- Joined
- Jun 5, 2005
- Messages
- 9,907
- Reaction score
- 1,834
- Location
- Hiding in my writing cave
- Website
- www.cathyclamp.com
On an RWA loop I belong to, an interesting question was raised by an author who also happens to own/manage a review site. The answers were so varied that I thought it deserved a broader response range than just romance novels. The question is two-fold, from your POV as an author, versus when you're a reader. Here's the initial question:
One person's response included that they would NEVER give a bad review of a book, no matter how much they disliked it. They simply wouldn't review it. Of course, this belies three sub-questions:
1) How do you feel as an author about less than favorable reviews?
2) Would you rather have the book ignored by the site rather than have them post a bad review?
3) How do you feel as a reader about the review site if there are advertisements about a book they say isn't worth the money? Do you trust the review site more/less?
Here's the answer I gave:
Since a lot of reader interest in a book is driven by good/bad reviews, what's your take on this? Is it a case of "any publicity is good publicity" or doesn't that apply to books?
I think it's an interesting thing to talk about.
As an author, if you read these reviews and they are negative regarding your book, what is your reaction? Do you blacklist that review site? Do you not advertise on that site even if they have a huge readership?
One person's response included that they would NEVER give a bad review of a book, no matter how much they disliked it. They simply wouldn't review it. Of course, this belies three sub-questions:
1) How do you feel as an author about less than favorable reviews?
2) Would you rather have the book ignored by the site rather than have them post a bad review?
3) How do you feel as a reader about the review site if there are advertisements about a book they say isn't worth the money? Do you trust the review site more/less?
Here's the answer I gave:
This is a really good question. I do collect reviews and post them all on my site with proper identification. Since we write pretty edgy books, I'm always prepared for a reviewer to not "get" the book, or actively dislike it. But as a writer, my goal is to promote EMOTION. I'm much more concerned when I don't get any reaction at all, because then I've failed in my goal. To me, a negative review means I struck a cord, even if that cord is that they hate my hero/ine (Mrs. Giggles once gave us a good review except that she wanted to throw our heroine face first into a wood chipper! LOL!)
I really dislike contacting a site, providing an ARC and then never having anything show up--good or bad. Even worse is when the reviewer very obviously didn't READ the book. One review had the wrong person becoming a werewolf, and rather than read the book--or even the back cover, for crying out loud--the reviewer made up a whole plot to fit that mistaken concept! YIKES! That's frustrating and a waste of my money. So, I guess I'm on the side of putting up the review, even if it's less than complimentary.
Now, onto the second part. Would I pay for advertising on a site that dissed the book? Hmm... I guess I have to say no. But then again, it seems like a cop-out for the site to be INTERESTED in advertising dollars from a book they don't like. I would think it would make not authors, but READERS, less likely to visit the site when there are blaring advertisements for a book they say not to waste your money on. It would be like Consumer Reports taking an ad for a product they give a single star to. I've never seen that happen. It goes to integrity in business, IMO.
Still, it's not a question I've considered before. I'll be interested to see other takes on it.
Since a lot of reader interest in a book is driven by good/bad reviews, what's your take on this? Is it a case of "any publicity is good publicity" or doesn't that apply to books?
I think it's an interesting thing to talk about.