Authors, take it on the chin

I recently stumbled over open complaints about negative reviews. Authors who either felt the need to educate readers or who felt personally insulted by the reader in question. I say reader here, because Amazon reviews can hardly be described to be professional. Though called reviews, they are merely readers' opinions. Nothing wrong with that, if only authors would understand that they are exactly that: opinions. And although I understand that receiving two or even one star 'reviews' is hurtful, there's no reason to go and whine openly about it.

Above: screenshot of the reviews I've received in the UK for Excuse me, where is the exit?

In many cases, if the book is well written and in general liked, the person reviewing it had a bad day at work, was left by the partner, didn't have regular bowel movements, whatever their reason, they had to take it out on someone.
In some cases, if the book is mediocre to bad or unreadable, those opinions are valid and important to the potential new buyer. That's what they are there for, by the way, despite the common misconception of authors thinking they're for them and therefore demand constructive criticism. I argued on one of the threads to think about how one goes about it personally. When I hated a book back then, in the days when I wasn't an author, I would've told my friends, 'Man that was utter shite, bored me stiff. The main character is just not right in the head. Don't buy it.'
I wouldn't have told my friend what the author could've done better. Why? Because I didn't care; I was a reader, a consumer and when that particular book didn't do its job, I moved on to the next.
It's rather ridiculous to demand anything from a reader. He or she already bought the book and spend valuable time with it, so him or her writing down what he or she thought of it, is a bonus, not something they have to do. To argue back or complain about it, doesn't really work in the author's favour, I would think. I for one would steer clear of giving an opinion, even if asked.
I received my first 2-star review today and guess what? I grinned, partly because I feel complete as an author now and partly because I knew it's going to happen after my post on Amazon was deleted. It's probably just a payback review for daring to speak my mind.

Besides, a mix of reviews is a good thing. It's natural that not everyone loves your book; some didn't get it, some didn't like it and then there are those who are completely taken. So no reason to complain and in case you have more negative than positive reviews, then, well, then back to drawing board.

So, authors, chin up, the next one might be five stars and the sun will shine again.

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.

The gloves are off the 3rd! Just because you've written a book doesn't make you a writer

I've been thinking about this for a long while, pondering if I should post this, but I feel I need to say something. It's my blog in the end and I can post whatever I like, right?
I've been watching the Indie community for the past few months and I've been among 'writers' for over two years now. What I have observed is a lot of people who have written a book, think they are now a writer and will be famous author. Their mum, auntie, sister, gran and two best friends said their book's great, too, so it must be true. Bursting with confidence they submit their humble scribblings. Then: the truth hits home, rejection after rejection; soon, they will be able to plaster their entire house with them. Still, they don't think something's wrong with their writing, it's the others who don't recognise their genius.
They decide to go for self-publishing. Heavens thank Kindle, Nook and Smashwords. They get their friends and family to buy a copy each and write a review. Of course it's all praise. Ah, it looks so pretty, doesn't it? When the first real reader buys the book and complains about the bad editing, poor characterisation and plot, apart from the typos and other errors, it's the arsehole who didn't get it, when more negative comments arrive, they cry out for people to put those stupid reviewers right.
No joking, I've seen it all. I wonder if the 'never give up' advice might do more damage than good to some of the 'authors' out there. Stephenie Meyer's and J.K. Rowling's rejections are quoted. Well, Meyer had about 15 and Rowling 12. That's nothing in publishing. I got about 45 for all my three book together. Then, I don't write YA and I don't have a series at the ready. I know why my books got rejected, though I had an acceptance for the shorts stories and an offer to resend after tweaking for No Wings Attached, both of which I denied in the end.
I hear pure readers when they say they have enough of Indies, though there are quite a few who are good, sell well and made themselves a name, there are still far more who receive dream-shattering reviews on their books. Or there are plenty of Indies who don't sell, despite all effort to market their books. Maybe that's a hint for them to either write something else, or just give up. Maybe that's why they got so many rejections in the first place (unless they write for a small market)? Perhaps they need to learn a bit more about writing and hone their skills before they throw their unreadable books at the public. Many readers already voice their demand for some sort of quality for the Indie books, I absolutely agree. I guess that would shake up the market considerably and we'd have about a third of books left. A certain standard would force aspiring authors to edit and proof-read their books until they're green in the face. A shame they're not doing it already voluntarily, it's part of the 'job'.
And: not every person who has written a book is cut out for the industry. To survive as an author, you need to learn constantly, produce at least one book a year - a book of quality, that is, the Indie-market is fast and every changing, before you know it, you're forgotten. And that's the pressure many self-appointed authors can't handle.

Always remember: just because mummy says you've written the next bestseller, doesn't necessarily mean it's true.

JUST ADDED after misunderstandings: I'm not addressing the issue of cutting edge literature or books that don't fit into neat genres, they often have a small readership, hence the low sales.