"The Positive Value of Negative Reviews"

[Stephen Palmer]

Generally, I think authors should probably ignore reviews and do their thing regardless.

Easier said that done!

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

I think writers do continue to do their own thing in spite of negative reviews, Bick, unless a review hits on something the writer eventually sees as a genuine weakness (or may have already suspected was the weakest aspect of their writing). That doesn't mean we don't feel unhappy about a negative review or indignant if the reviewer seems to miss the point or bring his or her own prejudices to the review. But most of the time most of us keep our mouths shut about it and go on doing what we do.

Following the market -- writing things we think we can actually sell -- is another thing, if, as Stephen says, the writer can write something they themselves like, in their own way, within the chosen genre. After all, most writers have many stories they already want to tell, or can think up new stories that spark their imaginations, and choosing to write one of those that is most likely to sell makes sense. (Unless you are in the grip of another story that you feel you just have to write, and forget the market, forget the reviewers, the story demands to be written. And that is a state of affairs that is not uncommon.)

But writing in a genre one hates and/or in a style one hates is another matter, whether it comes from following the market or listening to negative reviews (which would be especially stupid). It makes no sense because the writer will hate writing it, hate themselves for writing it, and after all it might not sell anyway. And even if it does sell in tremendous numbers, the writer is ultimately going to become bitter.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

Readers can tell when an author is faking it, I reckon.