On Reviewing the Reviewers
I'm feeling the need to clarify my position on this one, if only because I have seen my last post on the subject cited a few times in reference to a recent practical example of what can happen when an author responds (in any way) to a review. Seeing the two radically different examples of 'author responding to reviewer' cited in reference to each other made my eyebrows go up a bit cos - well, on the one hand you have an author threatening the life of an editor who wrote one line criticising a short story of his, and on the other hand you have benpeek being a bit snarky. Also, angriest recently picked up the topic of reviewing the reviewers and my feelings are a bit less black and white than his, so I wanted to chew them over in public. Because that's the fun part!
I am both a writer and a reviewer. I have both experiences of a) having people write reviews about my work that makes me want to stab myself (or someone) in the eye and b) having writers overreact drastically and offensively to my reviews, taking the matter far further than sane people really should. [note: I am aware that writers are not sane, but really for the sake of the children, we should PRETEND most of the time]
Here are my thoughts on the subject:
1) The author is in a difficult position, because let's face it, the majority of the reviews of their work are *wrong*. Even the glowing ones have a tendency to misrepresent the author and/or the book, in niggly tiny ways. The non-glowing ones are of course worse because they are WRONG and BAD and really, why did the reviewer bother to put words to paper if they weren't going to review it PROPERLY?
1a) Sadly in most instances, any attempt the author makes to express the above views, will almost always result in them looking like i) a crazy person or ii) a dickhead or iii) a crazy self-obsessed dickhead.
1b) this is a TRAGEDY and in many cases the bane of an author's life.
2) However, just because I believe the above is true does not mean I believe it is never okay for an author to respond to reviews. No one should be above criticism, least of all the critics themselves. I've seen several people recently suggesting that because of the hard work reviewers do for little gratification that authors should cut them a break and not assume they are mad power-hungry soul-sucking parasites who should be grateful for all the free books. Which I agree with (that is I agree the authors should cut them a break and that free books are no incentive after the first six months). Also that reviewers should be able to express their opinion without being shouted down, abused, attacked, or threated by authors. Which I also agree with.
2a) really, no one should ever criticise a reviewer ever? Really?
2b) all opinions are valid and all readings of a work are valid. That means that almost all reviews have a validity to them in that they are the reader's response to the work. Even if they are a) badly written, b) riddled with errors, c) appear to be evidence that the reviewer never opened the book, d) dumb as a stone. But just because a review/response is valid doesn't mean that the review is automatically above reproach.
2c) if someone is going to respond to a review, politely and in a civilised manner pointing out any obvious deficiencies in it, it's probably better that the person doing so is not the author. Not out of any moral rule, but simply because of 1a) - chances are, even if they are making a valid criticism (all opinions are valid) the author will still come out looking like a nob for doing so.
2d) polite notes of thanks to a reviewer, even if the review was not a positive one, are not necessary, but usually appreciated, if only because the reviewer never knows where the next crazycakes author is coming from, and it's always good to know where they aren't.
2e) having said that, an author responding to Amazon reviews is a special kind of crazycakes DON'T DO IT DON'T DO IT REMEMBER ANNE RICE.
3) I can think already of several examples in which 1a) does not apply. It's all in the execution. Some authors are able to respond to criticism in an interesting, thoughtful way that offers respect to the reviewers and adds an extra layer of dialogue. margolanagan is one who regularly publishes snippets of all her reviews, good or bad, and analyses them in an entertaining manner. Her snarky, self-deprecating meta-commentary is one of my favourite things about her blog, and I love that when she does poke fun at reviews, there's a 50-50 chance it may be a positive or a negative one. Considering the amount of noise that tends to surround Margo's work these days, it's rather nice to have her there, poking holes in the pomp on a regular basis. I'm sure some of you out there can think of other examples of authors who do much the same thing. I'm normally bored to tears by blog entries that are nothing but reprints of positive reviews and blurbs - Margo does something a bit different with it, and I really respect that.
3a) if an author responds to a review - critically, mockingly, or merely drawing attention to it, this is not necessarily an attack on the reviewer. Believe me. An attack on the reviewer is when the author privately or publicly attempts to communicate insult or injury upon a reviewer. Otherwise, it is merely expressing an opinion. I personally recommend that authors keep 1a) in mind to remind themselves of the consequences should they choose to do express said opinion, but that doesn't make their opinion invalid.
3b) yes, there's often a fine line between expressing an opinion and mounting an attack. But it's always worth stopping to think about what is going on there. Perhaps they were trying to be funny. For instance, I considered this post to be an unwarranted, belittling and utterly unnecessary mockery a topic I care deeply about, and it made me incandescent with rage and hurt for at least a day. But a whole lot of people found it hilariously funny, and not responding to it at the time was the best thing I could possibly have done. I still don't think it's funny, but then I don't have to. I'm not going to use that mean-spirited blog post as a reason to suggest that people should never mock feminism, or other ideas that I consider important. Mocking the world is our sacred right, even when we are amusing no one but ourselves.
4) When a reviewer writes a negative review this is not a reflection on the author as a person (cough except when the reviewer says things like "I hate xxx's book, she should die in a fire" which is Not Nice and is one of those reasons why 'reviewer always above criticism' makes my skin twitch). A lot of heartache would be saved if new, squishy, innocent authors were taught early on that bad reviews are a part of life, and they should move on and ignore them. Unless they're prepared to consider them critically, learn from the experience, and have something to say about said review beyond "wahhhh the reviewer didn't read my book properly!"
Okay, I feel better now, and hopefully will now be able to keep my mouth happily shut when I see future people suggesting that reviewers should be above reproach, or that authors have no right to express their views. It's COMPLICATED, people.
I am both a writer and a reviewer. I have both experiences of a) having people write reviews about my work that makes me want to stab myself (or someone) in the eye and b) having writers overreact drastically and offensively to my reviews, taking the matter far further than sane people really should. [note: I am aware that writers are not sane, but really for the sake of the children, we should PRETEND most of the time]
Here are my thoughts on the subject:
1) The author is in a difficult position, because let's face it, the majority of the reviews of their work are *wrong*. Even the glowing ones have a tendency to misrepresent the author and/or the book, in niggly tiny ways. The non-glowing ones are of course worse because they are WRONG and BAD and really, why did the reviewer bother to put words to paper if they weren't going to review it PROPERLY?
1a) Sadly in most instances, any attempt the author makes to express the above views, will almost always result in them looking like i) a crazy person or ii) a dickhead or iii) a crazy self-obsessed dickhead.
1b) this is a TRAGEDY and in many cases the bane of an author's life.
2) However, just because I believe the above is true does not mean I believe it is never okay for an author to respond to reviews. No one should be above criticism, least of all the critics themselves. I've seen several people recently suggesting that because of the hard work reviewers do for little gratification that authors should cut them a break and not assume they are mad power-hungry soul-sucking parasites who should be grateful for all the free books. Which I agree with (that is I agree the authors should cut them a break and that free books are no incentive after the first six months). Also that reviewers should be able to express their opinion without being shouted down, abused, attacked, or threated by authors. Which I also agree with.
2a) really, no one should ever criticise a reviewer ever? Really?
2b) all opinions are valid and all readings of a work are valid. That means that almost all reviews have a validity to them in that they are the reader's response to the work. Even if they are a) badly written, b) riddled with errors, c) appear to be evidence that the reviewer never opened the book, d) dumb as a stone. But just because a review/response is valid doesn't mean that the review is automatically above reproach.
2c) if someone is going to respond to a review, politely and in a civilised manner pointing out any obvious deficiencies in it, it's probably better that the person doing so is not the author. Not out of any moral rule, but simply because of 1a) - chances are, even if they are making a valid criticism (all opinions are valid) the author will still come out looking like a nob for doing so.
2d) polite notes of thanks to a reviewer, even if the review was not a positive one, are not necessary, but usually appreciated, if only because the reviewer never knows where the next crazycakes author is coming from, and it's always good to know where they aren't.
2e) having said that, an author responding to Amazon reviews is a special kind of crazycakes DON'T DO IT DON'T DO IT REMEMBER ANNE RICE.
3) I can think already of several examples in which 1a) does not apply. It's all in the execution. Some authors are able to respond to criticism in an interesting, thoughtful way that offers respect to the reviewers and adds an extra layer of dialogue. margolanagan is one who regularly publishes snippets of all her reviews, good or bad, and analyses them in an entertaining manner. Her snarky, self-deprecating meta-commentary is one of my favourite things about her blog, and I love that when she does poke fun at reviews, there's a 50-50 chance it may be a positive or a negative one. Considering the amount of noise that tends to surround Margo's work these days, it's rather nice to have her there, poking holes in the pomp on a regular basis. I'm sure some of you out there can think of other examples of authors who do much the same thing. I'm normally bored to tears by blog entries that are nothing but reprints of positive reviews and blurbs - Margo does something a bit different with it, and I really respect that.
3a) if an author responds to a review - critically, mockingly, or merely drawing attention to it, this is not necessarily an attack on the reviewer. Believe me. An attack on the reviewer is when the author privately or publicly attempts to communicate insult or injury upon a reviewer. Otherwise, it is merely expressing an opinion. I personally recommend that authors keep 1a) in mind to remind themselves of the consequences should they choose to do express said opinion, but that doesn't make their opinion invalid.
3b) yes, there's often a fine line between expressing an opinion and mounting an attack. But it's always worth stopping to think about what is going on there. Perhaps they were trying to be funny. For instance, I considered this post to be an unwarranted, belittling and utterly unnecessary mockery a topic I care deeply about, and it made me incandescent with rage and hurt for at least a day. But a whole lot of people found it hilariously funny, and not responding to it at the time was the best thing I could possibly have done. I still don't think it's funny, but then I don't have to. I'm not going to use that mean-spirited blog post as a reason to suggest that people should never mock feminism, or other ideas that I consider important. Mocking the world is our sacred right, even when we are amusing no one but ourselves.
4) When a reviewer writes a negative review this is not a reflection on the author as a person (cough except when the reviewer says things like "I hate xxx's book, she should die in a fire" which is Not Nice and is one of those reasons why 'reviewer always above criticism' makes my skin twitch). A lot of heartache would be saved if new, squishy, innocent authors were taught early on that bad reviews are a part of life, and they should move on and ignore them. Unless they're prepared to consider them critically, learn from the experience, and have something to say about said review beyond "wahhhh the reviewer didn't read my book properly!"
Okay, I feel better now, and hopefully will now be able to keep my mouth happily shut when I see future people suggesting that reviewers should be above reproach, or that authors have no right to express their views. It's COMPLICATED, people.