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

[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.