What not to do when you get a bad review.

[Jessica]

I just thought I'd share this with you all. It's an indie author's response to a bad (in her opinion, I didn't think it was so bad) review. Lots of swear words, abuse and bad grammar. Imagine what prospective publishers would think if they read this!

 

http://booksandpals.blogspot.com/2011/03/greek-seaman-jacqueline-ho...

 

 

[I. J. Parker]

Jeez, she did get a lot of traction out of that.

 

I once got a review with one disturbingly negative comment among fairly good ones.  The disturbing comment told readers that I was female and that description of my male protagonist was simply unrealistic.  Mind you, a series depends on its protagonist.  But what bothered me most about this review (and yes, I was green and protested on DL -- leaving DL immediately after) was that it had been written by a woman who had wanted to post sections of the book on her website.  I had refused because e-rights belonged to my publisher. She had responded to that in a huff.  The review appeared shortly thereafter.

 

The lesson, of course, is that you must ignore bad reviews, even when they are unfair, incorrect, or vengeful.

[Huw K. Dawson]

Not ready to be published is an understatement. You can't react to negative remarks about your work with rage-fuelled retorts! If you bite off the hand that gives you the finger, then how are you supposed to recieve criticism and improve?

[EDWARD C MORGAN]

Well...that was .... fascinating. The author has really hurt herself there.  She really needs someone to temper her, but I understand it can be painful if you feel someone is attacking your work - though I didn't find the review all bad.

 

I once gave a talk to the Tennessee High School Press Association on opinion writing. Invariably, the question of writing reviews came up. In my response, I told them that high school newspaper staffs want to write reviews because they get to play - go to a movie, a restaurant, listen to a CD - and write about it.  I said that on the other side of the spectrum, most people who want to be reviewed don't really want to be reviewed, they just want someone with reach to write glowing praise about them.

 

Many "indie" reviewers have no business reviewing, because they don't have the knowledge to write an intelligent review. As an example, I should never review cozies. I rarely read them, I don't especially appreciate them, and I don't understand the nuances that make cozies unique. I also don't have the perspective that comes from having read tons of cozies. Police procedurals, private detective, and historical mysteries is a different story.

 

People forget that reviews are opinion pieces. One review is one person's opinion, and should be taken as such. One "negative" review from a credible reviewer and your main concern should be the reach of the reviewer. If you get a certain number of credible reviewers saying the same thing, then maybe there's something to consider.

 

But again, not a lot of reviewers take it seriously. I have a friend who was for years a reviewer with the Associated Press, before they got rid of their reviewers.  He read every book he reviewed three times. His first read was as a reader - he just sat down with it and read it through. His second and third reads were for specific purposes (looking at themes, plots, style, etc., etc., etc.) and those two reads were done with a pen and notebook at his side.

 

How many Internet reviewers are that thorough?

 

By contrast the author who had the meltdown apparently sent out an unprepared copy. I don't understand this at all, and I think it highlights one of the great challenges of self-publishing, and that is professionally prepared copy and formatting.

[Benjamin Sobieck]

And in this case, the reach expanded greatly because of the author's reaction. She didn't consider that people might link to her reaction. I've never heard of this author before now.

 

I've always been of the opinion there are no good or bad reviews. There's only exposure and no exposure.

 

Ed Wood was an awful movie director. But look how his name weathered the decades.

[EDWARD C MORGAN]

So true Ben, although admittedly, I didn't know much about Ed Wood until the Johnny Depp movie.

[Stephen Brayton]

Great! Just what you need. An author spatting with the reviewer and the commenters. If others see this, it will hurt her chances for either publication, blog tours, and further reviews.

[Chris Rhatigan]

That's hilarious. Who would name a book "The Greek Seaman"?

[Stacy]

About Jacqueline, I followed it a bit until it sickened me. But you know what, HER attitude isn't what sickened me the most. It was the people who jumped on her and took it so far as to go and throw a bunch of nasty reviews (and not to mention the picture of a turd next to her book) up on Amazon. It was disgusting. I couldn't stand to hear anything else about this story after the first day. I am like this, the lady was wrong. SURE. But is anyone else perfect? Maybe she didn't know any better or even if she did, why did all those people think they had the right to bully like that? Who put them on high horses and gave them the right to judge? That's exactly what it reminded me of, kids bullying and tormenting other kids in high school. It was disgraceful to see adults (not to mention writers/reviewers, etc) acting that way. After the first day it was clear that the people didn't jump on her just because they wanted to show her the error of their ways. No, they did it because it became fun and because they could hide behind their computers.

And why did people think they had to defend the reviewer? He's a grown man! He didn't need to be defended. I think he should have cut off comments the first day and not let it get so out of hand. People keep saying he was polite to her and stuff like that, but he didn't stop folks from ganging up on her on his blog? Why didn't he cut the comments off? He wanted the attention, that's why. So I don't think the reviewer was so gracious. Not many people would have let that mess unfold on their blog or let someone be tormented on their blog like this woman was. Whether she's wrong or not.

I know, I know. People wanna always say, "You open yourself up to stuff when you behave a certain way on the net." But still, two wrongs don't make a right and after a while what the others did was way worse than what she did. Also, how do they know how stable this woman was? What if she had some mental condition where she's suicidal or something? Something that might seem small to some can really push people over the edge. I wonder if anyone ever thought of what this bullying would have done to this woman. Course not because they were having sick, disgusting fun.

 

I am like this, if your s--- stinks, you don't have the right to call anyone else out on their mistakes and believe me, the folks who jumped on this woman, well their mess was stinking up the entire internet. They took it as a game and it was really sickening. It made me and some others feel sorry for her.

 

The sad thing is that so many people had to use this woman for fun and I am sure it affected her deeply. It would affect any human being.

 

But you know what, they'll get theirs because you reap what you sow and Karma is definitely a bitch. If folks feel like Jacqueline got what she deserved, well you wait until Karma dishes out punishment on the ones who terrorized, humiliated and used this woman for fun.

 

Sounds like I'm ranting? I am because like I said, it was disgusting to see adults acting that way. I don't care what anyone thinks about Jacqueline, don't tell me just because she cursed a little on a reviewer's blog she deserved all that. I've seen authors do much worse and they didn't get the treatment she got. I also think folks did it because she was self-published. I bet they wouldn't have treated her like that if she had a publisher. Look at all the other authors who act like fools!  Did they get this treatment? Nope!

Best Wishes!

http://www.stacy-deanne.net