Negative review of my book? RELEASE THE HOUNDS!

[james_davis_nicoll]

I was so distressed about this injustice that I looked up the list of Amazon’s board of directors. Great good luck, I happened to know two of them

Comments

[batwrangler.livejournal.com]

By people who are not professional reviewers, even. The horror!

[ethelmay.livejournal.com]

I wonder what Dear Prudence would say about this. OH WAIT.

[agharta75.livejournal.com]

Ann and Abby might have had some words, too.

Really?

[orangemike.livejournal.com]

Okay, deep sense of privilege on her side; but who is ignorant enough to pay any attention to Amazon reviews????

Re: Really?

[marlowe1.livejournal.com]

Some Amazon reviews are helpful. I tend to use them when I am reading a book and it's not doing it for me. I want to know if it's worth even going to page 50. In that case, bad reviews help me to put it aside (as long as they are intelligent reviews and not one sentence reviews talking about the book sucking).

Re: Really?

[zibblsnrt.livejournal.com]

I actually find them interesting for nonfiction - not necessarily because any particular review's useful, but because if something gets a decent amount of attention I can get a feel for the contents based on what people are reacting to. (The example I keep coming back to with history books is that a flood of outraged Turkish one-star reviews is a sure sign the author talks about the Armenians, and does so in a particular way.)

If something's got one or two dozen reviews it can be enough to get an idea of what the author's writing about and from what stance before actually looking into it. Less reliable than reading the book itself, but if I'm on the fence about whether I want to look at something that can tip it one way or another.

Re: Really?

[agent-mimi.livejournal.com]

I know there are a lot of useless reviews scattered about the internet, but if a review has what looks like salient points, I really don't care where it is, personally. Some Amazon reviews are pretty good, as are Goodreads reviews.

That said, there have been numerous times I've gone to read all the one-star reviews and every single one has been "I didn't get this book" and/or "this looks so stupid no one should read it."

[seawasp]

Amazon reviews are frequently cited as one of the things helping people decide to read or not read a book. So, a lot of people.

Re: Really?

[sean o'hara (from livejournal.com)]

Yes. Amazon reviews are especially helpful for history books. If there are a bunch of one star reviews giving extensive lists of factual errors in a history book, I'm not going to pick it up, whereas if the only one star reviews are upset because the author contradicted their political views without citing any errors, I'm more inclined to pick it up.

Re: Really?

[neowolf2.livejournal.com]

Some Amazon reviews are extremely helpful.

Re: Really?

[andrew wheeler (from livejournal.com)]

A -- the vast majority of Amazon customers, who don't follow other book-review sites, and only read a few books a year.

B -- Amazon's own algorithms, which are generally assumed to weight both number of reviews and star ranking in delivering search results.

So, basically, "everybody but elitists." Good Amazon reviews are one of the most powerful engines in book-sales today, up there with big stacks at the door of B&N and glowing plugs on nationwide morning shows.

[editrx.livejournal.com]

OMG ORDINARY PEOPLE ARE BEING ALLOWED TO NOT ONLY READ HER BOOK BUT SAY THINGS ABOUT IT IN PUBLIC?!

The peasants must be put back in their place clearly.

[jamoche]

Good golly - they commented about the author while reviewing a memoir!

[livejournal.livejournal.com]

Hello! Your entry got to top-25 of the most popular entries in LiveJournal!
Learn more about LiveJournal Ratings in FAQ (https://www.dreamwidth.org/support/faqbrowse?faqid=303).

[hot-soup.livejournal.com]

Cool.Does anyone know how many views it takes to achieve this?

[(Anonymous)]

That is hysterical!

On the order of 30 years ago, TV Guide published a piece of drivel by Margo Howard in which she makes fun of Harpers Ferry, West Virginia, where her then-husband Ken Howard was filming a period piece of some kind; she very reluctantly included a couple of paragraphs about the filming, but she was mostly had a blast describing Hicksville; a number of people wrote in protesting the portrayal, and she blew 'em off.

It stuck in my mind, because Harpers Ferry is *nothing* like what she described; as a lifelong Washington DC area resident I went there often for a day trip (back when I had good knees).

It's one of my favorite examples of epic stupidity. I see she's still at it.

[(Anonymous)]

This reminds me of the "reporter" who covered Torcon so poorly for The National Post (Google Torcon and Gollom (yes, with that spelling) for more)

[(Anonymous)]

She and the author of "Empress Theresa" (http://www.amazon.com/Empress-Theresa-Norman-Boutin/dp/1495450422) ought get together and form a society for protecting authors from cruel reviewers.

[sean o'hara (from livejournal.com)]

Why do media organizations keep giving coverage to these deranged authors? The Guardian just had a column by an author who bragged about stalking a reviewer.

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/oct/18/am-i-being-catfished-an-author-confronts-her-number-one-online-critic

[uglychicken.livejournal.com]

On first view, I thought they were the same story.

[alexx-kay.livejournal.com]

Because the media organizations are run by people who share the fears these authors have that their status as anointed gatekeepers of culture is being eroded. Which it is. Running such stories only accelerates the process, but who said people were rational?

[movingfinger.livejournal.com]

I am amused that the possibility the author never, ever considers is that the reviewers are right and the book deserves the reviews it received. When your memoir only makes sense if the reader has already read your mother's letters, perhaps you have not written a good memoir.

[liviapenn.livejournal.com]

Actually, if you read further down, she actually starts arguing with her critics in the comments, and there's an interesting exchange where she says, "anyone who criticises me is clearly just a dummy who signed up to Vine to get free shit and doesn't have the CREDENTIALS to be a REAL book reviewer," and someone calls her on that by linking to a review of a professional book reviewer who also hated the book, and she says "fine, I'll accept that, because *that* person is a REAL critic." So apparently she *does* have the ability to accept criticism... just not from ordinary members of the public. Only official, credentialed arbiters of taste have the right to criticise her book.

[ticktockman.livejournal.com]

Seems her main complaint is that Amazon is enabling the amateur reviewers to break the embargo and get their pans up in a prominent way, while the folks who've actually signed on to embargo agreements (is that a thing?) have to wait. The pre-release reviews end up on top.

Publishers who care about these things could decline to release advance copies through Vine. But aside from the final Harry Potter book, who has ever fussed over embargo dates for a book review?

[jamoche]

I thought the Amazon restrictions on pre-release reviews were for the ones in their comment section, not the pros, because you used to see a flood of 5-star reviews for books that nobody had actually got their hands on yet.

[icecreamempress.livejournal.com]

I know her very slightly in real life, and though I find her amusing and honor her for her hard work on behalf of many charities, this surprises me not at all. She has NO FILTER and just says whatever she thinks. Not always the best approach for every situation.

[ethelmay.livejournal.com]

So why do people like that get (and keep) advice columns? I mean, apart from nepotism.

[dionysus1999.livejournal.com]

Anyone with any background that includes statistics will know you can't trust a few reviews, we're human, we have biases. I read the negative reviews regarding TV shows and movies on Netflix so I know what it was about the show that turned them off.

A well written negative review can give me the information I need, including the reviewer's biases.

Some smart authors post links to the most humorous bad reviews of their work. I can imagine the anxiety an author feels when a new book comes out, but working yourself up does no one any good. I'd recommend writing some revenge fiction, instead of engaging with reviewers, and then quietly shelving it.

[seth ellis (from livejournal.com)]

A well written negative review can give me the information I need, including the reviewer's biases.

I've considered many reviewers "trustworthy" not because I agreed with them all the time, or indeed at all, but because I understood their perspective and I could parse it to fit my own. Back in the 90's, if Janet Maslin had a certain kind of distaste for a movie, it was a pretty good indicator that I'd like it. And Roger Ebert's reviewing was always transparent in that way.

And sometimes badly-written negative reviews can be informative, in a "this book is disliked by idiots" way, but that's less reliable.