Is that why the ratings don't seem to add up? Well, I get why they would remove negative reviews that aren't helpful and are only there to snipe people. But reviews that honsetly stop them from selling a prodect and getting complaints about it later on, like from parents? Then again, I heard a lot of reviews from CC's books were removed, but I heard they were removed because they mentioned the plagiarism. Yeah, that is linked with her getting published, but it doesn't really have to do with the quality of a book and sounds like an outright attack.
I've written negative reviews for books based on the book's lack of quality, wooden characterization, etc. The problem is that if the author chooses to, she can report the negative review as a personal attack. Once she does this, Amazon will remove the review.
I don't think they even read the review to see if it's balanced, fair, or possibly accurate. (Again, this is based on my own experience. I've written negative reviews in which I've praised the author's use of language or setting or praised a secondary character for being interesting and compelling.) The author says it's an attack, so it's an attack. End of story.
That would explain why most of the reviews are a simple "Dur, this book was boring and a Twilight rip-off, don't read it!"
Actually, it also puts a new spin on a blog post that Fitzpatrick wrote. She starts off giving tips to new writers, then brings up how writers should be humble, then goes on a rant about how someone on Amazon left her a negative review and later mailed her their manuscript for a cover quote. She claimed that she took the higher path and avoided any possible embarrassment for both of them by claiming to be busy and mailing it back. Erm... Yeeeeah...
Well, I kind of understand her point though about being asked to read someone elses manuscript, that you don't know, who happens to have given you a bad review. Now, if this person had reviewed other of her books positively, or said that compared to her others it was a dispointment, she wouldn't have grounds to stand on.
Otherwise, it just comes across as tacky on the reviewers part. I mean, why would you send someone who you dislike and don't think well of their work a manuscript of unless they were trying to ride on the coatails of the other persons writing. That, or they were trying to shove it into the one writers face that they honestly think they can write better.
I haven't read her post though, so I don't honestly know the full details.
So, having now read what she wrote, I have to say, I still get why a writer wouldn't want to look over someones manuscript that gave you a bad review, unless the person happens to have reviewed other of your books with varying degree.
It is an embarressment to both the writer and the reviewer. I mean, if you were highly critical of a particular writers work, then why would you trust them to say something positive about your book.
That said, the entire tone of the article was off. Yes, if all you leave review wise is negative reviews, then it goes without saying that authors aren't going to want to add a tag to your book. But if you review based on actual content, then you should have some good reviews in there.
I've heard about this on one of the threads there recently. The reason said reviewes didn't get deleted was due to either the number of helpful reviews or comments agreeing with said review I guess. Some authors are full of ego, aren't they? Though there are some reviewers who happen to actually do attack. That said, if I was a published author, I would possibly ask the site to remove what amounts to spam reviews, even if they were five star ratings, but that is just me.
"And Patch...how can I describe Patch without turning into a puddle of mush? Well, he's trouble, plain and simple. But he's that good kind of trouble that just about anyone with the XX chromosome is attracted to. He's got the sarcasm down to an art and there's also the fact there's something about him that's not quite right."
Yeah, there's something about him that's not quite right. It's the fact that he acts like he just jumped out of a slasher movie.
"Despite the many humorous gems I found throughout the entire book"
Yes, I totally found myself laughing at the way he publicly humiliated Nora. And peered through her window at night. And threatened her - oh wait, no I didn't!
And jeez, most of the negative reviews are just a brief "Dude, this was boring". No mention of the endless creepy themes? Bluh? O_o
It's like Twilight. First time I checked it out, the negative reviews were just talking about it being overrated. I was completely unprepared for how unintentionally creepy Edward behaves. Maybe Meyer's godawful prose fried everyone's brain.
Hard to say. It's like Mervin pointed out - there's a lot of things, like Jasper being terrifying and Alice being so horrible, that a lot of the haters miss.
I can attest to that; when I first read Twilight, I was just bored by it. But everyone kept ranting about how good it was so I kept turning pages, waiting to be entertained, until the chapter after the big sparkly reveal. That was when I realized there probably wasn't going to be any plot and dropped it.
It wasn't until I read the sporkings that I realized how truly awful it was.
/And Patch...how can I describe Patch without turning into a puddle of mush? Well, he's trouble, plain and simple. But he's that good kind of trouble that just about anyone with the XX chromosome is attracted to./
The "good kind of trouble," huh? Does that include stalking a girl, sexually harassing her, humiliating her, and treating her like cattle?
I have the XX chromosome. I am *not* attracted to "that good kind of trouble."
/"Despite the many humorous gems I found throughout the entire book"/
Yes, it's so funny how he sexually harasses her! Sure, Nora obviously didn't find it funny and got upset, but it's not like her feelings matter anyway! If you didn't laugh, then you're just a bitter, humorless feminist! Can't you just take a joke?
And people wonder why feminism is still needed in the world.
Actually, Amazon has a big history of deleting negative reviews. Though I suspect that the only people who buy this book are people into this sub-genre.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
I don't think they even read the review to see if it's balanced, fair, or possibly accurate. (Again, this is based on my own experience. I've written negative reviews in which I've praised the author's use of language or setting or praised a secondary character for being interesting and compelling.) The author says it's an attack, so it's an attack. End of story.
Reply
Actually, it also puts a new spin on a blog post that Fitzpatrick wrote. She starts off giving tips to new writers, then brings up how writers should be humble, then goes on a rant about how someone on Amazon left her a negative review and later mailed her their manuscript for a cover quote. She claimed that she took the higher path and avoided any possible embarrassment for both of them by claiming to be busy and mailing it back. Erm... Yeeeeah...
Reply
Otherwise, it just comes across as tacky on the reviewers part. I mean, why would you send someone who you dislike and don't think well of their work a manuscript of unless they were trying to ride on the coatails of the other persons writing. That, or they were trying to shove it into the one writers face that they honestly think they can write better.
I haven't read her post though, so I don't honestly know the full details.
Reply
It is an embarressment to both the writer and the reviewer. I mean, if you were highly critical of a particular writers work, then why would you trust them to say something positive about your book.
That said, the entire tone of the article was off. Yes, if all you leave review wise is negative reviews, then it goes without saying that authors aren't going to want to add a tag to your book. But if you review based on actual content, then you should have some good reviews in there.
Crazy...
Reply
Reply
"And Patch...how can I describe Patch without turning into a puddle of mush? Well, he's trouble, plain and simple. But he's that good kind of trouble that just about anyone with the XX chromosome is attracted to. He's got the sarcasm down to an art and there's also the fact there's something about him that's not quite right."
Yeah, there's something about him that's not quite right. It's the fact that he acts like he just jumped out of a slasher movie.
"Despite the many humorous gems I found throughout the entire book"
Yes, I totally found myself laughing at the way he publicly humiliated Nora. And peered through her window at night. And threatened her - oh wait, no I didn't!
And jeez, most of the negative reviews are just a brief "Dude, this was boring". No mention of the endless creepy themes? Bluh? O_o
Reply
Reply
Reply
It wasn't until I read the sporkings that I realized how truly awful it was.
Reply
The "good kind of trouble," huh? Does that include stalking a girl, sexually harassing her, humiliating her, and treating her like cattle?
I have the XX chromosome. I am *not* attracted to "that good kind of trouble."
/"Despite the many humorous gems I found throughout the entire book"/
Yes, it's so funny how he sexually harasses her! Sure, Nora obviously didn't find it funny and got upset, but it's not like her feelings matter anyway! If you didn't laugh, then you're just a bitter, humorless feminist! Can't you just take a joke?
And people wonder why feminism is still needed in the world.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment