Authors should never respond to reviews?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Cyia

Rewriting My Destiny
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
Messages
18,618
Reaction score
4,032
Location
Brillig in the slithy toves...
They don't technically tweet them at us. When they update a status, it shows up in said author's feed or if the author searches for their name on Twitter.

I get things like that all the time. Unless the tweet BEGINS with @AuthorName, it's not actually directed at the author with the intent for them to see.
 

yayeahyeah

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
246
Reaction score
35
Location
England
I would guess that some reviewers on Twitter do something like (and I'll use my own handle here just for an example--but with a fictional book title)

"Just finished Gambler's Torch by @eerobert a 1* read goodreads.com/blahblahblah"

I'm sure there are people who do that, but I wouldn't, and I'm fairly sure that no-one else I follow would. The vast majority of bloggers would consider it staggeringly poor etiquette.
 

Bloo

Roofied by Rylan
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 10, 2011
Messages
429
Reaction score
30
Location
Hays, KS
Website
www.emergencyroomproductions.net
I'm sure there are people who do that, but I wouldn't, and I'm fairly sure that no-one else I follow would. The vast majority of bloggers would consider it staggeringly poor etiquette.

See, I never would have considered that poor etiquette. I can see how it might be seen as such, but it wouldn't have crossed my mind. If I didn't consider it, probably others don't either, there could be reasons behind that, but I doubt most of people who would tweet something LIKE that, wouldn't be doing it out of malicious intent. Or maybe I just think better of people.

Maybe it's a good thing I don't review LOL
 

aruna

On a wing and a prayer
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 14, 2005
Messages
12,862
Reaction score
2,846
Location
A Small Town in Germany
Website
www.sharonmaas.co.uk
Link to the actual review in question. I see a factual review written in the format of status updates, with more info in the comments than in the actual review.https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/640892161
For instance, this comment, of last November:

A trusted friend of mine told me that there is a scene later on in the novel wherein Kippy and Davey say they are domestically violent, and the scene is used for laughs. And there is rape, (view spoiler). Also, I'm not sure I agree with you about the way in which Kippy treats PTSD resulting from the fact that she doesn't know much about it. Correct me if I am mistaken, but Dom is a therapist of some sort, no? Or something in that field? Consequently, Kippy knows many things regarding mental health; she knows that true schizophrenic tendencies may take until the age of 18 to surface. Yet she does not know what PTSD truly is, despite the fact that she lives in a town where military deployment is not uncommon? It all just seems contradictory. Based on what I've been given in the novel thus far, I think she does or definitely should know enough about PTSD to at the very least restrain from referring to it so insensitively. And I do plan on continuing, so I do hope that I agree with you by the end. But still, the "pansy", "blonde rabbit in heat", and "huggable" passages are all very problematic to me, as is the PTSD comments, because I can't bring myself to see that any differently given the above points I've made.

Doesn't sound at all like a bully to me.
 

yayeahyeah

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
246
Reaction score
35
Location
England
Doesn't sound at all like a bully to me.

Agreed.

Previous quotes from when she was reading:

"Well, that was an awesome prologue."

"I am enjoying this so much."

Do they fit the profile of someone who's a bully, or of someone who started reading a book, was enjoying it, and found it went downhill? Not finding it too difficult to make my mind up here!
 

ghost

Hey, that's my bike!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 9, 2006
Messages
375
Reaction score
32
Location
between ponds
A more general question: Is it standard practice for online reviewers to tweet negative reviews to authors?

When I tweet a review, both the tweet and review are directed at readers. Now I'm thinking I should go out of my way to avoid the appearance of shoving the tweet in the author's face. (Most of the local writers I review are older or anti-technology and don't "do" Twitter, so it hasn't been a big issue.) This is one of the Twitter etiquette issues I don't really get, but I admit I wouldn't be happy if someone bombarded me with links to negative reviews of my book (as opposed to just tweeting them and integrating my handle).

They will and they do. I've had one reviewer tweet her one star review of my book repeatedly for over a year now. She hash tags me and everything.

It doesn't bother me.
 

Fuchsia Groan

Becoming a laptop-human hybrid
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 27, 2008
Messages
2,870
Reaction score
1,399
Location
The windswept northern wastes
I don't see a bully in those comments. To me it seems like Blythe may be conflating the views and language of Hale's unreliable narrator with views the author is promoting (granted, it's hard to tell without reading the book), but she's totally within her rights to do so. It's a subjective opinion frankly expressed and doesn't claim to be anything different. Readers have a right to express and discuss their opinions. They have a right to misread the author, to misjudge the author's intentions, even to judge the author based on her photo. Outside a professional review for an edited publication, it's (almost) all fair game.

Would I, as an author, want to read this exchange? Hell, no. Would I be fuming mad and feeling like these readers were too quick to take offense at language in the book? Maybe. And this is precisely why I think it might be better for authors with thin skins just not to read one-star reviews. The useful feedback they might glean pales in comparison to their (again, very subjective) feeling of being publicly called out and shamed.
 
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Messages
11,042
Reaction score
841
Location
Second star on the right and on 'til morning.
Website
atsiko.wordpress.com
I would guess that some reviewers on Twitter do something like (and I'll use my own handle here just for an example--but with a fictional book title)

"Just finished Gambler's Torch by @eerobert a 1* read goodreads.com/blahblahblah"

I have no evidence of anything like this (I have Twitter, I tweet but I'll be honest I usually skim my Twitter timeline and don't get me started on how bad I am at responding to DMs)

_I_ wouldn't call that someone tweeting at me, just giving people who view my twitter a chance to see the review, but I could totally be wrong in that (or I just don't care about social media reviews LOL--I mean reviews would be great but I don't obsess over them. I looked at my Goodreads page for the first time in a long time last week--only because I wanted to pull some of the review quotes for a trailer I was making).


When I have a review I wrote posted to my friend's review blog, I tweet something similar to the format above, where the author's handle is integrated, not at the beginning. My friend does the same with the other reviews posted there. Never heard an author complain, and in fact many retweet, or reply positively, or their publisher finds the review on the blog (in the case of it not being a targeted review copy) and posts a link on their site.

But I could see how it would be annoying if it was really a direct message, not a tweet especially if the review was negative.
 

J.S.F.

Red fish, blue fish...
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
5,365
Reaction score
793
Location
Osaka
I'll confess that I haven't read all the comments here. There area around nine pages of opinions...all of them noteworthy...so I just read the OP's opening piece and skipped to the last page. Sorry...

Anyhoo, the point of never responding...I'd agree that it isn't written in stone, but one should always take care not to take any hostility out on the author of the review. If it's a personal attack, my opinion would be to let it go. People like that are more than likely to respond with something even more vicious and who needs a flame war? Move on, move on, move on.

If, OTOH, the review contains a nugget or two of helpful critique, then it might be worth saying at the very least "Thank you for that helpful information, it will help me next time around."

In fact, that's what I did. One reviewer on Goodreads liked my novel Lindsay Versus the Marauders, but gave it only three (or 3.5, I forget) because of an infodump (her words) and I could see where she was coming from. She liked the overall pace of the novel and the action scenes (which everyone seemed to like), but had trouble with parts of the narrative. Okay, so I simply said thanks, I'll keep that in mind and do my best the next time around (or words to that effect).

And I meant it. That's the kind of review I can get into and appreciate. Some carp about Goodreads being this or that, but in the end, they're the ones buying the books. And many reviewers are not writers so they may not know how difficult it is to pen a good piece of prose. That's not a knock by any means. It's simply a statement of fact. What they are, are people who know what they like to read and have a pretty decent idea most of the time about how a sentence should flow and how this and that should be all in place. (And yes, I'm still learning the craft, so I make no claims of being the world's greatest author or anything). So to me it's worthwhile to look at the reviews, see what you can learn from them, and try harder the next time out. My two yen for the day and sorry for the long post, but this idea got me thinking about a lot of things...
 

meowzbark

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 22, 2012
Messages
1,188
Reaction score
142
Location
Arizona
It's very, very out of character - to the point that I don't believe it. That particular reviewer is blunt, but on the positive and negative side. She does stream of consciousness-style updates as she reads, then a final review. Her average is over 3 stars, so she's hardly someone out trolling or auto-posting bad reviews.

I'm not saying she's a bully herself. Sorry if it came off that way. I meant that -- with her reviewing style -- it's easy to understand why an author might perceive her as one. It is blunt and harsh. Again, sorry for the misunderstanding.
 

Buffysquirrel

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
6,137
Reaction score
694
Massive over-reaction seems to be becoming the internet norm. I mean, stalking someone over a bad review?
 

Hapax Legomenon

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 28, 2007
Messages
22,289
Reaction score
1,491
I wrote a negative review on my personal blog once and I got traffic from the personal blog of the author. It kind of freaked me out.

Keep in mind that this was not a review space and was my personal blog, where I did not get a lot of traffic at the time at all.
 

BethS

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 21, 2005
Messages
11,708
Reaction score
1,763
I'm still boggling at that article. She phoned a woman at work and turned up at her house because this woman gave her a bad review? And she still thinks she's the victim?

If you read the whole article, you'll discover that the blogger did more than write a bad review. She harassed the author online, long before the author got fed up enough to track her down (and in the process, discovered that the blogger was operating under a fake persona).

I don't condone what the author did, but she did it because she wanted to have a conversation with the woman, face to face. In the end, she never rang the doorbell.

ETA: Having read further in the thread, I now see that the author seems to have some issues herself.
 
Last edited:

aruna

On a wing and a prayer
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 14, 2005
Messages
12,862
Reaction score
2,846
Location
A Small Town in Germany
Website
www.sharonmaas.co.uk
If you read the whole article, you'll discover that the blogger did more than write a bad review. She harassed the author online, long before the author got fed up enough to track her down (and in the process, discovered that the blogger was operating under a fake persona).

How do you know this? The only evidence we have is the author's word, and that is highly suspect since she freely admits to lying to get what she wants.
my bold.
don't condone what the author did, but she did it because she wanted to have a conversation with the woman, face to face. In the end, she never rang the doorbell.

There can be no "but" here. Just because you want something doesn't mean you have a right to get it. You cannot just turn up at a stranger's door, after getting their address through lying and betraying the trust of others. Reviews are not for authors. One star reviews exist. Suck it up, put on your big girl panties, and go and write the next book.


(Sorry, Kylabelle!)
 
Last edited:

amergina

Pittsburgh Strong
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 20, 2007
Messages
15,599
Reaction score
2,471
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Website
www.annazabo.com
If you read the whole article, you'll discover that the blogger did more than write a bad review. She harassed the author online, long before the author got fed up enough to track her down (and in the process, discovered that the blogger was operating under a fake persona).

I don't condone what the author did, but she did it because she wanted to have a conversation with the woman, face to face. In the end, she never rang the doorbell.

There is no evidence that the reviewer harassed the author.

Dear Author has a rather good writeup of the actual timeline and events of the situation here:

http://dearauthor.com/features/essays/on-the-importance-of-pseudonymous-activity/

Here’s what Hale alleges the blogger did:

She had tweeted me saying she had some ideas for my next book. It should be noted that this was (if it happened) in response to Hale’s request ON TWITTER for IDEAS FROM READERS! In an attempt to connect with readers, I’d been asking Twitter for ideas – “The weirdest thing you can think of!” – promising to try to incorporate them in the sequel.
The GR Reviewer began tweeting ridicule. There isn’t any evidence of this and “that same day” refers to no date at all. In other words, Hale makes up a date. Her previous paragraph was “In the following weeks…” so who knows what date Hale is referring to. It’s convenient not to have a date. That way we can’t verify Hale’s claims. “That same day, [the GR Reviewer] began tweeting in tandem with me, ridiculing everything I said.”
To summarize, the extent of the GR Reviewer’s actions includes:

  1. Making status updates about a book.
  2. Possibly getting into a fight with a previous author or reviewer.
  3. Possibly subtweeting Hale.
  4. Tweeting about her own work in progress.

Now, if Hale can point to actual harassing messages from the reviewer, that would be useful.
 

Amadan

Banned
Joined
Apr 27, 2010
Messages
8,649
Reaction score
1,623
I don't condone what the author did, but she did it because she wanted to have a conversation with the woman, face to face.


If I was told that someone had tracked me down because they wanted to have a conversation with me face to face over something I posted on the Internet, I'd answer the door armed.
 

yayeahyeah

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
246
Reaction score
35
Location
England
If you read the whole article, you'll discover that the blogger did more than write a bad review. She harassed the author online, long before the author got fed up enough to track her down (and in the process, discovered that the blogger was operating under a fake persona).

I don't condone what the author did, but she did it because she wanted to have a conversation with the woman, face to face. In the end, she never rang the doorbell.

ETA: Having read further in the thread, I now see that the author seems to have some issues herself.

Beth, you're one of many people I've seen who've accepted the author's account at face value. Do you mind me asking why? Is it because it's in the Guardian?
 

Anna_Hedley

Fuelled by tea and crumpets.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 24, 2012
Messages
1,059
Reaction score
338
Location
UK
If you read the whole article, you'll discover that the blogger did more than write a bad review. She harassed the author online, long before the author got fed up enough to track her down (and in the process, discovered that the blogger was operating under a fake persona).

I don't condone what the author did, but she did it because she wanted to have a conversation with the woman, face to face. In the end, she never rang the doorbell.

ETA: Having read further in the thread, I now see that the author seems to have some issues herself.

I don't know either of them personally, and don't have a Twitter, so I could be wrong but I didn't think the things referred to as harassment were actually harassing. It sounded like standard book blogging; live-Tweeting impressions of a book as it was being read.

The only people who refer to the blogger's actions as harassment are the author, who I'd suggest isn't objective, and the STGRB people, who view any negative reviewing of books as bullying.

But again, I could be wrong. I'd never heard of either of them before the article was linked.
 

Quickbread

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
1,099
Reaction score
162
Location
Somewhere between the beginning and the end
I'd never heard of either of them before the article was linked.

And in this lies the secret magic of fomenting even negative press. It's shrewd and calculated, and it's working. Hale is a Harvard grad. She is smart, connected and knows exactly what she's doing when she writes an essay like this. That's exactly why it disappoints me. Her writing would have been enough. It's powerful and beautiful. And this lowness, I have to say, taints it for me.

It's dismaying that The Guardian would publish such pettiness.
 
Last edited:

Buffysquirrel

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
6,137
Reaction score
694
The Grauniad got a lot of page-clicks. They're broke. They need 'em.

(not justifying; just explaining)
 

yayeahyeah

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
246
Reaction score
35
Location
England
Her writing would have been enough. It's powerful and beautiful.

It's staggeringly powerful. There are numerous normally intelligent people following me who are completely convinced that she's telling the truth EVEN THOUGH they know she's admitted to stalking and this would normally suggest she's not the most reliable of people.
 

aruna

On a wing and a prayer
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 14, 2005
Messages
12,862
Reaction score
2,846
Location
A Small Town in Germany
Website
www.sharonmaas.co.uk
A sensible article by Jim Hines:
Victim or Perpetrator?
Hating someone’s book is not bullying. Sharing your opinion, suggesting others stay away from a book or an author, is not bullying. It might cost you some sales, and that sucks, but it’s not bullying, nor is it an organized campaign to destroy someone’s career.

Hale’s account does not convince me that she was a victim of online bullying. But even if she was, there comes a point where she crossed a line from victim to perpetrator. She admits to stalking Blythe online. She then began stalking her in real life. She showed up at Blythe’s home, called her on the phone.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.