"The Positive Value of Negative Reviews"

[Nerds_feather]

Posted this piece yesterday at my blog, and thought it might jumpstart an interesting discussion here. Basically I presented a series of questions to three guest bloggers on the topic of negative reviews: Maureen Kincaid-Speller, Jared Shurin and Jonathan McCalmont. The ensuing discussion among them is really interesting. Here are the questions--I'd love to hear comments on either the answers given by the discussants or hear your own, whatever they may be:

What are the positive effects of negative reviews—for readers, writers, publishers and so forth? Why do we need negative reviews and what would a fandom without them look like? What’s really driving this pushback against negative reviewing?

Conversely, what are the pitfalls of negative reviewing? Does incisive critique sometimes slip into abusive ranting, and if so, where does one draw the line? What rules or limits do you set for yourself prior to writing a negative review, if any?

Finally, since you are all based in the UK, do you perceive a cultural difference between American and British fandoms in toleration of negative reviewing? I ask because, growing up in various music fandoms, I’ve always perceived a very clear delineation in attitudes among music journalists and bloggers. Back in the halcyon days of the 1990s, for example, I used to read NME and Melody Maker alongside Rolling Stone and Spin, and the former pulled many fewer punches than the latter. In other words, I inferred a cultural difference when it came to toleration of strong criticism in indie music fandom. That bit of tangential history may not be relevant to the subject at hand, or it might. Is it? If so, how and to what degree?

 

[tinkerdan]

I'm neither British nor a professional critic, but I can say that I have one abusive rant to my name. It wasn't a particularly long rant but maybe that was the issue. As it was I almost had to hid out from the author and his fans; though somehow along the route I was the one accused of stalking. I have since found it best to put positive spin on the negative.

As far as what value it might have I think it's quite valueless today. Today it's all about the buzz. Whatever is trending is what most critics will be reviewing and it always looks like they want to be a part of the buzz more than anything else and that makes sense since the highest value any of their words are; is to the number of hits the blogs can get. If something is trending then those blogging toward the trend rise to the top. When I watch the comments in these types of blogs the same phenomenon exists there. People hit these blogs to be part of the party having their moniker pop up within the same search.

I generally avoid most of the trending art blog pieces until I find my own deep interest in the particular piece.

I particularly find it abusive for a reviewer to make statements like you should read this because it's the best thing since bread.
Or stay away from this because it's a waste of time. And then have nothing to follow that up with.

Particularly the negative end because if someone says that; they need to explain two things. One is why they would never read that book again and the other, more importantly, what possessed them to finish it if it was so bad.

Most of the time it appears these critics don't need to give that much detail, because once again its all about the buzz.

Now days I tend to qualify that my opinions are not indicative of everyone else and that I'd love for someone to read the piece and decide for themselves.

 

[Brian G Turner]

I always look at the 3 and 2-star reviews on Amazon - valid criticisms can help tell me, as a reader, whether this book may or may not be up to my personal tastes. No book is perfect, so wholly positive reviews are useless to me.

Interestingly, in the interviews, I didn't notice anyone mention feeling under pressure to write more positive reviews of the free books they receive. It's certainly something I've noticed myself - after all, if I negatively review something, will they really want to send me something again?

 

[tinkerdan]

If It's fair, my meager experience tells me they will.

I always look at the 3 and 2-star reviews on Amazon - valid criticisms can help tell me, as a reader, whether this book may or may not be up to my personal tastes. No book is perfect, so wholly positive reviews are useless to me.

Interestingly, in the interviews, I didn't notice anyone mention feeling under pressure to write more positive reviews of the free books they receive. It's certainly something I've noticed myself - after all, if I negatively review something, will they really want to send me something again?

When it's fair and they recognize that then they will strive to improve and they will probably want to use you as a measure of their success in that.

 

[Nerds_feather]

Interestingly, in the interviews, I didn't notice anyone mention feeling under pressure to write more positive reviews of the free books they receive. It's certainly something I've noticed myself - after all, if I negatively review something, will they really want to send me something again?

I felt that pressure when I started getting ARCs, but have realized that most publishers either don't care (it's a numbers game, one in which they anticipate and expect a certain proportion of negative reviews) or don't pay very close attention. However, the good ones do cultivate close relationships with bloggers/reviewers and "good feelings" can, to a degree, unconsciously soften potential harshness.

In terms of why no respondents mentioned feeling any pressure, I think it's because these three are all very well established as reviewers and also unusually hardnosed. Plus two of them write reviews primarily for Interzone (which presumably does the obtaining and distribution of review books), so there's some distance there.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

I ignore all 1 and 5 star reviews, except in that I put the 1 star reviews on my blog for fun.

 

[Venusian Broon]

Particularly the negative end because if someone says that; they need to explain two things. One is why they would never read that book again and the other, more importantly, what possessed them to finish it if it was so bad.

You make a lot of valid points Tinkerdan in your post, I personally as a reader probably operate on a subconscious 'buzz' level as I pick up novels that have generally generated buzz in the past (I'm not at the forefront of taste, so I'm usually years, even decades behind.) Oddly I only look at reviews after I've read the book, I think to confirm that there is at least one other person out there that had the feelings about the book that I did - sorry critics.

One point about the above, a bit OT, so I apologise. Totally agree with the first point - you must explain why you don't like the book. But for the second point, as a reader I always read a book that I pick up right to the end, no matter what. A touch OCD perhaps, it helps that I'm a fast reader (and if I'm not enjoying it I probably up the speed to get through it, I admit.) But I always give a book a chance till the end. If it was terrible and the end was a relief, then the chances of me picking up another work by the same author rapidly diminishes. I have to say though, very few books I've read have really been in the 'terrible' end, I can glean enjoyment out of loads of different styles and approaches it appears.

I have read reviews where the reviewer has actually stated that they never finished the book, abandoning half-way through, but I'm always of the opinion: 'Well what if it did pick up in the 2nd half and made up for/made sense of the first half?". If you are going to critique something, best to critique the whole thing IMHO.

 

[tinkerdan]

If the 1 or 5 is a short paragraph or one sentence I don't bother::

I ignore all 1 and 5 star reviews, except in that I put the 1 star reviews on my blog for fun.

The longer one's I do read because they generally contain the explanation.
Really long ones can be entertaining when the reach they rant level.

Because I don't like the star system, I generally put mine in the category you don't read, so you probably wouldn't read mine.[except on the odd chance I might be reviewing your novel.]

 

[tinkerdan]

Yes; and this is possibly part of what went wrong that one time because I mentioned I hadn't finish reading yet.

I have read reviews where the reviewer has actually stated that they never finished the book, abandoning half-way through, but I'm always of the opinion: 'Well what if it did pick up in the 2nd half and made up for/made sense of the first half?". If you are going to critique something, best to critique the whole thing IMHO.

But I did finish it later on and gave a full review, which was when I was told that it's bad form to change the review. Apparently once written it should not be changed.(Although amazon does leave that option open.)

 

[J Riff]

You guys read reviews? I can't remember.... maybe 2001... or 1984. Question is, who is paying the reviewer? If they are unpaid then their opinion apparently isn't worth a dime? Oh, it's a problem... tsk. Who to trust? Most of the recent movies I've seen, well I would be angry if I paid to see 'em.
Then the review, or even just the rating on Rotten Tomatoes says 8.5 when I figured about 4 would be kind and generous.
Honest reviews can be pos/neg so what's to ponder?

 

[Venusian Broon]

But I did finish it later on and gave a full review, which was when I was told that it's bad form to change the review. Apparently once written it should not be changed.(Although amazon does leave that option open.)

Definitely sounds like one of those situations where you let sleeping dogs lie. Whatever your best intentions, it can be so irritating when others chose to see the worst!

 

[Ursa major]

Oddly I only look at reviews after I've read the book, I think to confirm that there is at least one other person out there that had the feelings about the book that I did - sorry critics.

I don't always look at reviews, but when I do, I almost always do it after I've read the book. When I read a review, it's often -- as with you -- looking for affirmation of my opinion of the book. I don't read reviews before reading simply to avoid spoilers.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

I read reviews to get an idea what a book is about, and then I'll make up my own mind whether that sounds like something that would interest me.

I've had reviews both good and bad where it really didn't sound like they had read the book, because the plot they were describing certainly wasn't the one I wrote! It's too easy when one gets a bad review to dismiss it by saying that the reviewer probably didn't even read the book, but there are situations where it looks like they either skimmed or read the first part, decided they knew where it was going (although they didn't really), and wrote a review based on that. (I have seen this with other people's books that I went on to buy, too, so it's not just paranoia on my part.) When this happens with a negative review, clearly the book didn't work for them, or they would have kept reading, or read with more attention, but when that happens with a positive review it is hard to know what to think. Neither review seems like it is going to be much use to readers, especially readers who decide to read the book on the basis of the way the plot is described. And of course it's not much use to me when the things they like or dislike aren't even in my book, because what can I learn from that?

But when I see that the reviewer did read my book with close attention and put a lot of thought into the review, even though they didn't like it ... well, I'll be honest, my first impulse is to reject it, but it will stay there at the back of my mind, and sometimes I come around to accepting the fact that they did have a point, and maybe I've learned something.

As a reader, one-line reviews that simply say, "I loved it" or "I hated it" I totally ignore when deciding whether to buy the book. I doubt that enough people pay attention to make those worth the reviewer's time to write them, small as that time was.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

All good points. Also, if you get a decent number of longer reviews, as I did for Urbis Morpheos say, then you yourself get a better view of your own work. I do pay attention then to all the reviews. But an SP review one-star and the word "Bad" I put on the Naughty Step!

 

[Toby Frost]

I could say quite a bit about this!

I think one of the risks in writing comedy is that perceptions of what is funny can vary so much, especially when the novels have such a British-based slant. Surprisingly, nobody has accused me of being a crazed imperialist yet, but I did get one review saying that I was too hard on Britain, which amused me. There are others on Amazon that I found infuriating at first, but now consider to have been quite fair. I look back and think "Yes, you've got a point there...". I also got a truly bizarre review that slated me for my misuse of "pants" (the word, not the item), and that no true Briton would use "pants" in the way that I did. I don't think they were joking. The one thing that really annoys me is when I've been given one star because the book arrived late. Yes, I am Amazon's sorting office.

More generally, both The Lies of Locke Lamora and Prince of Thorns were probably helped by some bad reviews, although in both cases bad practice was alleged on the part of the actual reviewers, which stoked interest and controversy. Being accused of producing a work of vile misogny and general moral turpitude probably does ones sales a fair bit of good, even if it's nonsense (and being on the receiving end probably isn't much fun, to begin with), provided that the reputation spreads quickly and far.

Tinkerdan is right about "trending" books. As with most things in writing today, the tendency is undemocratic, in that only a few books will receive much attention to begin with, and they will then get more attention as more critics rush to review them so as not to be unfashionable, like a snowball going downhill. You just have to hope that sooner or later, an alternative scene appears.

 

[Venusian Broon]

But when I see that the reviewer did read my book with close attention and put a lot of thought into the review, even though they didn't like it ... well, I'll be honest, my first impulse is to reject it, but it will stay there at the back of my mind, and sometimes I come around to accepting the fact that they did have a point, and maybe I've learned something.

I'm light years away from getting anything published at the moment Teresa, but I think this is the correct attitude to take. I don't really have a fragile ego, I think, but getting good well-thought out praise for my work fires up my enthusiasm and gives me fuel for future writing. Well thought out negative reviews or comments, I can intellectually accept, but it will take some sort of chip out of my ego and needs me to shore up the hole a bit first (by bunkering down and getting serious it seems in my case at the moment). Therefore rejecting negative reviews in some manner but letting them stew in the sub-conscious at the back of the brain is probably a good place!

Also I do believe that we're all a lot more driven by instinct rather than rational thoughts. When it comes to books I think that when we get to the end we get an instinctive view of it: it was good, it was bad, it was 'meh'. To justify this viewpoint the reviewer/critic then goes back and picks out the bits that they do or don't like to bolster their fundamental impressions and build up a rational about what they think about the work. However: no work is perfect and secondly such opinions are more or less subjective to the reader. (where some might see a turgid piece of description, other may be spellbound and transported to another world by the 'lashings of vivid imagery' ) A 'good' negative review can probably be written about any work.

And I suppose you can't take on everyone's suggestion, however well-meaning. It is you that is writing your own work, not a committee. I find part of the pleasure of reading a novel is dipping into and experiencing the world (or fantasy world!) through the author's mind, so what you create - warts and all - should, I believe, be unique to you.

 

[Nerds_feather]

I don't actually write a lot of strongly negative reviews, but this is mostly because I will only review a book I finish, and I've decided not to bother finishing in a few cases. The worst books, then, are pretty bad but with something that kept me going. Most are at least okay.

But I also feel like I have a strong ethical obligation to honestly relate my opinions--about everything, including the stuff that didn't work for me. I am fairly militant about separating text from author (i.e. judging text only and not drawing inference from it about the author), and always try to make that clear. But if I found, say, the treatment of mental illness problematic in a hypothetical novel, I'm going to say that and also explain why I felt the way I did. I've done this even in reviews that were, on balance, quite positive. I would hope that an author who came across the review would not fixate solely on the criticisms, or would rather see them in context of the overall reviews. I'd also hope they would try to see the criticisms as constructive (and I do always try to be constructive), but at that point it's out of my hands. However, in nearly all cases authors have been good sports about the reviews posted at 'nerds of a feather.'

 

[Bick]

I tend to only bother reading reviews from those people I "know". Often as not, that will be folk on forums such as Chronicles. If the really well read SF folk here suggest a novel is weak, that's really valuable to me and I sometimes wish there were more negative reviews. I don't bother reading Amazon type reviews at all, though I do take a sounding from Goodreads sometimes. I don't ever expect a negative review from me would change anything for a writer though, and I don't imagine they should. For me the benefits of review, good and bad, are to help readers select what to read, not to influence authors. Generally, I think authors should probably ignore reviews and do their thing regardless.

 

[Venusian Broon]

I tend to only bother reading reviews from those people I "know". Often as not, that will be folk on forums such as Chronicles. If the really well read SF folk here suggest a novel is weak, that's really valuable to me and I sometimes wish there were more negative reviews.

With my readers hat on I totally agree with you. In general terms if I were to grade all the books I've read, it'd be a Bell curve that is centred on 'Entertaining but flawed'. And anyway, a fair negative review can be written about any book, (especially my favourite books it seems!). Thus I expect as a reader a fair amount of negative reviews as 'natural' - if I don't find many or none, I'm afraid it makes me instantly suspicious...

Since I've focused on writing though, things have got more complex. I'd still be happy to post a review somewhere on the internet a negative review about a classic work or a really big author, but for the ones I know less about, or the up and coming authors or the first time ones...

Well here's the odd thing. We aspiring authors are passing manuscripts and bits and pieces about all the time down on this rung, usually with instructions that I'll only accept this manuscript back if it's bloodied and broken and requires a coffin to ship back. We've got to be harsh to learn etc...Of course a great deal of this critiquing is of a technical nature & always non-personal and ultimately it's all about all of us pulling together to make a manuscript better.

The issue that makes me squirm a little is: what if a version of that manuscript finally gets published - which of course would be wonderful and great news. All of a sudden this violent dissecting and brutal critiquing evaporates immediately, and we switch too...well, what if I just didn't enjoy the novel as entertainment? If I write a fair and balanced review (in my mind) but leaned to the negative, I'd instantly worry I might be thought of as 'bitchy', envious or a bad sport author. Hence I, out of dithering and insecurity I tend to walk on eggshells (for practice) and am more than likely to leave that can of worms well alone. *



* p.s. this is all hypothetical and perhaps me thinking too hard about it. Such an occurrence has never happened to me so far.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

The trick - and it's an almost impossible trick - is to, as an author, simultaneously do your own thing and have one eye on trends. I have recently got into steampunk, and have written a steampunky work, but I did it my own way. A very thin tightrope to walk...