Should You Be Afraid to Review?

Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? In the big, wide world of semi-anonymity we call the internet, it seems at times that people are afraid of nothing. Strangers say things online that they'd never say if looking someone in the eye.

It’s tempting to tell people where to get off—especially when they're being obnoxious or unfair. People don't want to debate rationally; they only want to belittle those who don't agree. If you don't believe me, try explaining to a gang of vehement Teachers' Union supporters that all homeschoolers are not, in fact, "inbred, narrow-minded, homophobic hypocrites." Wow. And those were the ones who didn't refer to a variety of body parts and animal acts.

It's not worth my time to argue with strangers who don't want to hear someone else's point of view.

But what if those strangers could affect your real life? Would you still express your honest thoughts?

I’m forever exploring Facebook, Goodreads, Twitter, and writers’ blogs to keep up on the business of writing and editing. A disturbing number of people mention unwarranted attacks by authors who don't agree with someone's review of their book. Apparently, author/reviewer bullying is a pretty big thing.

Since when did an honest opinion become a bad thing? There are tactful ways to say the negative things that need to be said—like when my husband says, "Well, I know you like it and it's comfortable, but it's not the most flattering outfit you own." I'd rather hear that than overhear someone whispering about how awful I look.

In the case of a book review, an author should be prepared for the occasional negative. No one likes to hear that what they've labored over isn't loved by all, but it should at least be expected once in awhile. I've not always used delicate phrasing in a review, but I am prepared to stand by my words if confronted.

I can think of one instance where I ended up wondering if I'd overstepped my bounds, years and years ago. A book I'd edited got two stars from someone who admitted she didn't finish it, it was not her typical genre, and in fact, she didn’t really like that particular genre. So I asked her why she'd bothered to read or review it, when all those factors would never have led to a favorable review. I was polite, I clearly stated that I was the book's editor (which I didn't have to disclose) and wasn't asking so I could jump to the author's defense. I was genuinely curious. The reviewer didn't reply, but another GR person did, accusing me of being unprofessional by telling someone what a review should be, on a book which I "helped to create."

Well, first of all, I didn't create the book. I didn't help to create it. The novel was the author's hard work, not mine. I edited it. As much as I'd love to take credit for a book's success—and I do celebrate with them!—my work is the frosting, not the cake itself. I don't even have to like the books I work with, I suppose; I only have to correct them. So of course I felt that was a moot point. However, the person who criticized me was polite, I responded in kind, and we went our separate ways. I'd intended no harm, she said her piece, and I realized it was probably not my business to ask the original poster anything at all. But I'm curious like that, and now I know that curiosity is not always appreciated. I'm thankful that my post didn't do any damage to the author, but I didn't feel it was right to remove it, either. After all, I said it, and I needed to stand by it.

My point, if I can still get back around to it, is this: if an honest opinion is wanted, then prepare for it to be honest. "Honest" does not always mean "favorable." And if your loyal fans jump to your defense, please make it clear to them that bullying your naysayers is NOT acceptable. I’m incredulous that people can be so vicious to strangers over a book review, methodically stalking them across the social networks. In some of the cases I read, the author and the reviewer blamed each other for attacks that were actually launched by their friends. Once the true culprits were revealed, apologies ensued . . . but the damage was already done.

Most authors genuinely desire honest reviews. Reviews encourage people to purchase a book, and they let authors to know their work is noticed. The relative obscurity provided by the internet should never be used as an excuse to lash out at anyone who doesn't happen to agree with us.

Have you seen or experienced this? Ever found yourself in the middle of an unintentional knock-down-drag-out internet kerfuffle? Tell me all about it and I’ll be sure to give you a heartfelt “there, there.”

N = Never Argue with a Reviewer

I should really clarify this to say, “Never engage a reviewer.” Or perhaps, “Never tell a reviewer how to review.” Or how about, “Never threaten a reviewer”?

An author can do herself everlasting damage when she reads a review and decides to tell the reviewer he’s wrong. Or a troll. Or a bully. Or an idiot. Or not qualified to review because he didn’t finish the book.

There are two reasons a person will review a book: first, to talk about why he liked it, what he liked about it, and why others might like it; or second, to tell why he did not like it, what was wrong with it, and why others should avoid it.

Neither of these two reasons benefits the reviewer in any way. He doesn’t get his money back if he doesn’t like the book or if it’s poorly written, and he doesn’t get a bonus free book if he likes the book and recommends it to others. In fact, the reviewer has PAID for the privilege of reading the book, so he has the right to say whatever he darn well pleases about the book, good or bad. He has spent hours of his life reading the book and has earned the right to review it in any way he chooses, whether it be a lengthy discussion on plot and technicalities, or a pictogram made up entirely of smiley faces.

Angry and Ranting

What is it that makes someone think he can put out a product for consumers to purchase, and not a single person in the entire world is permitted to dislike it? 

Does everyone buy Coke instead of Pepsi? Does everyone have to love polo shirts? Heaven forbid we were all required to love Fifty Shades of Grey or else be subject to a sharp rebuke. People feel free to express their love or hate for Tolkien, Hemingway, or Poe, perhaps because they’re already dead. Last time I checked, Laura Ingalls Wilder didn't pop out of the grave to haunt someone because a reader didn't find the Little House books captivating. Nor would I expect that she sat in her home, writing nasty letters to those who weren't her fans while she was alive.

I'm so angry I could just spit. It's one of those rare times when I'm furious about something that's not my business and not in my control—when I'm indignant on the behalf of people I don't know, whose lives will not change in any way, regardless of my anger.

Yes, I'm talking about life on the Internet.

A few days ago, I witnessed two author meltdowns on Goodreads. As is always the case, they started off with being on the receiving end of a one-star review for each of their books. Follows basic procedure, right? Read. Like or don't. Review. The end.

Wrong, wrong, and wronger.

Not the end. An end would be merciful.

The final step these days has moved right along from "review" to "defend your review/rating and then have your name smeared across every social media available."

I want to call out the first author in question, but I don't even want to give her any recognition by typing her name out here. A review was posted, and she jumped right in and attacked the reviewer. Friends on both sides joined in.

The reviewer had posted portions of the book so all could see why she rated it so low. It appeared to me that the author had somehow ingested a thesaurus and vomited all the words four syllables and higher into a manuscript. Truthfully (and I'm a big fan of the thesaurus, myself), I was glad the original reviewer explained some of the passages featured, because I would never have gotten what was being said.

The author removed all her own comments from Goodreads, but moved over to Facebook. There she began to spew some horrid stuff: shouting out names of people she deemed trolls, posting links to their Amazon profiles, and encouraging others to harass this reviewer and anyone who showed support of this review. She stooped as low as to call one of the reviewers "The Creature from the Black Baboon."

The part that made me the most angry—and believe me, it was tough to choose just one—was when one of the author's friends commented on one of the Facebook posts, saying, "[Author name], you really should take a step back and get some control. You're doing a lot of damage here, and may be alienating your readers with this type of stuff," and the author replied (and I am NOT kidding you here), "Don't worry. I know what I'm doing. My sales are going through the roof since this started."

What?!? She was creating a horrible situation on purpose? And reveling in it?

Apparently she was, because she began repeating the mantra, "Even 'snublicity' is good publicity!" and thanking her "trolls" for all the free promo. She accused them of creating Amazon accounts simply to trash her book, ignoring that they all had established accounts with multiple reviews of other books and products. Facts were not needed or welcome.

As I was in the middle of writing this post, a second author started another attack on a reader who dared to mark his book as a "don't want to read" based on her reading of the sample of his book.

Mr. Author attacked the reviewer on her own blog, calling her names in the comment section of a recent post. She responded with facts and restraint. He went back to the original review and began a long list of insults against her on Goodreads. Her only response at first was to copy his posts for the record, since we all know the pattern by now: hurl insults today, remove all your posts tomorrow. His posts (mostly unanswered) continued to come, sounding more and more unhinged with each moment.

I finally got to the point where I just couldn't take it anymore, and decided to stand up for the reviewer. I need to make it clear here that I do not engage in Internet arguments as a general rule. People are not going to have opinions/life beliefs changed when shouted at by a stranger online, and that's all there is to it. But I can't sit idly by while someone attacks an innocent party, and I feel it's important to show support in those situations.

I was embarrassed for the attacking author, because he was making a colossal fool of himself by acting worse than a child. There was no reason, other than immaturity and a bruised ego on the part of the book's author, for any type of response. If she had rated it four stars with no explanation, I don't think he would have attacked her, shouting, "Why?"

The man was not rational. He kept going whether anyone was responding or not. He even went to another thread to complain, thus ensuring that more people moved over to "his" page and were witnesses to his ranting. I should probably mention that his author profile had been deleted after a tantrum two weeks prior, where he’d gotten a GR member banned for bullying that didn’t actually occur, so he had created a new profile as a non-author and was using that for his attacks.

It’s a shame, really, that there are selfish authors like these two who are unable to accept the fact that not everyone out there will be their fans.

Most self-published authors have more class than that, and are concerned with next year’s sales in addition to today’s. They’re insulted that the actions of a few are tainting the reputation of the many, because they have to work twice as hard to get people to even look at their books, much less review them.

I will never forget the names of those tantrum-throwing authors and will be quick to discourage others from supporting their work. I won’t paint the others with the same brush, but there are many who will, and who have already dismissed SPAs as too much bother and high drama. What a shame for all those who work hard to put out a high-quality product, only to have a few bad apples spoil the reputation of all.

Editor's Notes #3: Don't Take It Personally

I read a book because I hope to enjoy it. I usually don't know the author personally, even if he is a familiar name. The author doesn't know me, either. 

When I leave a 4- or 5-star review, does he send me flowers? No. Chocolate? No. A colorful handmade card? No.

Why? Because he doesn't know me. My review is simply one more affirmation that a book has been written well, with good editing and an interesting story. It tells others that, in my opinion, they might also enjoy that same book.

But what if I leave a 1-star review? Does the author send me a condolence card? No. Does he or she promise to do better next time? No. And no, still no chocolates.

Why no chocolates? Why no wooing with wine or aged Scotch?

I'll tell you why: because the author doesn't know me. 

Let's recap for a moment. 

• I don't know the author, so I don't assume a decently written book was penned with me, specifically, in mind. 
• I don't know the author, so I don't take offense if a book is written poorly, because I don't think it was written that way to spite me.
• The author doesn't know me, so she doesn't assume I've given a good review because she's pretty, or because we support the same charity, or because I am flattering her into watching my chickens for me while I take a weekend trip.
• The author doesn't know me, so he doesn't take offense if I give his book a bad review because—

Oh, wait. The author did take offense. 

Good review = my book is spectacular.

Bad review = the reviewer is an idiot.

This is a disturbing trend. Without doing a lick of in-depth research, I will hazard a guess that most, if not all, writers who bash reviewers are newer authors. Certainly they're emotionally immature, but I'll assume they are immature writers, a.k.a. new to the business of publishing. Perhaps no one has told them their behavior is likely to cost them the very people they're trying to attract.

A long-ago Goodreads thread addressed this very topic. The group was talking about feeling guilty for a DNF (Did Not Finish), and whether to leave a review or not, depending on whether the DNF status was due to personal taste or a badly written book. This brought on several differences in opinion—and along with it, a perfect example for my post.

Author "A": as a writer, she prefers an honest review; as a reader, she hesitates to leave an unfavorable review because someone may retaliate and slam her work.

Author "B": says a review isn't even needed in all cases; stating a strong opinion on one of the boards was enough to get his own books slammed with one-star ratings by people who had never read them.

B's comment prompted author "C" to tell about a recent book review in which she gave a two-star rating and was verbally attacked by the book's author ("X") on Goodreads and other places across the internet.  

[I don't know any of these authors personally, so my post is based on reading the original review and author's reply, with no previous bias.]

In C's opinion, the book deserved a one-star rating, but she tried to be diplomatic since it was obvious to her that a lot of work had been put into the book. However, it had a lot of problems, and C outlined those problems in her review, apologizing more than once as she clarified exactly what was wrong. Author X replied with a tantrum worthy of any three-year-old. Her post was toxic, vicious and personal.

She started off saying that C’s review should not have been "allowed," because C did not finish the book. X felt that C could not possibly have understood the book after reading "only a quarter of it"—a confusing statement because C's review mentioned quitting at the 60% mark. X then went on at length about her book, her ideas, characters, personal beliefs, and life as we know it in her universe. Her response was so "out there" and rambling that it made her look and sound like a crazed child—the whole thing reeked of, "I know you are, but what am I?" and "You're stupid," "No, you're stupid," "Your face is stupid." Picture that . . . one-sided only.

Author X may never learn that not everyone who disagrees with her is evil, or even wrong. There are guaranteed to be many who don’t like her book, as with any author and any book—but not every person is a moron who "doesn't get it."

I sent the link to the whole tantrum to an author friend so she could read it for herself. She made an astute observation about X's 1075-word essay reply:

If she had written the book properly to begin with, she wouldn't have had to explain so much in her rebuttal to the other person's review.

Author C's review was not personal. Had she given a four- or five-star review, I doubt that X would have attacked her for showing favoritism. Would she have scuffed her shoe on the ground and said, "Aw, shucks, I know you're only saying that because we both love garden gnomes"? Not a chance. She would have assumed she earned the stars because her book was good. So why is it that a bad review gets blamed on the reader/reviewer rather than the writer?

I once read a blog post with an open letter to indie authors. The link no longer exists, but there was one section that specifically dealt with bad reviews and how to deal with them, and I’ve never forgotten the title (paraphrased): "Not everyone will like your book. Down a shot. Accept it. Move on."

This same advice applies when working with an editor. An editor doesn't have to "like" your book to edit it. It helps, because it makes the work more enjoyable. But each time the red pen comes out and I say, "This could be changed up a bit," I'm not secretly thinking, "You're so stupid. I hate you. I hate every word you've written."

It's my job to note when something needs strengthened, removed, or spelled correctly. It's not an emotionally charged moment for me to use the Red Pen of Doom. It's just the tool I use for my job. If I hire someone to clean my house, I'm not going to accuse her of calling me a slob because she mopped. I hired that person. She did her job. My floor was in need of a good mopping. What does that mean? Um . . . it means my floor had dirt on it. It doesn't mean I'm evil. It doesn't mean she thinks I'm evil.

Similarly, if an editor is hired, it's that person's job to know more about editing than a writer may know. If a cover artist is hired, it's his job to know more about drawing and colors than a writer knows. If a live band is hired, they should play better music than Uncle Fritz, who's had six months of tuba lessons. It's nothing personal.

Putting your work out there (whether pre-publication or as a finished work) invites praise or criticism, sometimes both. If you're prepared to accept praise, you should be equally prepared to accept criticism. Unless the review clearly states, "I would have given five stars, except my daughter wrote this, and she never cleaned her room when I told her to, so I'm withholding my love," then you should assume the reviewer has something valid to say.

I occasionally turn to my own editing guru—my personal Obi-Wan—for advice when I'm stuck. The door to her email inbox is always open if I need the answer to a tough or obscure question, and I've sent her passages of my work to critique, knowing she'll never give me a trophy just for working hard. Her evaluation has nothing to do with Lynda, the person, or even Lynda, the editor. It only deals with the WORK of Lynda, the editor.

Writers, it's no different for you when a reviewer points out errors or inconsistencies. It's your WORK, not your SELF. Read the review, grit your teeth, swear under your breath, draw a stick figure of the reviewer and scribble a mustache on it. Whatever it takes to get the knee-jerk reaction out of your system. Then walk away from it, give it some time, and come back to it later to see if it has any value. More often than not, it will.

Whatever you do, don't take it personally. It's not about you. Really.