Authors should really stop telling readers how to give reviews

[Alessandra Kelley]

Originally Posted by Bubastes

Here we go again:

http://marlamadison.blogspot.com/201...rs-do-you.html

This is getting really, really old.

Why do I leave one-star reviews?

Because I hated the book, found it obnoxious or repugnant or vile, and wish to warn other potential readers.

It is not my job as a reader to be nicey-nice to author's feelings and consequently to give a fraudulent happy-happy impression to other readers who might innocently stumble across the pits-o-vileness I have already slogged through.

Books are serious art. They are not like Brownie Scout craft projects where you have to say something nice about everybody's efforts. Serious art is taken in to the audience's minds and affects them, and reviewers have a responsibility to that audience. They do not have a responsibility to lie to that audience just so that the author can have a good feeling.

Life is too short to have to slog through bad art without any advance warning.

[Cyia]

Originally Posted by BenPanced

There was somebody who came to the first meeting of our critique group but didn't come back because we didn't want to agree to her "shit sandwich" take on critique (something positive, something that needs work, something positive).

Ugh. I HATE the "sandwich method" of critiquing, but it's standard (I'll delete your comment if you don't do this!!!) practice on many agent and writer blogs when there are crit sessions or contests.

ALL this does is give a phony sense of a 2:1 ratio of good to bad when someone sees the crit as a whole and leaves the writer thinking "Well, at least there was more good than bad..."

[BenPanced]

True story: several years ago, I sent a manuscript to my best friend in the entire universe to critique. We've known each other since 1980, and he's not afraid to be honest in his opinion. The <garbled in transmission> sent me an email and told me he didn't even finish the first chapter because he thought the two main characters were horrible people, and he couldn't see reading any further.

That really hurt. A lot. I actually broke down and cried because my best friend HATED my writing. But after the tears were dried and I'd regained my composure, I did the best possible thing I could think of: I rewrote it according to his suggestions and got the <garbled in transmission>ing thing published.

And sent him an email saying "neener! neener!"

[Bubastes]

Originally Posted by Cyia

Ugh. I HATE the "sandwich method" of critiquing, but it's standard (I'll delete your comment if you don't do this!!!) practice on many agent and writer blogs when there are crit sessions or contests.

ALL this does is give a phony sense of a 2:1 ratio of good to bad when someone sees the crit as a whole and leaves the writer thinking "Well, at least there was more good than bad..."

Oh, I despise this critique method, but for a different reason: it wastes time. People who know me in real life know how angry I get over time-wasters (it's a sickness, I tell ya). I want to know what I need to fix without slogging through a bunch of feel-good fluff.

[Stacia Kane]

I especially like that the last Goodreads review she wrote was only two stars, for John Hart's IRON HOUSE. Ummm...

(In fact, it appears she's left a few two-star reviews, at least one of which contains one of those "Don't give away the ending"s. Are reviews not precious gems to those authors?)

Honestly? Her post isn't that bad, as these things go. But geez, lady.

[callalily61]

One positive comment for the sandwich method: I once ran a writers group in a little church in my neighborhood. It was populated by the most timid, clueless, downright scared-of-the-process people I'd ever met. 80% of them had never given their work to anyone for critique, let alone been in a meatspace group with other writers.

I told them that we'd use the sandwich method. Most of them had no clue how to crit. 90% of my crits began with "This is a good start" and ended with "This could use a little work, but feel free to ask questions." Experienced writers know the first sentence is code for "this sucks"--but they didn't. They were terrified they'd get ripped a new one.

The most rewarding times in that group were when I literally watched the fear fade from their eyes.


For experienced writers, I agree--don't waste my time patting my head. Tell me what's not working so I can fix it. Of course, I'd like to hear what *is* working, too. )

[jeffo20]

I find it amusing how many of the comments on that post were 'rah, rah, right on!'. And then one person had the guts to say, "Sorry, gotta disagree." And that opened the floodgates. I'm glad someone had the nerve to wade in and dissent with the followers. I was wondering if she was going to argue with them, or if she'll end up deleting the comments....

[BenPanced]

Usually, it's a little from column A, a little from column B...

[BenPanced]

And she's updated her post based on criticism she's received in the comments.

[aruna]

She has since edited the blog post.

[heyjude]

Another take on responding to reviews.

Would you be surprised if I told you that every negative review I’ve responded to that resulted in a dialogue with the reader ended with them 1) deleting their review altogether; 2) amending their review with more favorable language; 3) Increasing their rating at least one “star,” but more typically by two, three, or even four?

Interesting read. I'm not sure I buy it, and I think that responding to every review would sap my energy, but I'm glad it's working for her.

[Alessandra Kelley]

Originally Posted by heyjude

Another take on responding to reviews.

Interesting read. I'm not sure I buy it, and I think that responding to every review would sap my energy, but I'm glad it's working for her.

She's fun to read. I'm not sure I agree with her approach, but I'll be interested to see her next post about how she handled things.

I don't think I agree with her assertion that book reviews and consumer complaints are the same sort of thing.

A review is a description of a thing or service for the sake of people who might buy or use it. It's meant for the potential audience, not whoever is supplying the thing or service.

A complaint is a request to the provider of the thing or service to improve some unsatisfactory part of it. It has nothing to do with other customers.

Some reviewers, I think, blur the lines when they presume to lecture authors (or chefs or whomever) about how to improve their work, or when they try to act chummy with authors/chefs/whomever. But this is really not the reviewer's job.

On the other hand, Ms. Lothlorien's makes a nice case for outreach, a sort of proactive fixing things for unhappy customers.

I don't know, I'm still thinking.

[fireluxlou]

I'd be really wary of asking reviewers that like she has. I believe reviews are for readers and not for authors and that confronting a negative review and encouraging to them to change their stance, review or star is doing a disservice to other readers at the expense of my own ego.

Now a critique ... that's for me.

[jjdebenedictis]

If I was truly furious at a book, I might be receptive to the author trying to make (financial?) amends to me for it.

HOWEVER, if I was just reviewing a book I'd read, dispassionately, then I'd view his/her intrusion into that process as slimy.

Ms. Lothlorien's justification for doing it:

[E]very negative review I’ve responded to that resulted in a dialogue with the reader ended with them 1) deleting their review altogether; 2) amending their review with more favorable language; 3) Increasing their rating at least one “star,” but more typically by two, three, or even four

...seems totally slimy to me.

The book hasn't changed, but what the public hears about it has.

She is actively working to spin-doctor the public record of people's opinions in order to sell more of her books. She's purposefully trying to manipulate reviewers into changing their review.

All she's saying in that article is, "You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar." It doesn't mitigate the dishonesty of what she's doing.

[brainstorm77]

I wouldn't follow her advice. I can see that blowing up big time and who wants to be involved in a review shitstorm!

[fireluxlou]

I bet those reviewers felt pressured, upset and intimated in being confronted by her so changed their reviews to make her go away. Because those are the only reactions I've ever heard when an author has gone after a reviewer for speaking their mind.

This is just deception now tbh. I don't understand people who go into creative paths and then have a go at the audience.

[Once!]

I sometimes think that writing is like giving birth. When we bring our work into the world we are creating something new. It's a part of ourselves - a bit of blood, a lot of experience, bucketloads of sweat and effort. And not a few fears and hopes too.

So it's not surprising that we have strong maternal/paternal feelings for our work. Fruit of my loins, off-spring, bearer of my name, the next generation, my shot at immortality. Something that we love deeply.

But ... and it's a big but ... once our work is published it needs to make its own way in the world. Readers, critics, reviewers will take our work and react to it, change it, internalise it. It's no longer our precious baby. It belongs to the world now.

So if someone wants to give it a one star review, who are we to argue? We can't get inside the head of each and every reader. We can't see what they are thinking. And we certainly can't presume to challenge their thoughts and emotions. If that is what they are thinking, then that's that.

My wife and I have precisely one son. An eleven year old bundle of energy, wild imagination, deep love and the cuddliest warmest hugs that you have ever experienced. He is known, semi officially, as the best boy in the world - BBITW (although we will admit that other BBITWs are available).

And as we came to the baby-making business late in life, we knew that this was our lot. The sum total of our family is three. That will do nicely.

So what to call this precious creature? What should his name be? Some of our friends chose royal names for their progeny. Edwards, Williams and Henries. Others chose strong macho names. Artistic names. Aspirational names.

But we didn't see it that way. Once (!) he makes his way in the world, he needs to stand on his own two feet. Of course, we will support him, help him, nurture him. But, like a novel, he has to face his critics. He has to be accountable for who he is.

So we chose a colourless name. A name that didn't reflect our aspirations for him. That didn't force him to be one thing another. It's our way of saying that we love you, we'll support you, but we won't try to stop anyone from giving you a one star review at some point in your life. It's your life. Do what you want with it.

So we called him John. Just John.

[Alessandra Kelley]

Originally Posted by fireluxlou

I bet those reviewers felt pressured, upset and intimated in being confronted by her so changed their reviews to make her go away. Because those are the only reactions I've ever heard when an author has gone after a reviewer for speaking their mind.

This is just deception now tbh. I don't understand people who go into creative paths and then have a go at the audience.

Yes. However reasonable her approach sounds, I think I would be embarrassed if anybody I reviewed negatively contacted me, no matter what else occurred. And it is a kind of pressure, no matter how sugarcoated.

[absitinvidia]

I would have a real problem with an author who showed up in comments of my one- or two-star review and said, "here, try my other book instead! Or read something by my best friend (or, who knows, possible alternate pen name)!"

I'm the kind of person who would add them both to my do-not-buy list, because to me it's bordering on harassment. No means no, and if I've given a book a negative review, that generally means "no" when it comes to other books by the same author, unless I've read and enjoyed that author's other work.

[Stacia Kane]

Originally Posted by jjdebenedictis

If I was truly furious at a book, I might be receptive to the author trying to make (financial?) amends to me for it.

HOWEVER, if I was just reviewing a book I'd read, dispassionately, then I'd view his/her intrusion into that process as slimy.

Ms. Lothlorien's justification for doing it:...seem totally slimy to me.

The book hasn't changed, but what the public hears about it has.

She is actively working to spin-doctor the public record of people's opinions in order to sell more of her books. She's purposefully trying to manipulate reviewers into changing their review.

All she's saying in that article is, "You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar." It doesn't mitigate the dishonesty of what she's doing.

Yes. Especially not when you're proud of bullying, intimidating, and manipulating readers, and claim that's all part of "good customer service."

I love how she says she's never had a negative experience and then promises to post the heated exchanges she had with readers. Um...just because they finally changed their reviews to get you to shut up and leave them alone doesn't mean you've got a new tick in your "fan" column.

Everything about her post offends me. Including the part where she says it's wrong not to change your work according to the reviews.

I got a link to this yesterday as a pingback to a post I did on the subject (I can't see the link in her post, but the pingback is still on mine), and had a good old rant on Twitter about it. There is not one word in there I agree with.

If nothing else, I'd like to see how well her method works in the unlikely event that her readers increase to numbers beyond double digits. How will she change her work to please all of them then, since apparently she's not actually saying anything with her stories but just tossing out some meaningless words in a cynical attempt to make money?

[aruna]

All I can say is: ugh, no.
Only once has an author responded to a negative review of mine. I did not change my review or my rating. Neither did I remove the review. So, it doesn't always work.

[Terie]

It's just wrong to change or remove a review due to dialogue with the author, except in one circumstance: if the reviewer made a factual error.

I heard of a case where someone wrote a YA novel in which the female MC finally leaves an abusive relationship. The reviewer at one of the major review publications (Kirkus, PW, SLJ, something like that) dinged the book because the MC got back together with the abusive boyfriend, which absolutely DID NOT HAPPEN.

In that case, since the review was already printed and published, there was not a thing the author could to about it, which was unfortunate because it was such a horribly BAD mistake.

If something like that happened to me on a blog or Amazon review, I'm not sure whether I would respond to the reviewer or not.

But some authors might, and if the reviewer changed something in a review because of a factual error (and it would have to be an important factual error to justify the author even thinking about saying something), that would make sense.

But trying to get reviewers to change or delete negative reviews? Nope. Wrong wrong wrong. I'm really sad that the reviewers didn't stick to their guns.

[Medievalist]

Originally Posted by Terie

IIn that case, since the review was already printed and published, there was not a thing the author could to about it, which was unfortunate because it was such a horribly BAD mistake.

Publishers' sometimes have a PR person submit corrections.

[shaldna]

Originally Posted by heyjude

Another take on responding to reviews.

No. Just no. Don't do it. Ever.

There is a huge difference between complaining about a hotel room and complaining about a book - the difference is this - you can complain that the sheets were dirty, or the lift was broken or the windows didn't open. Those are material things that the hotel staff can actually fix. They can't fix your enjoyment or lack of. Same with books, a misaligned cover, missing pages, glue that isn't sticking - those are physical things about books that equate to the physical things about hotels etc. Those are things that can be fixed. Whether you enjoyed the book is immaterial to be honest. Same with hotel stays - they can give you the best room in the world but they can't make you enjoy yourself while you are there.

Originally Posted by fireluxlou

I bet those reviewers felt pressured, upset and intimated in being confronted by her so changed their reviews to make her go away. Because those are the only reactions I've ever heard when an author has gone after a reviewer for speaking their mind.

This is just deception now tbh. I don't understand people who go into creative paths and then have a go at the audience.

Yeah, this was sort of my take on it too. I personally would feel harassed and very uncomfortable. It's a form of bullying and I don't like it.

Originally Posted by Terie

It's just wrong to change or remove a review due to dialogue with the author, except in one circumstance: if the reviewer made a factual error.

This is different. If I made a factual error in a review I would like to be told. But a reviewer should never be told what their opinion should be.

[jeffo20]

So, is she personally refunding their money?

I'm very curious to see what she says in her next post on the subject.