"Don't Attack Reviewers"

[Nerds_feather]

Was going to post this piece in the reviewing approaches thread, but figured it needs its own discussion. I'd quote from it, but that would feel like cherry-picking, and the whole article is worth reading. Your thoughts?

 

[Ray McCarthy]

We sort of have a thread on this?

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

I remember when writers would complain bitterly about reviews which they thought gave an inaccurate impression of their books because the reviewer came to the book with an agenda -- but they made these complaints privately and among friends. They would sometimes talk about writing to the reviewer and pointing out where they were wrong and why they were wrong, but talking about it seemed to get it out of their systems, because I don't recall that any of them actually wrote the letter.

As someone with old-fashioned, and perhaps outdated, values, I find it incredible and sometimes (depending on how it is framed) rather childish when authors and editors lash out against reviewers. As an author myself, I don't argue with reviewers. Except, you know, in those internal arguments that go around and around in your head. Then I can be quite indignant!

 

[Nerds_feather]

I remember when writers would complain bitterly about reviews which they thought gave an inaccurate impression of their books because the reviewer came to the book with an agenda -- but they made these complaints privately and among friends. They would sometimes talk about writing to the reviewer and pointing out where they were wrong and why they were wrong, but talking about it seemed to get it out of their systems, because I don't recall that any of them actually wrote the letter.

As someone with old-fashioned, and perhaps outdated, values, I find it incredible and sometimes (depending on how it is framed) rather childish when authors and editors lash out against reviewers. As an author myself, I don't argue with reviewers. Except, you know, in those internal arguments that go around and around in your head. Then I can be quite indignant!

I agree completely. Just as no one is entitled to like a book, no one is entitled to agree with a review. I do think it's perfectly fair to say "I think this is wrong and here's why." But in many cases, it bleeds from that into something more sinister--for example in the Hale incident. I just don't see why it's so hard to say "I don't get where the reviewer is coming from, but s/he is entitled to her/his opinion." And leave it at that!

 

[psychotick]

Hi,

I read the Kathleen Hale piece on which this is based, and have to admit I found it funny in some respects. An author stalking her detractor down instead of the other way around. But she should still never have done what she did, and quite frankly no matter how cleverly she puts it, she should probably have been charged with stalking. The first rule of receiving a bad review (or a good one) is sit on your hands.

McCalmont is right in some respects, the most important one being that the distance between authors and readers has narrowed, making confrontations like this more common. This is in my view related to the arrival of both the internet and self publishing. Now readers can connect with authors much more freely, while at the same time authors are handling more of their own PR / marketing etc. No longer does the reader send off an angry review letter to a publisher that gets tossed in a bin, and the author never even see it. Now the author sees the review and hurt feelings follow. But there's nothing that can be done about this, and the reality is that this is a problem that will continue to grow.

And lets be honest here, everyone who is an author online, and has received a scathing review has probably taken the first step Kathleen Hale did - go online and check out the profile of the reviewer, what else they've reviewed etc. I certainly have. I don't think it's stalking when the information is freely available via links from your book page on Amazon. Yes we shouldn't do it, but lets be honest, bad reviews of our books hurt, and there is a natural tendency whenever we're hurt to ask those basic questions - Who did this to me? Why? Are they just mean? Are they other authors bagging their rivals? And probably many of us have had revenge fantasies too! Thankfully I think, few if any of us have ever gone any further.

I think the thing to come out of this are two rules:

Rule One - for reviewers: Remember that the authors will read your review and they are people just as flawed and capable of being hurt as everyone else.

Rule Two - for authors: Do Not Engage!

Cheers, Greg.

 

[Mangara]

Just found this.

Sums it up perfectly.

http://sean-cummings.ca/2012/08/28/the-12-stages-of-goodreads-review-author-meltdown/

 

[alchemist]

Having read this and the other threads, and some of the links contained therein, I've come to one conclusion: the world of SF/F literature contains a lot of precious individuals who, if I ever have any kind of success, I will do my damnedest to avoid.

 

[Nerds_feather]

Just found this.

Sums it up perfectly.

http://sean-cummings.ca/2012/08/28/the-12-stages-of-goodreads-review-author-meltdown/

This:

And you finally realize that when you’re an author, it’s not about you … it’s about your readers. Bloggers are readers. You’re going to get good reviews and bad reviews because that’s the nature of the business.

(Though of course I don't think most authors will ever face serious consequences such as those the link suggests (like losing an agent or ruining their careers)...see the whole Book Smugglers/Ben Aaronovitch thing McCalmont references.)

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

No longer does the reader send off an angry review letter to a publisher that gets tossed in a bin, and the author never even see it.

But they did, before all this internet stuff, pass on angry letters readers wrote to the authors, because of course they sent the letters to the authors unopened.

 

[Toby Frost]

Having read this and the other threads, and some of the links contained therein, I've come to one conclusion: the world of SF/F literature contains a lot of precious individuals who, if I ever have any kind of success, I will do my damnedest to avoid.

I would use a different phrase for "precious individuals", but I am impressed by your moderation.

I must admit that at the first mention of "genre spaces" part of my soul withers slightly and I think "Oh, this stuff again". When did normal people start talking like this? However, I kept on. At the end of the day, I find it hard to have much sympathy with anyone. Everybody seems so self-important and unkind. I suppose it's not that bad, really, and what you see from the internet are the horror stories, but what strikes me over and over again is the gigantic sense of entitlement everyone now seems to have from being able to post on line. One of the wisest things I ever heard from a film was a line from Fight Club: "You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake".

 

[alchemist]

But they did, before all this internet stuff, pass on angry letters readers wrote to the authors, because of course they sent the letters to the authors unopened.

The only time I ever wrote to an author was in about 1990, when I sent a letter to Dan Simmons comparing his fictional virus with new research coming out at the time on the mechanism of action of HIV, and wondering if he'd used it as inspiration. He never got back to me.

These days I could try and tweet him into submission.

 

[AnyaKimlin]

I'm not arguing for responding as it is not my style... However, it concerns me that outright bullying is accepted so widely in any walk of life and that writers are expected to put up with being targets.

I bought the Cuckoo's Calling in hardback before Robert Galbraith admitted he was a woman called JK Rowling. My main reason was it had a similar title to a book I was writing. The reviews then were mostly positive and all constructive explaining why they did/did not like the book. The day after the announcement it changed - some one point reviews admitted they just hated Harry Potter, they hated the way the announcement had happened, they didn't like the use of the pen name etc (on the other side were those who gave it five because they loved Harry Potter). But the viciousness of some of reviews with no substance was awful to read.

Whilst I don't think responding individually is good I am not a fan of playing dead with bullies either. Being around home educated kids in my area has taught me there are usually other ways of dealing with it,

 

[Ray McCarthy]

There is no simple solution to Bullies.

Off Topic a little:
OTH a different pen name could be argued to be very appropriate for different Genre.

 

[The Bluestocking]

Chuck Wendig had a fabulous - but profanity-laden - article on this:

http://terribleminds.com/ramble/201...respond-to-a-negative-review-a-helpful-guide/

 

[Hex]

It is a bit depressing that the internet makes the precious individuals so very visible. I was somewhat horrified to read the comments at the end of one of those articles on the Kathleen Hale debacle, where one of the commenters said: "Kathleen Hale's page is now full of one star reviews by people who haven't read the book. Surely we don't want to end up doing this?" and s/he got dismissed completely by someone who seemed to feel it was a valuable thing to do, leaving endless nasty comments on someone's Goodreads page.

I don't have much sympathy for Kathleen Hale, but as the "debate" trundled on, I started losing sympathy for many of the things said by the other side too. Most people (as ever) were perfectly reasonable, but there was a strong and largely unchallenged group of preciousness.

Whatever has happened, after the first fifty or so negative messages I guess the message to KH was loud and clear. Posting more and more was a lot like bullying.

EDIT much much much much later -- I thought Ben Aaronovitch was pretty mild and gentle, actually. I haven't read through all the rest of the comments, and I didn't think his initial post pointing out his opinion was very sensible, but he was graceful and apologetic. I thought the reviewer's reaction was maybe a little extreme, but I don't know either of them. It seems a bit of a pity to equate him with the scary people, but I suppose in situations of high emotion people get grouped into camps and aren't defined very carefully.

And I'm editing again so I don't double post... I've read the Renay article and though I thought it was an interesting idea, and I saw the points she was making, I also thought Ben Aaronovitch was quite reasonable in the comments (okay, I haven't read them all, just down to his first comment and her response). I don't know what happened on Twitter, obviously, but from the stuff that's available my sympathies are mainly with the author this time.

I don't think it's unreasonable for an author to become involved in a discussion of his/ her own work -- indeed, one might assume that people writing about the author's work would welcome their involvement. So apparently not, which is also fine, but I don't think it's self-evident that authors have no right to comment, especially if the comment is reasonable and polite, and I'm not sure it's fair to blame them for not understanding that they weren't welcome.

This is a world away from the Kathleen Hale stuff, and much less clear cut, I think.

 

[Hex]

And finally (this time I will write a new post because, hey, it's getting silly), I am a bit confused by the idea that once an author publishes something, it's out there in the world and anyone can say anything they like with impunity BUT a blogger who writes an article and puts in on the internet can somehow retain control of people's interpretations and comments.

Surely, if authors release their work to the world (as they do), a publicly produced blog post is equally open to review and comment?

I wasn't as impressed by BA's comments in the later parts of that thread (maybe he was upset and in control of a keyboard?) but I absolutely believe he was entitled to make them.

I liked what Sabrina Vourvoulias said (sorry for quoting it here, but I can't find a way to link to it specifically and it's a long way down the list of comments) (and a second set of parentheses just for fun -- I have more sympathy for the author than she does, and in fact this whole thing makes me think I might have a look for his books -- answering reviewers, however unwise, is not always catastrophic, especially when you just behave like a human being).

I am perplexed by much of this. As a newspaper editor I'd like to point to the journalism model: there is a stated editorial policy in place, but every editorial or opinion piece printed (on paper or online) is open to comment, nothing is sacrosanct. There are no editorial rebuttals of comments (no matter how wrongheaded the statements), at most the correction of an incorrect attribution by the letter writer, or a link to further articles or op-eds on the topic.

The interesting thing for me is that nearly everyone here and at Book Smugglers seems to be reacting as if the author who commented bears the same responsibility as the op-ed publisher in newspapers. But it's really the blog site that is the publisher (which is one of the reasons bloggers have been advocating and urging the same legal protections as those accorded to the news media). Reading back through the original posting at Book Smugglers, the commenter (in this case the author) corrects a factual mistake in the published piece about his work, then goes on to give his opinion (ad nauseam) which also challenges the understanding expressed the opinions of other commenters. The publisher (blog writer) acknowledges the mistake, says it's been corrected, then chastises him for having the audacity to comment at all. Say what? The journo in me, the one who knows everything published or posted on the internet wants an audience and engage readership, is flummoxed.

But the Latina writer and reader and advocate that I am has a far less gentle reaction. Both at Book Smugglers and here, a sacred, no-author-allowed, fan-comments-only space has been invoked.

You should have understood you were unwelcome, the author is told. As everyone, ever, who has erected and policed a border wall says.

The wall divides friends and family (as the number of people commenting here about being both fans and authors has made clear). It makes some people "safe," and criminalizes others. It is, in essence, the same border wall that keeps writers of color out of certain genre venues and spaces. It is the same border wall that seeks to shame the uninvited "other" into silence. It is the wall that says "we might have let you in, but not now that you're acting uppity."

I'm not defending the author in this drama (he exasperated me to no end), but in SFF, as in real life, I abhor what I see as the justification for (and fortification of) a wall between those who share interests. It would be a disgrace to turn the border zone -- that liminal space we SFF writers and readers like to say we understand and are fond of -- into a war zone.

This is all from the Strange Horizons discussion after the article by Renay on fan spaces.

http://www.strangehorizons.com/2013/20130909/renay-c.shtml

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Surely, if authors release their work to the world (as they do), a publicly produced blog post is equally open to review and comment?

I still think that an author should take the high road and not respond. However ...

The inequity in power may go either way. A hugely popular author against an ordinary blogger or other individual has all the power and to use it for bullying into silence those who criticize the book is, in my mind, inexcusable. On the other hand, a popular blogger versus a virtually unknown writer has the power, and it is unconscionable if they use it for bullying the writer into silence.

And I absolutely agree with what Hex says above. Bloggers are publishing their opinions on the internet. Therefore they have opened themselves up to criticism in the same way the author has in publishing his or her book. So it ill becomes them to whine if they don't like the consequences. If writers need to grow thicker skins, then so should they.

Unless the consequences are over-the-top, threatening, and clearly designed to frighten them so much they are afraid to express their opinions in future, which is not acceptable.

 

[Hex]

The inequity in power may go either way. A hugely popular author against an ordinary blogger or other individual has all the power and to use it for bullying into silence those who criticize the book is, in my mind, inexcusable. On the other hand, a popular blogger versus a virtually unknown writer has the power, and it is unconscionable if they use it for bullying the writer into silence.

I absolutely agree with this. Maybe the title of the thread should be "Don't Attack Anyone".

 

[Nerds_feather]

I agree, Teresa. It is absolutely fine for someone to take issue with something a reviewer says, as long as s/he sticks to the text of the review. But the issue that prompted McCalmont's piece is the abuse of a power imbalance, like the one you so aptly describe--authors hounding individuals, who are critical of their books, into silence.

Here's what Jonathan McCalmont specifically has to say on the abuse of power imbalances:

I think that the Strange Horizons blow-up neatly demonstrates the power dynamics involved in choosing to express yourself in genre spaces: If a fan says something and gets into trouble, they can rely upon their friends to back them up. When an author says something and gets into trouble, they can rely upon their friends, their fanbase, their publisher and their agents to provide support. Some of whom will have a financial interest in the author’s career. When Renay popped her head above the parapet and dared to say that maybe we should think about our cultural spaces in a different light, she was attacked and threatened to the point where her later columns were noticeably more personal and less likely to attract attention. When Ben Aaronovitch went for a fan, people with ties to the industry bent over backwards to make him feel welcome.

 

[Hex]

I'm not sure where he did "go for her", though, or how he "hounded" her.

He pointed out that there was nothing to say he wasn't welcome to comment on his own book, and he would have liked there to be some indication that he wasn't welcome to the discussion rather than being attacked for contributing after he did. I don't think that's unreasonable. He got roundly savaged in the comments -- some would say a bit over-enthusiastically -- and he got cross and told someone else they were being an idiot, but the someone was another author, not a blogger (although he might have been both, to be fair).

There was at least one other author in the comments who backed out sharpish because the atmosphere was so hostile.

The McCalmont article doesn't seem to me to reflect the reality of what happened (unless many things happened subsequently that I have no way of seeing). If someone was bullying, I don't think there's any evidence it was Aaronovitch -- at least, no evidence in what McCalmont links to.

(also, surely it's a bit disingenuous to describe the article as saying we should "think about our cultural spaces in a different light"? The author made an interesting argument -- that "creators" should keep out of "fan spaces" where their work was discussed -- and that they should know to keep away without having been told to; she referenced the BookSmugglers disagreement as a central example of authors "throwing around their canonical weight" and argued Aaronovitch had known the power balance was uneven when he came to comment because he prefaced his response with the remark: "It's not normally a good idea for authors to comment on reviews but...")

I honestly think the argument is bizarre, and that lots of people probably regretted their comments. I would have.

[Aaargh! Two appalling spelling errors mean it's time for me to go to bed!]