Writers rating works of other writers

[MWagner]

Salman Rushdie has sparked a controversy in the literary world by giving some well-regarded novels low ratings on Goodreads.

Apparently, it's considered very uncool today for a writer to say anything negative about the work of another writer. Aside from upsetting the principle that authors hobnob around together and should at least try to be chummy with their peers, Rushdie's comments raise problems about the very idea of criticism. Namely, that in today's world of social media and fan engagement with writers, criticism is unwelcome. Any rating below a 5 is unwelcome. Being honest about the work of your peers is unwelcome. It seems everyone who wants to find success in the world of fiction today has to put on the mask of crowd-pleasing amity. Not only make regular blog updates showcasing a sparkling wit, but direct praise and recommendations to your peers in whatever genre you work in, fostering a circle of cheerful backscratching and fan-sharing.

Something is being lost here. The very legitimacy of criticism is being battered to the ground by packs of fanboys and social media scolds. Rushdie backtracked and called his ratings a mistake. Chalk up another victory for the forces of happy-think. It seems the only acceptable ratings we can give to works of entertainment are 'good' (3 stars), 'plus good' (4 stars), and 'double-plus good' (5 stars), and 'good' is getting starting to be looked at askance.

 

[Fishbowl Helmet]

I think you're blowing it a bit out of proportion. I see no reason to question his explanation. If I were an actor, director, or active screenwriter, I wouldn't want my Netflix queue or ratings to go public. I have peculiar tastes. If his ratings were not meant as criticism, as he claims (and again, there's no reason to doubt that), then I don't see that it matters to anyone else what the man likes or dislikes. His tastes are personal. The ratings were meant to be personal, they were not meant to be public criticism.

The crux of the question of criticism, to me, is: to what end? What's the purpose of criticism, generally? To improve a writer's output? Seeing a random review on Goodreads that says 'this bok sux' isn't going to help anyone improve. That kind of constructive feedback is what beta readers and personal critiques and writer's groups are for. Not general public criticism. So then is criticism meant simply as a form of personal expression? Okay. But so what? When it's some random yahoo on the net, who cares? The author of the work does. Any criticism can be painful and a serious blow to the ego. Which is why most writers avoid reading reviews and criticism of their work like the plague. Writers should grow thicker skin? Check. But they also learn some empathy. Which is why after brief attempts at criticism themselves, most writers simply move on and write more books instead. Because they know the crushing feeling of receiving even private criticism, to say nothing of public criticism. But when another successful writer steps on your work, yikes. If you're a new writer, that's another level of hell right there; if you're already successful, again, who cares? But these books aren't the scrappy new up-and-comers Rushdie was rating, but some classics. Again, so what?

(BTW: a rising tide lifts all boats. It's unprofessional to sh*t on other professionals. It's also rather vicious and cowardly to punch down. You talk up the works you like and thus present yourself as a professional. This generally gets you the same courtesy in return. You're not in competition with other writers, not exactly. You don't need to tear others down to build yourself up. Generally how it works is people get hit in the face and then decide, 'That sucked, I'm not going to hit other people in the face' rather than 'That sucked, I'm going to hit everyone I can in the face.' Just in case, that's a general you.)

 

[Zoe Mackay]

There's a difference between "criticism" in the sense of literary criticism, and criticism in the sense of "being vocally negative about something". I don't see any problem with authors doing either, to be honest, but the former is clearly less problematic than the latter. There are plenty of writers who have written review columns and things, and don't seem to have been shunned or hated.

I guess it comes down to the same few things:

1) Be honest
2) Own your reviews
3) Try to review the book, not some other book that you'd rather have been reading.
4) Be coherent
5) Never ever review something you haven't read.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

There is a difference between back-scratching and someone just keeping their mouth shut if they have nothing nice to say. In my day, it was called professional courtesy. And there is nothing wrong with writers helping other writers and promoting each other's books if they genuinely feel the work is exceptional. Sometimes writers form friendships based on mutual respect and similar tastes. But when there is harsh criticism, that is sometimes also a place where personal tastes come into play. Not everyone is the kind of insightful critic who can separate "I didn't like it" from "it's no good."

People view the five star system in different ways, and that is a flaw in the system. Some feel that high ratings are a way of bringing good books to other readers' attention. And some of those can wax over-enthusiastic, writing reviews while the first euphoria of finding something they really enjoyed is still clouding their minds. Others award stars like there are only a limited number they can hand out, ever, and "save" four and five star ratings for the best books they have ever read. The problem there is that they will be doing little to help other readers find books they may really, really like.

Reviewers can debase the system by being ridiculously generous handing out stars; but they can also render it useless by treating it as though it were serious literary criticism. It's not. It's a way to tell readers at a glance whether you think a book is well worth reading. Should it be? I don't know. But that is how, as it turns out, it works for most readers who are just looking for the next book they will want to read.

That said, I think the system would work a lot better if it were ten stars instead of five, or if readers could tack on half stars to their ratings. So often with the five star system people are in between, and have to figure out whether they want to round up or down. With the five star system, that rounding up or down can make a big difference. It's a twenty percent difference in the score, which is ridiculous.

 

[goldhawk]

Criticize the work, not the person. YMMV.

Professional criticize tells what the critic thinks is wrong with the work and this should accepted as their opinion. Criticizing the person, even indirectly, is never acceptable.

 

[MWagner]

The crux of the question of criticism, to me, is: to what end? What's the purpose of criticism, generally? To improve a writer's output? Seeing a random review on Goodreads that says 'this bok sux' isn't going to help anyone improve. That kind of constructive feedback is what beta readers and personal critiques and writer's groups are for. Not general public criticism. So then is criticism meant simply as a form of personal expression? Okay. But so what? When it's some random yahoo on the net, who cares?

Presumably a lot of people care about the ratings of movies, restaurants, and books judging by the popularity of sites that are built around a ratings system (Goodreads, TripAdvisor, Boardgamegeek, MetaCritic, Yelp, etc.). Some ratings come with constructive feedback, and some gush with praise, but most are simple ratings. Why do people care? Partly because it affects what people buy. And also because we can use these sites as way to find recommendations. I can't possibly read one-tenth of the books I'm curious about. But I have learned to rely on the collective opinions of readers who I trust. And I've seen as well-articulated reviews from amateurs on places like Goodreads than I suspect many writer's groups provide. I don't really care if a review improves the writing of the author (the authors of half the books I read are dead).

The author of the work does. Any criticism can be painful and a serious blow to the ego. Which is why most writers avoid reading reviews and criticism of their work like the plague. Writers should grow thicker skin? Check. But they also learn some empathy. Which is why after brief attempts at criticism themselves, most writers simply move on and write more books instead. Because they know the crushing feeling of receiving even private criticism, to say nothing of public criticism.

Before social media, even if authors were stung by reviews, they recognized the value and legitimacy of them. Critics were part of the artistic firmament. Exposure to criticism was simply the mark of a professional. It meant you hit the big leagues.

My sense is something has changed. People today talk about how mean it is to criticize a writer. Do you really think after a bad review of John Dos Passos' latest in the New York Times Book of Reviews in 1951, the reviewer would have been called out for being mean, or picking on Dos Passos? Maybe we're more empathetic today. But we also seem much more prone to take criticism personally.

(BTW: a rising tide lifts all boats. It's unprofessional to sh*t on other professionals. It's also rather vicious and cowardly to punch down.

Why is a one or two star rating "sh*tting on other professionals?" Or vicious? It's just a rating. People rate restaurants, phones, and hotels. Why not novels?

According to Goodreads, a 1-star review means "Did not like." That's it. Not hatred. Not venom. Simply "did not like." I'm a very difficult reader to please. I 'do not like' close to half the novels I read. Many of the rest are merely "OK" (which is the Goodreads definition of a 2-star rating). And yet you'd think by the reactions to some of my 1-star and 2-star reviews that I was ripping out pages of the book and wiping my ass with them.

The only way we get better - individually and collectively - is through the winnowing process that separates the wheat from the chaff. We examine that which has genuine quality in order to understand why it succeeded, and we examine that which does not in order to understand why it failed. There is no success without failure. Telling everyone they're great and keep up the good work is necessary for seven-year-olds who have a fragile sense of self, but it shouldn't be necessary for adults looking to pursue a profession in a competitive field. That kind of mutual encouragement is best confined to a writer's group. Once a work is out in the wide world, however, it should be open game.

You talk up the works you like and thus present yourself as a professional. This generally gets you the same courtesy in return. You're not in competition with other writers, not exactly. You don't need to tear others down to build yourself up. Generally how it works is people get hit in the face and then decide, 'That sucked, I'm not going to hit other people in the face' rather than 'That sucked, I'm going to hit everyone I can in the face.' Just in case, that's a general you.)

So when you become a writer, do you stop becoming a critical reader? Or do you stop expressing your opinions honestly? If it's unprofessional to give low ratings to works by your peers, then it's just as unprofessional to give high ratings. Better simply to step back from rating books altogether if you're looking at them from the perspective of a friend and a colleague.

I have a background in journalism. A not uncommon response of an editor to a story was: "That was some weak-ass writing. Did you just not give a crap?" People can't afford to be careful about hurt feelings in that field, and I suppose that has shaped my attitude to criticism. I just accept that when you put a piece of writing in front of the public, you're going to get blasted with opinions and criticism from everyone who reads it. Just part of the deal of being a professional.

 

[Fishbowl Helmet]

Presumably a lot of people care about the ratings of movies, restaurants, and books judging by the popularity of sites that are built around a ratings system (Goodreads, TripAdvisor, Boardgamegeek, MetaCritic, Yelp, etc.). Some ratings come with constructive feedback, and some gush with praise, but most are simple ratings. Why do people care? Partly because it affects what people buy. And also because we can use these sites as way to find recommendations. I can't possibly read one-tenth of the books I'm curious about. But I have learned to rely on the collective opinions of readers who I trust. And I've seen as well-articulated reviews from amateurs on places like Goodreads than I suspect many writer's groups provide. I don't really care if a review improves the writing of the author (the authors of half the books I read are dead).

Useful for the reader isn't the same as useful for the writer. If you see a negative review of a restaurant from the owner of another restaurant, what do you think?

Before social media, even if authors were stung by reviews, they recognized the value and legitimacy of them. Critics were part of the artistic firmament. Exposure to criticism was simply the mark of a professional. It meant you hit the big leagues.

Critics are not writers, they're critics. Writers are not critics, they're writers. One person may perform both functions, but again, I'll ask what you assume about one restaurant owner giving another restaurant a negative review. This is generally why writers should leave the criticism to critics.

My sense is something has changed. People today talk about how mean it is to criticize a writer. Do you really think after a bad review of John Dos Passos' latest in the New York Times Book of Reviews in 1951, the reviewer would have been called out for being mean, or picking on Dos Passos? Maybe we're more empathetic today. But we also seem much more prone to take criticism personally.

I'd say we're more prone to get personal today rather than take criticism personally. The internet at large doesn't follow any rules. There's no line that won't be crossed for anything more substantial than just to cross it. Because of this tendency to get personal I think people are a lot more likely to avoid reading reviews of any kind and to avoid making reviews of any kind because they don't want to at to the mess of sh*te already floating about the aether.

Why is a one or two star rating "sh*tting on other professionals?" Or vicious? It's just a rating. People rate restaurants, phones, and hotels. Why not novels?

I never said it was. I was talking about the general need to criticise others' work in the sense of actual reviews, words spilled about words, not 1-star reviews. Writing a long screed on how terrible another writer's writing is, is unprofessional and vicious. Leaving an anonymous 1-star review is neither.

The only way we get better - individually and collectively - is through the winnowing process that separates the wheat from the chaff. We examine that which has genuine quality in order to understand why it succeeded...

Whoa. I don't buy into criticising others' work as some form of literary Darwinism. It's art. Either the individual audience members like it or they don't. They're not performing some public good by saying something sucked or not. Besides, 'genuine quality' is not something most people would recognise if it jumped up and nested in the pubic hair. Van Gogh was generally overlooked artistically till the last year of his life, yet he's recognised as a major figure in art history today. No amount of '1-star did not like' during his life had any affect on his lasting contribution to art.

Telling everyone they're great and keep up the good work is necessary for seven-year-olds who have a fragile sense of self, but it shouldn't be necessary for adults looking to pursue a profession in a competitive field. That kind of mutual encouragement is best confined to a writer's group. Once a work is out in the wide world, however, it should be open game.

You're confusing 'compliment where you can because there's already enough vitriol in the world' with 'tell everyone they're awesome all the time'. They are fundamentally different stances. Novels aren't pheasants to hunt. They're works of craftsmanship and art that someone poured hundreds of hours of their life into. If you don't like it, fine. But is there really a need for you personally to go out of your way and spend your limited resources (time) on telling someone else just how shitty their work is? Dunno about you, but I have better things to do with whatever time I have left than that.

So when you become a writer, do you stop becoming a critical reader? Or do you stop expressing your opinions honestly? If it's unprofessional to give low ratings to works by your peers, then it's just as unprofessional to give high ratings. Better simply to step back from rating books altogether if you're looking at them from the perspective of a friend and a colleague.

No, of course not. But don't confuse 'critical reader' with 'critic', they're fundamentally different. Nothing about being honest. The simple fact that you have an opinion about something does not equate to it needing to be heard. Again, you're the one talking only about ratings, not me. And again, a rising tide. I don't think sniping at someone else's work is in the same category as trying to help another writer by boosting their signal. Fundamentally different things.

The way I see it is there's already enough sh*t in the world, so there's no need to add to it. If you can add something good, that's much better. A drive-by sniping at another creator is beneath professional writers and only adds to the fecal-whirlwind that is the net; a professional author pointing out something they liked, suggesting others might like it as well, boosting someone else's signal and making someone else's day a bit brighter is a good use of time. Going out of your way to snipe at someone else isn't. It's not a zero sum game. It's not literary Darwinism. You're only alive for a short time and dead for a very long time. Why use what little time you have to add another sun-baked sh*t-brick to the pile?

I have a background in journalism. A not uncommon response of an editor to a story was: "That was some weak-ass writing. Did you just not give a crap?" People can't afford to be careful about hurt feelings in that field, and I suppose that has shaped my attitude to criticism. I just accept that when you put a piece of writing in front of the public, you're going to get blasted with opinions and criticism from everyone who reads it. Just part of the deal of being a professional.

I think you've solved your own problem then. You assume that you're going to get blasted no matter what, so you might as well blast too. That might be the professional newspaper or magazine editor's job, but it's not the professional writer's job. I hope you can recognise the difference. Further, that being your boss's job does not make that the job of the anonymous critic on the internet.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Before social media, even if authors were stung by reviews, they recognized the value and legitimacy of them.

Well, I know for a fact that that isn't true. Sometimes a writer would receive a review and think—sometimes with good reason—that the reviewer was pushing an agenda rather than reviewing the book, or that the reviewer had not read the book but merely skimmed it with an opinion already firmly in mind before they even started. It is true that this is the fallback position for those who can't abide criticism, a scornful "obviously they didn't read the book." But sometimes there really is evidence in a review that the reviewer has only skimmed or dipped in here and there, because nothing faintly resembling the events described in the review ever happened in the book. So there were many times when writers did not recognize the value or legitimacy of every bad review they received. Why should they? Some reviews are worth paying attention to, whether they are favorable or unfavorable, but some are not.

The only difference now is that with social media, instead of complaining privately to a few close friends as was usually the case in the past, many writers (and their fans) now rashly strike back with a public response while their emotions are still heated.

 

[psychotick]

Hi,

The OP is a perfect example of why writers should not review other writers' work. There is no upside for them. Whether the review is genuine or not. If he reviews harshly, people will perceive it rightly or wrongly as being an author bashing his competition. If he praises the work people will perceive it as a mutual back slapping club. There is no winning for the writer reviewer.

But lets take writing out of the equation and say it was one restaurant owner reviewing another restaurant. The same applies. It looks bad no matter what.

There's an old adage which applies quite well (though those of a sensitive nature should probably close their eyes about now) - Even a seagull doesn't sh*t in its own nest!

Cheers, Greg.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

But it's not about that - it's about balance. I'm a writer - does that mean I shouldn't be allowed to post a review? I'm also a reader. Don't I have the right to be both.

The key is professionalism. Don't diss people for the sake of it, give a balanced argument, be as fair and generous as is appropriate. And then you're not s***tting anywhere (and I work and live in a small vacuum and totally dig that).

But to not have a right to comment? In no other professional walk of life would I uphold that. Writing shouldn't be any different.

 

[MWagner]

Some writers don't rate books by other writers, but they do make comments about them. That seems like a fair approach.

Here's a question: Many writers today will have given all sorts of ratings and reviews (some of them very critical) before they became writers. Should they scrub clean their previous criticisms? Adopt an alter-ego once they become published?

IIRC, Joe Abercrombie and Patrick Rothfuss have both commented that they used to be quite critical readers, but they changed once they became published. Fair enough. But what if they had been active on Goodreads for seven or eight years before they were published, and posted some 1 and 2 star reviews of popular books in the genre? Could that hurt their careers if they were starting out today?

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Hard to say.

Under those circumstances it would be very likely to hurt them with the kind of fans who take any criticism of their favorite writer's work as a vicious attack on the author. But it might be almost balanced out by readers who had grown a little tired of those other writers (even if still buying their work), and might think: Maybe this guy has a fresh approach. I think I'll try one of his books.

 

[Fishbowl Helmet]

IIRC, Joe Abercrombie and Patrick Rothfuss have both commented that they used to be quite critical readers, but they changed once they became published. Fair enough. But what if they had been active on Goodreads for seven or eight years before they were published, and posted some 1 and 2 star reviews of popular books in the genre? Could that hurt their careers if they were starting out today?

Possibly, yes. I don't think a few low-star reviews would be enough, but as Teresa says, fans are often territorial.

Don't I have the right to be both...

But to not have a right to comment? In no other professional walk of life would I uphold that. Writing shouldn't be any different.

As above, it's not about theoretical 'rights', it's about the reality on the ground. As writers we put ourselves in a perfect no-win scenario when reviewing others' work. If the review is positive, it looks like backslapping or toadyism; if the review is negative, it looks like professional jealousy.

You may have the 'right' to comment, but you only risk backlash and there's no upside.

This is exactly how it works in every other profession when talking about the work of others in that same profession, why should writing be any different?

 

[Jo Zebedee]

But it's not what happens in every other profession. Peer review and reflection is accepted in many professions - in fact, it's encouraged. Abuse of it isn't accepted. The vehicle for it might be different and less public but it's there: in supervision models, in action learning models, in coaching and mentoring circles, in 360 degree models, in academic critique and review. Feedback from our peers is essential to professional growth - but the broad vehicle might not be ideal.

 

[thaddeus6th]

"As above, it's not about theoretical 'rights', it's about the reality on the ground. As writers we put ourselves in a perfect no-win scenario when reviewing others' work. If the review is positive, it looks like backslapping or toadyism; if the review is negative, it looks like professional jealousy."

This is largely how I feel about it. There's also the vested interest aspect (if authors are friends or share a publisher).

Jo, some might say that model is also imperfect, because scientists with unpopular views (climate change not being man-made, or [until recently] arguing avoiding the sun to cut cancer risk has a negative impact on vitamin D production) can be shunned.

Plus, science is meant to be objective, whereas writing, by definition, is the direct opposite of that (first chapter of my WIP had beta-readers asking for more detail about the world. And less detail about the world ).

 

[HareBrain]

Mostly I give little or no weight to writers' opinions on other books -- I assume they're friends or share a publisher. I think the difference with peer review in most other industries is that in those industries there's less emotion invested, and more scope for objectivity.

 

[Brian G Turner]

Many writers today will have given all sorts of ratings and reviews (some of them very critical) before they became writers. Should they scrub clean their previous criticisms? Adopt an alter-ego once they become published?

I struggled with this a while back. Since then I've decided that as an aspiring writer it's fine to express opinions, but to ensure they are balanced - and if there's nothing good to say, better to say nothing.

I've posted more critical comments in the past, especially when I wasn't writing. Those I can recall I would still stand by as opinion I had a right to as a reader, but have no technical value beyond that. I've tried to read widely in the SFF genre, and didn't personally enjoy every story I read - big deal.

However, if a published writer made critical comments of another published writer, then their motivation is necessarily going to be called into question. Simply trashing other novels I suspect is more likely to be seen as ego-tripping, rather than objective technical analysis.

Joe Abercrombie and Patrick Rothfuss have both commented that they used to be quite critical readers

Abercrombie has previously said that he hadn't read much fantasy fiction, and that most of his reading was in other genres.

Patrick Rothfuss's favourites and his TBR pile barely includes anything published after the 1980's.

Guy Gavriel Kay has said that he doesn't read the fantasy genre.

I was beginning to think that big names don't read fantasy, but George R R Martin recently said he reads a lot. Everyone else seems to be keeping quiet.

 

[Toby Frost]

I have reviewed other authors’ novels – the reviews are on this site – but I’m not sure that I’d want to review a book by anyone that I’m likely to run into, or who was writing very similar stuff. I’m not sure that getting too close to your own material in other people’s work is that good an idea. For several reasons, I think that if you want to write in a sub-genre, you ought to know about that sub-genre, but to read elsewhere to get ideas and learn about other things. The Space Captain Smith books would be much weaker if they only parodied science fiction. (If ever you fancy a laugh, look at Christopher Priest’s review of Martin Amis’ novel Lionel Asbo. It is a brutal, but effective, piece of work. But then, Amis is much too clever to write genre fiction, and Priest is genuinely too clever to write like Amis).

And then there’s the no pooing where you eat issue. You might have to end up on a stage with one of the guys you’ve attacked, who might be way more charismatic than you, while his fans demand to know why you’re such a horrible person.

I think the proximity of the author and the reader that the internet allows, together with the tendency to over-rate successful novels, make reviewing another author’s work somewhat risky, especially where the other author is alive and writing in a similar field. Compared to the sort of thing that happened when I was young, it’s amazing that George Martin and Larry Correia can not only write responses to one another, but that the whole business is effectively public. That carries its own risks if one of them is having a bad day and so on.

There’s also a tendency in some quarters – perhaps especially in SFF, and particularly, I think, in big-name fantasy – to absolutely rave about books and to regard anything negative as a serious attack. The release of another book in Series X becomes “an event”, with twitter feeds, squeeing fans and all the rest, and it becomes increasingly difficult to have mixed feelings about the product. If I was to write “I enjoyed these books and consider them well-written, but I found their tone annoying” it would probably be assumed in some quarters that I didn’t like the books at all. I should be able to make a comment like that and still award the books it referred to 8 out of 10.

As for peer review, it’s probably easier in scientific fields or areas where it’s possible to be objectively right or wrong. My “wickedly dark humour” might be your “tedious cynicism”, after all.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I agree as a peer review mechanism, star ratings on Amazon are pretty poor...

Anyway, at what point do we say we're a writer and shouldn't award ratings? As an aspiring writer, once something is out? Personally, for me, provided I'm balanced in what I say - for instance, I rarely rate things I've betaed (although I did for @Mouse because the book had changed a good bit) - and I try not to comment on people whose writing I don't like online, although I might join in a discussion, in which case I'd be very clear that it was what didn't work for me, not what made the piece bad. (And I think that's a way out of it, in a manner - making it clear it's personal taste...)

 

[Brian G Turner]

You might have to end up on a stage with one of the guys you’ve attacked, who might be way more charismatic than you, while his fans demand to know why you’re such a horrible person.

That's a very good point - in which case, if caught in that situation, a person would have to be prepared to be magnanimous and laugh at themselves. No one likes a whiner.