTW

THE BLUEBERRY QUEEN OF HADES (he/him)

is watching you via her avatar

They've been very bad, Mr Flibble

Mildly Disturbing

Rewriting My Destiny

local good boy

Supreme Guessinator

local good boy

Supreme Guessinator

local good boy