![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rj_andersonNo 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.
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.
Tags:
no subject
Date: 2008-11-02 09:14 pm (UTC)(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.
no subject
Date: 2008-11-03 12:23 am (UTC)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