Dealing With Bad Reviews

What did ah do? Well, ah got me some mad, punched out mah Bobo Doll, belted that poor sap of a doll 'cross teh room, pulled out my fancy imitation six-gun and mentally blew it to pieces all the while imagining it was mah critic standin' thar.

And that's how you deal with it. If their criticism is valid, then take it as such and use it in a constructive way your next time around. If their criticism is a personal attack, then let it go. You're never going to please everyone so stop thinking you will. There's always someone who's going to find fault with what you do.

That's what I tell myself. I've had some very good reviews, a few so-so ones, and one outright stinker. In fact, I doubt that the person even bothered reading the book, but whatever. I simply wrote to her and thanked her for reading my novel and accepted the criticism. Didn't like it, but accepted it. If you lash out at your critics then you'll drive any and perhaps all potential fans away. So even if it hurts, suck it up, buttercup, and keep writing. That's what more experienced writers have told me and I've taken their advice to heart.

Someone quickly pointed out that there is no such thing as bad press.
So I went with that and felt better, somewhat.

Go read the reviews on one of your favorite books. This might not always work, but in my case one of my favorite books (1632) gets ripped.

One reviewer called me "a dirty old pervert".

I considered replying, "Excuse me, I am not old."

I haven't read a review of one of my novels in twenty years. What's the point? Good, bad, or ridiculous, a review changes nothing, and it just one person's opinion.

A review is really not meant for an author, really. It's meant for other readers. Personally, I avoid the reviews.

This doesn't mean family doesn't bring up "Did you see what they said?" type comments. Those I just shrug and say "One opinion."

Leave the reviews alone. Just write your best.

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?

I'm not yet published, but I think I'd stay far away from my Goodreads and Amazon reviews. Professional reviews I might read, or not. Might ask a friend to check them out first.

The reason: I'm already self-critical and give more weight to negative than positive feedback. If people want to have fun totally trashing my book, that's their prerogative. But I'm not sure I'd want to wade through that to find constructive critique, especially when that critique is meant for the readers, not me.

I review books professionally myself. I don't trash anything -- if it's that bad, it doesn't get reviewed. I do sometimes damn with faint praise. Either way, the review probably brings more readers to the book than it scares away, just by making them aware of it. (Authors are on the alert for any sign of negativity in a review. Readers, I suspect, are more interested in just finding out what the book is about, so subtle negativity may not register with them.)

If I write a glowing review and get a nice note from the author, great. It's nice to connect with people whose writing I like. But I don't ever expect that. It's fine by me if the author never gives the review a glance.

Fuchsia Groan said:

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?

Click to expand...

--

Outside of curiosity, I think some (many?) writers do it for some sense of external validation. They want to be praised, they want someone else out there to say "Yes, that novel made me laugh/cry/hurl in all the right places" and they need others to tell them how good they are. A lot of writers are very insecure, at least about what they write. I don't know if that insecurity extends to other parts of their lives or not.

Or maybe it's masochism at work here, I can't say.

If you're very sensitive and you're going to have a nervous breakdown if you get one bad review--and that very thing happened to a friend of mine (although he was already on the edge and this just tipped him the last inch)--then you shouldn't read 'em.

As for it being specifically bad if you DON'T read reviews, no, I don't think so. 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.

What bothers me about reviews is being called "Pillsworth." Makes me feel like a servant at Downton Abbey or a soon-to-be-caned boy at a Dickensian school for wayward orphans.

Though three stars, the first review I read struck me as dismissive and inaccurate. I tossed a private pity party until my editor said, "Hey, didn't your agent warn you not to read reviews?" Then my agent said, "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?

J.S.F. said:

-- 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.

Click to expand...

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.

Even though I slave over my reviews to make them accurate, witty, etc., I agree with James here. The most a professional reviewer generally does is get the concept of the book out there in front of potential readers. Readers then decide whether to buy the book on the basis of the concept (and probably the cover!), NOT the review. I can't tell you how many times I've written a scathing review of a movie and then had a friend say to me, "Hey, Transformers 12 sounded pretty cool from your review; I wanna see it. I can't remember, you liked it, right?"

They remember that Transformers 12 has zombie dinosaurs or whatever, and that sounds pretty awesome. They do NOT remember that the reviewer thought they were boring, hackneyed zombie dinosaurs. Once they embrace the concept, their brain filters those parts out.

There are exceptions, of course. Lit fic readers might be more likely to pay attention to complaints about boring, hackneyed elements, bad prose, etc. Librarians reading specialized reviews may be thinking about the public they serve and weighing each word. But most people just ask, "Do I already know and like this author? Does this concept/plot sound cool?"

In terms of getting complacent, I dunno. I can't imagine ever getting complacent. Even someone who's selling books is still going to get plenty of negative feedback from editors and beta readers because, well, mileage varies. Some people ignore negative feedback; others use it to improve the next book. I've never heard of anyone needing to read reviews to find out what's wrong with a given book, because there's so much evaluation earlier in the process. Even if Editor A loves and buys it, there's still that rejection from Editor B to obsess over. Well, until you become a huge bestseller and no one dares criticize you, which isn't a problem I ever expect to have.

Fuchsia Groan said:

Well, until you become a huge bestseller and no one dares criticize you, which isn't a problem I ever expect to have.

Click to expand...

I'd say that when you become a huge bestseller, you just have a lot more people in line to shoot you down.

If Rowling and King and Patterson-et-alia (etc.) aren't immune to one-star reviews (and they aren't), who ever will be?

Phaeal said:

"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?

Click to expand...

Only a pint?
yecalldatdrinkin?

Jamesaritchie said:

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.

Click to expand...

Thinking of using that bold bit as my new sig....


nice post.

Fuchsia Groan said:

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?

Click to expand...

I don't read my reviews. Don't like to, don't want to. (Grateful to get them though, of course!)

However, I do have to skim the editorial reviews so I can pull quote them for publicity purposes, because I'm a self-publisher and don't have a publicist to do that for me. It makes me wish I did have a pub team!

I think I don't like to read reviews because it just feels bizarre to me, even if they're good. As if I were standing naked in front of a panel of judges and they were commenting on bits of my body: even if it was good it would feel WEIRD -- "That is a distinctly well-turned calf, and you can see the Asian heritage in the shape of the pelvis . . . a nice curve to the ear . . . over-callused feet, but hey, if you like that sort of thing . . ." I mean, it would just make me feel absurdly self-conscious.

Well you feel kind of sad when someone writes bad reviews.
It can be frustrating but for me, I take it constructively.
I think on the bright side and say "there was something wrong with the story, the plot, how I presented it. I guess you can always do better than the last one.
Get more insights for the story ... read more ... then you will have an idea how
to write your next one. Bad reviews are great critics so you write better next time.

I have not been in that position, since I'm not published, but I imagine the way I handle it would involve a lot of carbs, non-stop phone time with long-suffering friends, more carbs, maybe a few fantasies about sitting on said reviewer, and more carbs.

Chin up. Bad reviews happen to everyone. I can't think of a single best-seller that doesn't have a few bad reviews. Most of them have tons of bad reviews, as well as good ones.

I read my reviews. I notice repeat patterns and try to fix that in later writing or supplemental material. I smile at the good ones - honestly, that's a perk. I look more closely at the negative reviews, though: can they teach me something about my work? Are they coming from readers I might actually respect? If not, I indulge in a brief sting of disappointment, and get on with my life.

You know those reviews that college students are asked to fill out and hand in to evaluate their instructor in at the end of a class? I always make it a point to read every single one--even the Xeroxed butt copies and the crudely drawn genitalia. As for book reviews? I know my novels have some and that is way better than having zilch. I thank everyone who has ever written one, good or bad, but I don't read them because, while I might teach that class again, the book is already written. And very few grown adults can actually fit their butts on a copier screen, so where is the thrill? --s6

I read mine.

Partly so I can pull bits out of the good ones to use for promo, but also because it's a good way to see what's working for people and what isn't.

Sure, each review is just one person's opinion, but if a lot of people say the same thing, it's worth looking at.

I wouldn't do it if I didn't have thick skin, I guess. But for me, there's no emotional cost, and there's a potential gain for my future writing.

My hubby works in T.V. and film. He never reads reviews or looks at anything online about his work. He told me once I'm published no reading reviews. He's been doing this 20 years and never read one review. He said it's not going to give him any peace and will just undermine his confidence. I think it's good advice.

Master Wayne said:

What was the first bad review you got and how did you feel after reading it?

Click to expand...

I have yet to receive one. I'm on tenterhooks waiting to have it behind me. (-;

I am three books in now...so I consider myself lucky and fortunate. I know it can happen any time.

PS: Never respond to reviews, good or bad. I do read them...but would never comment on them. (-: