Sticks, Stones, and Bad Reviews

[rj_anderson]

No worries about that subject line, I haven't personally had any bad reviews yet (phew!). But then, I've hardly had any reviews yet at all... and I've been thinking about how to handle it when the comments really start coming in.

To any of my fellow writers who may read this, whether you're ficcers or in a critique group working on getting published or (especially) if you're an established pro -- how do you deal with reviews? Do you:

A) read them avidly, good and bad, trying to see what you can learn from them? (And if so, have they actually taught you anything, or just alternately exhilarated and depressed you?)

B) read only the good ones, and ignore the bad? (And if so, how do you manage to do this?)

C) read no reviews whatsoever? (And if so, why?)

I'm still undecided about the whole thing myself. I love hearing nice things about my writing (who doesn't?) but I also don't want to turn a deaf ear to any advice that could help me improve. On the other hand, as has often been said, "reviews are for readers", not the author, and many authors feel that reading them is really not helpful on a practical level and is only likely to discourage you and hurt your confidence in your next project. I'm not sure what the argument is for reading no reviews at all, though.

Anyway, if you have thoughts on this subject, as an author or a reader or a critic, I'd be glad to hear them.

Comments

[bluemoon02.livejournal.com]

I eat up reviews of any and every kind. When I used to write fanfic, they were mostly good and this brought me into liking reviews because I'm a praise whore. At Uni when I wrote for workshops I started to get more constructive feedback, and I find it really useful to improving my writing. It makes you justify what you write and the choices you make, as well as helping you learn how other people view your writing. And now I photograph competatively, judges feedback -- as negative as it sometimes is! -- is still very useful for improving myself.

[rj-anderson.livejournal.com]

I definitely agree with you that constructive feedback is useful and important. I guess the debate is really whether the kind of reviews I'm talking about should be included in an author's critical feedback process, or whether they are so reader-focused (not to mention so far divorced from the actual writing process for that particular book) that it's better to stick to critique partners and one's editor for feedback and let the reviews fall where they may...

Thanks for your comment.

[shoebox2.livejournal.com]

I haven't been reviewed professionally as yet, but I do appreciate critiques of my work in whatever form. Determining how your audience reacts is an important part of the creative process. Not the most important part, by a long chalk, but useful inasmuch as it functions as a sort of mirror for your own intent.

Are they seeing what you wanted them to see, or picking up on something else? Do your characters, situations, ideas ring true or false? Can they add to your understanding of the subject? (OK, that last one might apply to non-fiction only).

On the other hand, I also feel like it's important to maintain a certain perspective on where that audience is coming from, what preconceived attitudes they're bringing to the review. Reading all the reviews is fun, but responding to them should I think be a whole 'nother matter.

I would certainly give more weight to a respected authority in the genre than a random blurb on a forum, for instance. Within those categories you can discern on further biases - someone who clearly has a soft spot for faery stories, say, as opposed to someone who can't stand the thought. :)

[rj-anderson.livejournal.com]

I definitely agree that responding to reviews, no matter how misguided or unjust you might feel them to be, is a no-no. It took me a long while to learn that lesson, but I think it has finally sunk in...

[erinbow.livejournal.com]

I read all reviews. I am not convinced this is good -- it's just stroking or kicking for the big messy ego dog -- but I don't seem to be able to help it. Just as you say, they exhilarate and depress me by turns, and I don't think I learn much. Occasionally you can see where something you meant to get across failed to make it.

This probably isn't helpful.

[rj-anderson.livejournal.com]

"Big messy ego dog" is a fine, fine, very appropriate phrase. And yeah, I am very much in your all-review-reading shoes at the moment, with all the same results and uncertainties. Meeble.

[erinbow.livejournal.com]

I think I stole the idea of an ego dog from someone. Probably Anne Lamott. My ego dog reminds me of the farm dog Casey in his declining years -- still big enough to look a seated car driver in the eye, still fast enough to catch a bird in flight, but given to drooling and hugely cursed with flatulence. My ego dog Casey can be someone intimidating and unpleasant to be around, but really he'd like nothing more than to lean on your leg all day long with his eyes half-rolled up.

I think I should probably try to get a smaller ego dog, better suited to city living, which means I should probably stop reading reviews. But I don't think I can. (And anyway, the last one, from Prairie Fire, was really good.)

With less metaphor, the my answer to your question would be: No, you won't get much from them. Yes, you should probably stop torturing yourself. But, if you're at all like me you won't be able to.

[imaginarycircus.livejournal.com]

The first time I took a writing workshop 90% of the class told me my character was too whimsical and I was trying too hard to make her seem magical and delightful. They hated her. I was a little gobsmacked. And although I hadn't written a Mary Sue at all--I had made a lot of novice mistakes about not trusting my reader. Painful but instructive.

I'm not sure how many workshops I've been in since then, but when I teach now I ask my students to leave whether they liked something or not out of their critique because there will always be readers who don't like a work and probably at least some who do like it and in the early stages of a story that is not helpful at all. Critiques that are helpful explain what that reader's experience of the story was. Like the flower fairy comments--those critics were trying to name their reading experience. I honestly don't think that critic was trying to pigeonhole your work, but was only trying to explain what it was like for him/her. The same way you would explain what something tastes like. When it something new or unfamiliar you compare it to a known quality. A well constructed review should go on to say something about the merits or problems of the novel in particular with concrete examples.

If a critic says that dialog is trite and doesn't give concrete examples that isn't very helpful and is easy to dismiss. If someone gives concrete examples and I disagree I let it go. If someone gives concrete examples and I agree--I stow it away for next time. Learning craft is a never ending process.

The major differences between editorial feedback during the revision process and critical feedback after your novel is published is that it becomes a matter of public discussion instead of a closed dialog and you cannot change much after the book is out there unless you make changes for a future edition.

I don't know. I don't think writing novels is about getting it "right." It's about telling a good story. If you've done that--you've done your job. Short fiction is more about getting the form perfect.

Have you ever read Tobias Wolff's Bullet in the Brain? I think it is one of the most brilliant pieces of short fiction, but also a fabulous snapshot of a literary critic. (It's in his collection of short stories called The Night in Question.)

[rj-anderson.livejournal.com]

Some very good points there -- I especially like your take on what others called "pigeonholing"; I hadn't thought of it that way before, but I think you're quite right.

Haven't read that story by Wolff, but it sounds intriguing. Thanks for the rec!

[pameladean]

My last book was published before teh intarwebs were quite such a huge deal as they are now. However, there were plenty of reviews to be found, and I gulped them down. The bad ones didn't usually depress me for more than a day, and less than that after a while, because most of the reviewers weren't actually reading the books I had written. That was a pity, but I didn't feel that it reflected on me, since you can't please everybody. The effect noted by Tolkien, that passages disdained by some readers were by others especially approved, also helped -- it was fairly clear to me that I'd just have to choose which readers I wanted to make happy, and the general tenor of the bad reviews made me not much want to please the reviewers. I got more charitable later and would just think, Oh, well, I don't write what X wants to read. Poor X, X has to review it anyway; what a drag.

I had one balanced review that really did cut to the quick, because the reviewer was in fact my kind of reviewer and did understand the book, but was not altogether satisfied with it. That really stung when the book was my new shiny accomplishment, but later on I was able to value it extremely. (I'm talking about Delia Sherman's review of Tam Lin in, if I recall correctly, The New York Review of Science Fiction.

I don't think you'll really know how you want to handle reviews until you've read a bunch; it depends on temperament, yours and the reviewers', as much as anything. Experience helps too.

P.

[rj-anderson.livejournal.com]

Hee, it tickles me to see you using phrases like "teh intarwebs".

I think you're right about it depending on temperament. Obviously you have no difficulty putting them in a right perspective, and that is an enviable quality. I hope that I can either develop it myself, or find some other means of dealing with it.

[yahtzee63.livejournal.com]

I read the first few avidly, but realized soon that, for the sake of my sanity, I'd have to ignore. I get a fairly good idea of what to work on more from my reader FB itself (based on questions they ask, etc.) So at this point I pretty much try to ignore the whole kaboodle.

[rj-anderson.livejournal.com]

That's a good point about the reader FB -- if something's unclear, it's as likely to come out in a positive review as a negative one, because if a reader really loves your story they want to understand it better. Which is a much nicer way to find out than some reviewer complaining that such-and-such a plot twist came out of left field or that so-and-so's motivation seemed nonexistent.

Thanks for that perspective -- I'd never thought of that!

[veschwab.livejournal.com]

I'm not there yet, but I have to admit, it's crossed my mind how to handle it. I'm not sure I have the self control to NOT read them, though I know it would prob be best to ignore the majority. Sadly, this is an industry where public opinion matters to the extent that they are the audience.

[rj-anderson.livejournal.com]

Yeah, it definitely matters -- but as I've noticed from reading a number of other people's reviews of books I felt were seriously flawed, a lot of people don't notice or care about the things that bother me, and/or are bothered by perceived flaws that would never have occurred to me to worry about. Sometimes you do get an overall consensus that a particular part of a book is faulty (or great), but that kind of general agreement seems to be rarer than I'd thought.

[lisa-schroeder.livejournal.com]

The first time around, I was lucky, and some good reviews came in first. And quite a few readers told me early on how much they enjoyed the book. From there, it was easier to read the not-so-nice ones. And yeah, I have learned some things from those. I'm also lucky in that there haven't been any terrible ones. Because of the trade paperback format, I was only reviewed by one professional journal. It wasn't glowing, but it wasn't terrible either. And I was able to pull a line from it to use on postcards and such.

The second time around, it's hardcover and I'm guessing it will get more professional reviews. I think those we have to read, good or bad. Usually, there will be something good we can pull from them to use as we need to. And we have to remember that being reviewed by those big ones, PW, SLJ, Kirkus etc. is a good thing overall, even if there is stuff in there that makes us cringe.

As far as readers, I think people will compare it to my first book. And it's different from the first one. So there will naturally be readers who are disappointed. I don't know, I just feel like I'm not going to be as lucky this time. I'm trying to decide what to do, and am leaning toward not reading any, and asking a friend or my husband to turn on google alerts for me and send the really good ones to me.

I have a new project I will be working on as the second book hits the shelves, and that's an especially fragile place to be in regards to reviews. I can't let them get to me - I need to be able to write!

It's hard. We'd like to think that we won't take it personally, that we know not everyone is going to like every book and people and a few bad reviews doesn't make a book "bad." And yet, it hurts. It does!

Lots of people are going to love your book, I'm sure. It's much easier to not let the others get to you when that's the case. So, don't worry. I bet you'll be fine!

[rj-anderson.livejournal.com]

As far as readers, I think people will compare it to my first book. And it's different from the first one. So there will naturally be readers who are disappointed.

Oh, I hear you on this one! It's a fear that I have, too. And you're right about the fragility of new projects -- I've learned that one the hard way, by asking for criticism before the book was finished and stalling myself for literally months before I could make myself go on...

I wish you all the very best with your second, different, hardcover (yay) book!

[rj-anderson.livejournal.com]

Hm. I don't know. Maybe I should talk to him about it... I do know that some other agents do that for their clients. I just always feel guilty adding to people's workloads. :)

[sartorias.livejournal.com]

Critiques I am grateful for...reviews...I have to be in a zen mode. I mostly ignore them, because they don't always seem to help me learn something. One hates a book for what another loves. One says it's terrible, and gets all the names wromg and the plot points, which indicates they read then pages and decided the whole was worthless. Another read carefully, and still hated it because it wasn't more like X. And so on.

Reviews mostly serve as a reminder just how little world cares about what I am most passionate about--I guess I always need to remember that, lest my ego ever inflate.

[rj-anderson.livejournal.com]

Oh, yes, and good point about the difference between critiques and reviews. And good readers and bad ones, too.

[cedarlibrarian.livejournal.com]

Okay, here's my slant:

I am your worst nightmare. I review YA for Kirkus and VOYA (going on 5 years at VOYA and 2 at Kirkus), and I choose to review for those two journals because they print both positive and negative reviews. Oh, and I blog. I have never been a writer and most likely will never be one, considering that I lack both the time and talent to produce a YA novel. However, I read about 200 YA novels a year, so I like to think I know what I'm talking about.

When we nightmares write our reviews, the LAST person we take into consideration is the author. Seriously, we don't care if the author is a wonderful person (that would be you!) or a complete nitwit. We only care whether a book is worth anything. The people we write reviews for are our peers, librarians and booksellers. Professional journals are what librarians and booksellers use to purchase books, so all professional reviews, imho, must answer the question "Is this book worth buying?" The answer is different at every library for every review. I don't know if you know this, but Kirkus limits its reviewers to 185 words (they have to fit 5 on a page) and VOYA to 250 words. In 185-250 words, a reviewer must do a plot synopsis and an analysis of the quality and potential popularity of the book. That is one tall order, let me tell you.

185-250 words is not enough to give the writer any kind of feedback and honestly, I and most of the reviewers I know don't care to give any to the writer because, well, the book is out and no changes will be made despite our reviews. Reviews in these professional publications ARE for the readers and the buyers, not the writers. I would, however, think that there's some value in authors reading their reviews. Reviewers often catch things authors and editors miss (prime example being the reason THE HUNGER GAMES didn't get a starred review in Kirkus). Reviewers are great at pulling back and looking at the book's bigger picture.

Not all reviews will agree with each other, because every reviewer is different. Those who write the negative reviews, however, are none of the following: ignorant, bitter, stupid, jealous, failures, inexperienced, malicious, or evil. My editors hold me to a really high standard and aren't afraid to tell me when I'm not meeting it.

And...wow, I've taken up a lot of space here. But feel free to IM me if you want to talk more!

[kerravonsen]

(grins at icon)

Those who write the negative reviews, however, are none of the following: ignorant, bitter, stupid, jealous, failures, inexperienced, malicious, or evil.

Ah yes. I review a lot of fan fiction, and I've done my share of negative reviews, and I've been accused of ignorance, malice and jealousy by disgruntled authors. First, ignorance, because at that point I hadn't written anything in that particular fandom, and then jealousy after I had written stories in that fandom. Completely illogical, since if I were jealous of good writers, I would write negative reviews for everything, rather than the mostly positive reviews I do write.

[cedarlibrarian.livejournal.com]

Fanfiction reviews are a different beast, but I do know where you're coming from. I swear, the dumbest thing I've ever read, anywhere, was a blog post from an author whose book got a bad review in Kirkus, where he said, "Those reviewers are just failed, embittered writers, and they couldn't have known what they were talking about anyway because they were reading from a galley, not a finished copy." So many things wrong with that statement it nearly made my head explode.

And not writing in a particular fandom doesn't mean you don't know the canon! I watched Crossing Jordan loyally from Episode 1 to the bitter end, but never wrote any fic. You bet I know that fandom, though. Sigh.

[kerravonsen]

Those reviewers are just failed, embittered writers
(eyeroll) That old chestnut!

because they were reading from a galley, not a finished copy
(blinks) Er... the story would be the same... once it's in galley proofs, it's all done bar the typos. (casts mind nostalgically back to childhood when my father would rope us in to help proof-read his galley proofs...)

Also, icon love.

[cedarlibrarian.livejournal.com]

Er... the story would be the same... once it's in galley proofs, it's all done bar the typos.

Most of the time, that's the case, but there are some exceptions. There are a few YA books I can think of offhand that have gone through major changes between the galley and the final version. BE MORE CHILL by Ned Vizzini had an entire chapter disappear from the galley to the trade edition. BLUE BLOODS by Melissa de la Cruz had a number of differences, and...damn, there's another one I can think of that came up for Popular Paperbacks a few years ago that I'd read in galley but had to reread because of the changes between the galley and the final version, but I can't remember what it was.

The big deal with reading from galleys is that reviews have to be in months before the publication date. I think at Kirkus the deadline is two months, meaning that reviews of books due out in January '09 were due today. Which...um, I need to go read!

(And thanks! I think it came from someone on book_icons)

[writerjenn.livejournal.com]

Thanks, cedarlibrarian. Helpful info!

[jgurtler.livejournal.com]

Wow! Great info!
Thanks!

[rj-anderson.livejournal.com]

Heh on the "worst nightmare". The funny thing is, although of course I do dread getting negative reviews myself, the reviewers I enjoy most are the ones who aren't shy of being negative when they feel a book is seriously flawed.

If I'm wearing my author hat at the time a negative review makes me cringe in sympathy, but with my reader hat on I appreciate that kind of frankness and find it helpful in finding the kinds of books I prefer to read. A scathing review doesn't even tend to keep me from reading a book I'm really interested in, either, if the reasons the reviewer gives for not liking it are not reasons that particularly concern me -- or if the majority of the other reviews are positive and highlight things about the book that sound enticing to me.

Anyway, thanks so much for weighing in -- your perspective's really interesting and useful to keep in mind.

(translating, not authoring)

[dolorous-ett.livejournal.com]

I always read my reviews - when I can find them.

Of course, since I'm a translator rather than an author, it's not quite the same thing. Very little of any review is about my work as a translator - which is a compliment, of a sort, I suppose, as generally people like translations best when they forget they're reading one...

Re: (translating, not authoring)

[rj-anderson.livejournal.com]

Translators: the unsung heroines and heroes of world literature. I will be sure to thank my translators if I ever get the chance to have any. :)

[kerravonsen]

I think the reasoning behind (C) "read no reviews at all" is because of the difficulty in doing (B) "read only positive reviews"; the author weighs up the costs, and decides that not reading positive reviews is a worthwhile price to pay for the advantage of avoiding negative reviews.

[rj-anderson.livejournal.com]

Yes, that makes sense. I guess I'm just not quite at that point yet, myself! But I may well get there.

[camillofan.livejournal.com]

I am a teacher of undergraduates and I have NEVER been to that "Rate My Professor" site. I am not interested, I will never go, I will not look if you copy and send me "my" page, and I will "la-la-la" with my fingers in my ears if you try to read from the page with me in the room.

I do read the redacted summary of student evaluations the college gives me each semester.

Although both forums are problematic-- I am completely accountable for my work, while my critics in each case submit their reviews behind the protection of anonymity-- at least the second set were (theoretically) written for me.

Not sure if that helps (in fact, I'm not sure how it could!). But I think it means I might not read my Amazon reviews. For what it's worth.

[writerjenn.livejournal.com]

I think the reason people might choose not to read reviews would be to avoid getting too caught up in trying to please others. Ultimately, we need to listen to the story, the story that must be told. Feedback can help us shape the way we tell that story, but feedback can also become a devastating roller-coaster of: "They love me! I stink! I'm wonderful! They hate me!" Some people choose not to even get on that ride in the first place.

I haven't evolved my own review-reading philosophy yet. I'm still a few steps away from needing to do that.

[rj-anderson.livejournal.com]

Yes, good point about the emo-coaster. It's pretty hard to stay focused on your next book when you're busy angsting about the last one...