Newsletter: return to sender

Yes, that's another social media rant. Recently, I started to receive e-mails from several review sites and other people I've been in touch with. Somehow they seem to think it's okay to add me to their mailing list  to update me on their bowel movements. Guess what? It's not! What makes you think I am so bored that I need to read several blog posts a day, dear Sender? Hm? Care to explain?
Though I do understand that reviewers or authors want to gather a solid following and visitors who come regularly to read their offerings, I find it rather annoying to be bombarded with e-mails, especially if I didn't sign up for it. Marketing is important, but certainly not that way. In fact it's the easiest way to get rid of me. If I work with a review blog, I'm all up for posting the links, on twitter, on facebook on other platforms; I do want to help spreading the word, but if you force me to read your stuff, I'm less inclined to be honest. Yes, and I have to admit that even your chirpy 'Hello, it's me again' fails to make me smile.
Almost every site or blog has the option of an RSS feed or other subscription buttons, don't you think I'm intelligent enough to click on it, or fill in my e-mail address if I wanted to receive updates? Just a suggestions.
There is a difference between targeting your market and spamming and I consider receiving e-mails I didn't ask for as spam.

Especially you, Review bloggers. You see, the time I spend clicking through the process of unsubscribing, I could have read your post and be on the way to comment or I could have tweeted about it, if I found it be tweet-worthy. But please tell me why I would want to tweet a review of a book I didn't even read? Maybe I wouldn't like the book and then I tweeted something in the world wide web, and people who trust my taste, go and buy the book and are bitterly disappointed if they don't like it, blaming me. Or is the purpose of your e-mail a try to sell me the book? Well, if I was short on reads, I would know where to go since I have your site somewhere in my favourites.

I'm an author, not a reader. Maybe you should think about who your audience is. Surely it's not the authors whose books you agreed to review? I mean, I'm a reader, too, but mainly an author, so why do you pester me with your e-mails about the newest reviews? Or did I misunderstand? Did asking you if you want to review my book entail a life-long subscription with your site?
If that's the case, I'd rather not have my book reviewed by you. You see, I thought you want to reach readers, because only readers will make you big and only readers are important to us authors. For some reason, I find you got the wrong end of the stick.

But be assured, the next time I receive an e-mail from you, I'll hit the unsubscribe button until I have my peace back.

And you call yourself a reviewer?

Did I get your attention? Good. Now you might want to make yourself a cuppa and take a seat. It won't be a minute.
First I'd like to say that I don't include all reviewers; it's merely about a trend I observed and don't approve of.

Ready? Okay, then my rant starts now. With self-publishing, a new trend has evolved: self-acclaimed reviewers who will read and 'review' self-published authors' books. Now I'm certainly all for it, it helps to get the word out there and it's also often balm for the author's soul. If done right, that is. Since I'm self-published myself, I went on the hunt for a few so-called reviewers. What I found shocked me. Many state in their policies they won't post reviews for books with less than three stars. wooden spoons, tanks, monkeys -- whatever they use for their ratings. I find that rather peculiar, if I'm honest. Many say they will e-mail the author the exact reasons as to why they won't post a review. My bet is that many of those authors rub their little hands, happy they got away, ignore the reasons and carry on with promotion. What I don't understand is why people still believe a review is for the author. It's not. It's for the potential new reader to see if it's for her or for him. Surely the author benefits from a review; if it's positive they'll stick it on their blog (I do), if it's negative and packed with constructive comments, they hopefully learn and crack on with the correction.
Surely, opinions differ and sometimes people just don't like the book. Happens.

But why the fear of posting something negative? I mean as authors we should edit and polish our books to the point that the story flows with no holes or inconsistencies, the grammar and punctuation is up to a certain standard and the formatting is correct. If a book doesn't reach that standard, I find, readers should be made aware. With pressing the publish-button, an author hands over the book to the public and with it puts it into the limelight which may or may not result in negative feedback. Of course we are delicate souls, but we also ask people to pay money for our humble scribblings and not to forget, ask them for their time. Especially reviewers' time. It's lovely from reviewers not wanting to hurt anyone, but it's also a bit dishonest. As a reader I don't click on a review blog to have recommendations only, I click on a review blog to make up my mind. And I want to know the truth. If I only find positive reviews and recommendations, I don't know if I can take this blog seriously. To me that's not a review blog, it's a blog of a reader who recommends some books. That's an entirely different animal.

If a reviewer doesn't like the character or storyline or maybe the writing as much, fine. I didn't like the bestseller One Day, not one bit of it. Tried twice, then threw it across the room. As long as one can give valuable reasons, there's no point of not telling the world. I'm not asking to tear a book apart, but to post the negative as well. Or change your blog name to reader's picks or something like that. A reviewer is someone who gives an objective opinion of the book he or she's been given. Selecting only the positive, I find, won't earn you credits in the long run.
Authors don't need protection, they know full well what they're doing. Well, mostly.
It's the readers who need protection. Protection of those books that 'reviewers' find too crappy to even post.

Take Big Al, for instance, a great reviewer who knows he does and is not afraid to post negative feedback. As a result he has a queue from here to the moon and back, having to recruit more people who know what they're doing.

And since we're at it, I need to get somthing else off my chest: if you don't know how to review, don't do it at all. I had so-called reviewers spoiling the plot of my book, I had reviewers who anticipated hot and raunchy sex-scenes in my paranormal romantic comedy and I had a few who didn't even have a clue what conflict means in a novel. If you want to call yourself a reviewer, learn how to do it first.
Know the genre, don't spoil the plot and most of all: be honest and constructive.

Now if that's not food for thoughts, I don't know. What I certainly know is that I'll go on quite a few of black lists after this. Time to open the Champagne, right? Just kidding.

Have a nice Sunday.