Topic of the Week--Why 'Bad' Reviews Are Good Monday, April 02, 2007

*Ducks flying tomatoes*

Yep, you read it right. What in the world can be good about a "negative" review? Now, let me say that Talia Ricci DID NOT give me a really bad review. She read it twice to try and put herself in the heroine's place. (See it here,Singled Out Review)

I was able to get some good stuff from this review, but the bottom line is that she really didn't like it. It bugged her.

So what do I do? Well, in the past (like this is my first "meh" review. NOT.) I've just left them hanging and said nothing about them. This time, I said "ouch" and then took a real hard look at it. Did her problem with "Singled Out" have merit? Mmmmm. It's very possible.

I'll tell you this, I'd rather have a reader/reviewer slash my work to bits and say why they didn't like it than have someone blow smoke up my...well you get the picture. It's not like I can't improve. It's not like I haven't been in the same place.

So, back to the topic. Why is a "bad" review "good"? Well, like a really good slash and burn critique by another writer, or a very conscientious editor with a taste for comma placement, it can improve my writing. And I'm all about getting better. My critique partners do this for me. My editors do this for me. Now, I can let readers for me. Yay team.

If a "negative" review has an opinion about structure or character that may not ring true, okay. But in my case, I think Miss Ricci might have a point. Not everyone who reads "Singled Out" is going to buy the "he was mean to me because he loved me" premise.

It makes a "negative" review a little easier to swallow if I can add it to my store of writer knowledge. I hope reviewers are more willing to be honest and let me know where I need some work.

Feel free to start throwing things at me, but discuss.



Personally, I've always been the odd one out amongst other authors when it comes to reviews. I've seen a lot of complaining about reviewers like Bam, Dear Author, Mrs. Giggles, Lit Sass, and so forth.

Okay, I can understand being annoyed when a reviewer trashes a book without giving an explanation why -- but most of these reviewers give detailed explanations, even if they're a harsh in their wording.

I've seen some writers say, though, that reviewers should only give good reviews, along the theory of, "If you don't have anything good to say, don't say anything at all."

Sorry, the world doesn't work like that. And it shouldn't. What use are reviews to readers if every review is glowing and favorable? There are certain sites I don't depend on for reviews (as a reader) because they have a policy of only giving positive praise.

I don't see how that is helpful to a writer. At least with a critical review, you know what the reviewer didn't like. Sometimes it's useful. Sometimes it's not. For instance, Dear Author negatively reviewed my short story, Waking the Shadows; however, it was made clear that she didn't like short stories as a general rule. Mrs. Giggles didn't like A Passion Draconic, but I knew from prior reviews I'd read that she wasn't fond of some of the themes I'd implemented in the novel. In both cases, I shrugged it off as preference. Everyone's entitled to their own.

This isn't an easy business, and I think it's important for a writer to develop a thick skin. Many writers see their book as their baby, and the problem with that is there's no emotional detachment after the book is published. And, a writer needs some amount of detachment, otherwise every time someone says something negative, it's going to feel like a knife in the back.

And even if reviewers shut their mouths, readers will speak up. I don't think there's any way to avoid negative feedback like that, unless you become a hermit.

*shrugs*

My opinionated 2c. ;)


Well, I'm all about the validation. (Love me, love me, tell me I'm brilliant PLEeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease.) I admit it. But that's not the world of reviewing I'm getting :)

I get two kinds of reviews: Those who rave and lurve what I've done (usually writers) and those who like it...but.

All my fellow bloggers here know me too well for me to say "I let this roll like water off a duck's back". The fact is, I gnaw over those reviews like a dog with a bone. I tend to call one of my CPs or send them the link on messenger to whine about it. "Why don't they love me!"

But, after my emotional outburst, I use them as the research tool they happen to be. I pick 'em apart to find the validity in them. I try to apply what they've said to the next book--or see if it applies to what I've already written on the next book.

I've really only had one bad review though. No, she didn't hate the stories or the book or my writing. But her review itself was so convoluted, I wasn't sure what point she was trying to make. She didn't like...something...but I'm still not sure what it was. (So, I chose something I thought was wrong, and decided she was very insightful ;) )

The hardest part for me is those reviews where the reviewer was so obviously assigned a book they couldn't possibly enjoy. Like me reading something chock full of thees and thous and saiths. I'm not going to enjoy that, no matter how neat the premise is.

I really believe the trick is to find a reviewer you trust. If you know that reading a book a reviewer has given 100 out of 100 throbbing manhoods to is one you're going to enjoy...follow that reviewer! :) Knowing I don't like thees and thous is going to make a difference when you read a review of a 'thee and thou'-riddled book.

Um...'k. went on a little long there to basically say: Hear, hear!