You hate me, you really hate me...

Ugh. I guess I should post this in the nonfiction forum (my book being nonfiction), but I suspect my issue translates easily to any kind of writing and this board has more traffic.

Those of you who are published, do you remember your first bad review? Did it make you feel nasty? Does that feeling go away with time? Did it matter if there were lots of great reviews too? What mindset did you adopt to deal with them?

Thanks so much,

Venecia

reviews

A review is one person's opinion. Often reviewers are unpublished or wanna-be writers. Except for being published as reviewers, of course.

Many frustrated rarely or poorly-published writers end up reviewing all kinds of things.

Bad reviews? Read The Steinbeck Letters for classics. Steinbeck got some of the worst reviews of is life when he was collecting his Nobel Prize for Literature. And he was upset by them.

Remember: a review is one person's opinion and unless they're Norman Mailer, (he loves to review Tom Wolfe especially) have never written what you have and wouldn't know where to start.

Someone, maybe Lawrence Block, once said "If you believe the good reviews, you also have to believe the bad ones."

I can't say I've ever had a really bad review, though I may have, but I can say I don't even read the good ones. I stopped after my first novel when I realized there's only one review that counts, and it's the one you get from those who buy your book.

I don't care how wonderful a reviewer says your book is, if no one buys it, there's a problem. And I don't care how bad a reviewer says your book is, if the public buys it and likes it, well, who you gonna believe?

I've tried to learn from both negative and positive reviews. In fact, I've probably learned more from the negative ones.

There are "bad" reviews that I simply ignore -- by "bad" I mean shabby or hate-filled diatribes, where the reviewer has an axe to grind. Those I toss off.

But a well-meant critical review that points out the flaws in my writing? Something to keep and learn from.

And of course, you must develop a thick skin.

I get mostly good reviews. Once in a while I get someone who sends me an email, something along the line: "You suck. You're the worst writer in the world. You should stop writing and go back to what you were doing before."

I find it hugely amusing.

reviews

I've been fortunate that all of my "official" reviews with Publisher's Weekly, Romantic Times, etc. have all been good. I have run across two "bad" reviews of my third book online on web sites and I totally agree with most of the criticisms in both of them -- my third book was not my best work, yet PW gave it a nice review.

Bottom line is, even with a strongly positive review, the only thing that matters is sales. And a bad review can sometimes garner more sales than a good one. Go figure.

Beth

Re: reviews

My first and only bad review made me laugh aloud. It was an honest and fair commentary, but I enjoyed it tremendously, if only because someone had noticed.

I haven't been reviewed very often.

Thanks all. It just being my first one, I was a little discombobulated. I appreciate your professional perspectives. Guess it's just a part of the business.

A review is one person's opinion. Often reviewers are unpublished or wanna-be writers. Except for being published as reviewers, of course. Many frustrated rarely or poorly-published writers end up reviewing all kinds of things. Bad reviews? Read The Steinbeck Letters for classics. Steinbeck got some of the worst reviews of is life when he was collecting his Nobel Prize for Literature. And he was upset by them. Remember: a review is one person's opinion and unless they're Norman Mailer, (he loves to review Tom Wolfe especially) have never written what you have and wouldn't know where to start.

Click to expand...

I have a minor issue with the above. I do reviews for a few sites, two for books, and one for movies (which is not up yet as it is my personal site - hopefully it's finished by the time I'm ready to croak). I am not a published writer. Many of the reviewers don't have a long list of books behind them to boast about. In fact, many don't even have aspirations to become a publisher writer. Is this one of the criterias for being a reviewer worth listening to? Absolutely not.

Book reviews are written by readers. I don't see every person reviewing movies being an actor or director, although some are. I agree you should basically ignore reviewers who seem to have the IQ equivalent to a steak, who add nothing productive by posting such assinine comments as not enough T&A, but how does having bestselling novels qualify you as the only person worth listening to?

I don't think we should ever ignore readers who read and review books. After all, aren't authors writing for the readers, not other authors? Their opinions matter just as much as any established writers...even though getting a positive review from the likes of King, Straub, Koontz, and Clancy would give any one a boost in their ego.