So about goodreads and indignation
Here's a review:
redacted
Whoa, calm down. I get being offended by something other people don't understand. I mean that an article about the topic about the genuine sorrow of butthurt would create butthurt.]
I get that the reviewer is allowed to have an opinion--but why can't J the Punkin [name changed to protect me.]? Is it because he's [a few names removed.] on the thread attached to the review? Is that why he gets in trouble for commenting?
The reviewer is making his comments on a book on that book's thread. So why is that any better -- or less worthy of scorn--than J's comments? Because goodreads is set up that way?
People seem very possessive of review threads, as if they are building a house and anyone who disagrees with them are unwanted visitors. It's a personal space.
If someone finds something in a review objectionable, should he start a new thread? Keep it to himself? Why should he keep quiet except to avoid trouble--and is that reason enough? Or should he just say what he wants and move along and not engage?
I seriously don't know how to approach things I suspect are hurtful on goodreads--laughing at an author (not a book) sometimes goes way, way too far but I'm not going to win friends or influence people if I say something. I'll get the focus turned on me.
On the other hand, I know it hurts.
All the "well, he put the work out there, he should live with it" justifications in the world do not erase that fact: It. Hurts. Pain is real. Perhaps it's butthurty hurt, but there's actual pain.
Do I click past? Do I say something because I know the author is probably reading the reviews (particularly a new author) and it's probably comforting to see someone acknowledge your reality?
Yes, as author you grow used to it and the stomach-churning response to awful reviews eventually turns into a few minutes of ick.
Eventually.
But at first the whole thing can feel fairly devastating, and maybe some kind of support would ease that. If I can't change a reader's mind about writing reviews that are mockery--and god knows I won't--should I dive in to say something anyway? should I do it the way Jason does?
I don't, ever, because I'm an author and no one wants to see authors babbling about this stuff on reviews--even if it's not their book. I get that. But sometimes, I can just feel the pain and I'm not sure a non-author would.
Maybe not that review but some others. . . is saying "hey, you're being mean and hurting someone for no good reason" Is it worth hurting my own sales?
A private note is probably called for, I suppose. I wonder if Hallmark has a card for that.
The basic message I see on author loops is always the same:
"Your work got torn to shreds and you were called a hack. You'll get past this to write again. In the meantime, stay the hell off goodreads and keep your mouth shut."
Some comfort....no actually, it really is.
edited to add: I've read this a few times now, mostly trying to get all the names out along with anything remotely tetchy/mean out, although I might have added some of that because now I wonder why people paid any attention to it. Nothing remotely new in there. "Authors are people." with the follow up of "Okay but maybe it's best to move along, authors." I was sad when I wrote it so there's real emotion in it, but so what. My posts about about chickens...those are worth reposts.
I think staying off threads is a good plan. I'm left to write this kind of post--eh, none of it is new or interesting. But sometimes I want to pat an author, particularly a new one, who's gotten a shit review (even a non-bullying one) and say "there, there, it feels really bad, I know" and I don't know them. A personal note seems intrusive yet they might not have a support system built up yet.
So okay. Here's my note: It sucks and I'm sorry.
and the more I think about it, the more I realize, yeah, I was being disingenuous. The rules are actually fairly simple, at least the ones I need to understand: if you're an author stay out of it.This is true across the internet, really, not just goodreads.
The rest.... It's just weird. I've tried to understand people who look for the fight and I still don't get it.http://katerothwell.blogspot.com/2013...
These days I see the start of those and instead of hanging around to see who says what next, I want out. I'm mildly repulsed even after reading reviews that are clever and that make me laugh my ass off ow.
Sort of a pity to lose the fun of snark.
Maybe that's the result of getting old. That old site, trainwrecks, would kill me ded nowadays.
What's new--and I hadn't really thought about before-- is that a review thread as a private space is automatically assumed by nearly everyone involved.
And that feels like something of an injustice. Just as a book is out and about in public, so is a goodreads thread out there for anyone to read and comment upon. The author of a thread is as much an author as someone who publishes a book.
jason got flack because he was exercising his right to express his (sadly, incorrect) opinion like a jerk. instead of jumping on the thread to castigate a reviewer like these assholes who get on his nerves, i reckon he should have written a blog post linking to the thread and henpecking anything he pleased without coming off like a rude busybody.like you did, summer.
it's the internet. you get to have your say. but as you'll note, only the person who wrote the review has the power to delete everyone's comments.
it is explicitly a semi-private public space.
while it's technically true that anyone can traipse in and be aggressively mistaken about anything at all, there is such a thing as specific context.
what jason did was like some random stranger bustling his way in off the street and into your living room to explain to you with fearsome enthusiasm that they don't think very much of your personal style.
also, jason, i'd like to apologize if my snark got out of hand.no hard feelings; it's not a crime to have a different point of view—and say so.
as long as i get a chance to bitch about it afterwards like grumplestiltskin, anyway.
Jason wrote: "You know, like I said on the review, everyone has the right to be an asshole. I guess it just takes more character to realize that we don't have to take advantage of all our rights. And it's bett..."
I very rarely speak up, being a major lurker in the group, but thank you Summer/Kate and Jason for making a comment.
Sadly, it seems to me that a person's rights to make their own opinion clear has become incompatible with courtesy. Must be showing my age, I guess. :(
so you're saying yes indeedy, the review thread is basically someone's private space. I guess that's true of a FB page or a blog too. It seems sort of odd that something so public can be seen as private--and that's a universally accepted fact. That doesn't apply to comment threads on newspaper columns or a thread on gawker. It's interesting that these subtle differences seem to be generally understood.
I still believe more and more that avoiding giving someone, anyone, unnecessary, possibly hurtful shit is a worthwhile endeavor and it's not that hard to accomplish.
Also an addiction to indignation and/or horrorfest threads is worth reexamining. I'm not talking about that thread so much. Others. It's not the protective momma part of me that thinks it's worth looking at. Just seems like it's a bit of the personality that should be examined and understood.
Because what gets fed by that? It's more than a desire for entertainment. It's something visceral.
And no, I'm not thinking about you, julio, you're basically a loving person.
yeah, dark angel, what is that about? I mean why is growing older the trigger for suddenly caring about strangers' feelings?I know there was a time in my life when cleverness was far more important and it almost always meant something sharp and pointy.
I seriously bought into line of thinking "if it's too much for you, you should grow a pair" or "you should just go away" The person who was upset was unprofessional or not mature. Therefore it's okay to tolerate their pain?
Now I got to wonder why I'd think someone feeling pain could control their response--and why it was acceptable to roll your eyes at their response. It makes as much sense as "I'll give you something to cry about."
And I also wonder why this is yet another universal: you get to a certain age and your tolerance for hot peppers, staying up past 2 am, and for this shit evaporates.
julio is basically a loving person wrote: "jason got flack because he was exercising his right to express his (sadly, incorrect) opinion like a jerk. instead of jumping on the thread to castigate a reviewer like these assholes who get on hi..."Whoa, wait a sec julio. Just a doggone moment here. Hey. THAT NAME THING. Hey. Is that mockery or ...hey.
Dammit. You slay me every day. every day another julio surprise. LOVE.
Skyla Happy Go Lucky and Lost in Books wrote: "Your blog post is against Goodreads TOS as you call out a reviewer by name and therefore making him a target for people to go and attack.I have flagged your blog post for review for that reason."
Ditto.
Did you read this? Who do I call out? Oh, okay. [name redacted--and note added mostly because that word, redacted, is funny]. I meant more about how to do cope with threads and needed an example of someone interacting on a thread.. I meant to call out Jason [name not redacted because he talks on this thread and I figure that means he's cool with it].Okay, maybe it'll get taken down then.
And if it does get removed, then I can un-cross-out the first part about disengenuous etc, because I really do NOT understand the rules of goodreads.It's a public review. There's a way to make it private. I thought that was all it took.
Linking to a members profile, review, status, rating is against the TOS. As is naming specific members. It's all laid out pretty clearly by GRs.
https://www.goodreads.com/author/guid...
https://www.goodreads.com/review/guid...
And I might add, it's funny to think that what I wrote is so controversial so horrible, it requires removal. But if I hurt peoples' feelings, then yeah. I should apologize.
edited to add: Whoops. Let's pretend I'm not pissy in the above note. Because I think I get it now and being pissy is dumb.
Kate wrote: "And I might add, it's funny to think that what I wrote is so controversial so horrible, it requires removal. But if I hurt peoples' feelings, then yeah. I should apologize."
It's not about being controversial or hurting people's feelings.
It's just against the rules. And the rules are in place for good reason, to protect members.
Okay, that's pretty clear. And that is actually NOT something that's intuitive--like the whole a facebook page is someone's living room.
And just an FYI: authors get very few warnings before their accts come up for review aka being banned from the site. They usually only get one warning so you may not want to wait for them to remove the link and users name for you.
Just a suggestion.
Skyla Happy Go Lucky and Lost in Books wrote: "TinaNicole ☠ Le Book Nikita ☠ wrote: "Linking to a members profile, review, status, rating is against the TOS. As is naming specific members. It's all laid out pretty clearly by GRs.
https://ww..."
You're welcome. :)
I took your word for it. (I can't seem to get the damn link to open.)At this point, I rather hope goodreads DOES take this down. I'm tired of the topic of delicacy even though I'm the one who brought it up.
It's so much easier to go blundering around in the real world or in a story.
Skyla Happy Go Lucky and Lost in Books wrote: "Never use names and NEVER link to someone's review unless you are like "OMG! I got my first review and it was awesome!" It is never a good idea as an author to call out people by name as it creat..."
Rules aside, do you think (and I'm not being an intentional jerk here---I do wonder) it's okay for regular members who aren't authors? I mean over on FB which I know and understand far better, you're allowed to link to FB posts.
Maybe the point of the rules is to stop discussion about topics that aren't books. The whole Eleanor Roosevelt thing about talking about ideas and not people... And in that case, oh! right!
The more I think about this, the more I realize Skyla et al--and goodreads--are right to make and enforce that kind of rule. Especially if it helps keep the discourse from going wild and woolly and all ad hominemmyIt's goodreads's site so even if I didn't start to agree and understand, well. I'd be SOL wouldn't I.
ALSO
It's wild that there are so many levels of what can be considered public.
A book is wide open public.
A blog like this seems pretty wide open too.
A review in a paper, yup.
Twitter -- you bet.
A review on GR....hmmm. I can't think of an equivalent place/thing after all.
Not Facebook because you can pile on all over the place if something's set to public. But then again FB isn't about books.
I wonder what the rules are at rotten tomatoes
Okay, now really. Done.
it's about criticism. and the rules of critique predate goodreads.the dynamic is different. effort must be made to maintain the distinctions between attacking a work—which is noble, and good, and your duty as a member of whatever society you call your own—and attacking a person, which is no good.
because some people really have an awful lot of trouble telling the difference.
Kate wrote: "Skyla Happy Go Lucky and Lost in Books wrote: "Never use names and NEVER link to someone's review unless you are like "OMG! I got my first review and it was awesome!" It is never a good idea as ..."
First of all, regular users don't have blogs to link anything in. When you become a GRs author you're here in a professional capacity. Just like anywhere else, the rules are different for customers and employees. Not that you're a GRs employee, but you're here in a different capacity. You agree to follow those rules when you sign up to become a GRs author.
I've disagreed with reviews many, many, times. I've had borderline heated discussions on my own negative reviews. Most users don't mind discussions of any kind, we enjoy them. Agree or disagree.
This site is full of booklovers. (For the most part) We love reading and we're here on a social book site b/c we love to talk about those books, whether we love them, hate them or any shade in between.
The Internet is not much different from real life. Sure, every site has different standards of etiquette, but the basic principles are the same.
Don't be a dick. Don't barge into someone's space to tell them their opinion is wrong, or you (a perfect stranger) don't appreciate their tone, and they're an asshole b/c you said so and they don't do things your way and then expect a warm reception.
Authors, on the other hand, have no place on reviews of their own books. Especially negative reviews. That doesn't mean that authors aren't allowed to have opinions or express them. Not even close.
They just don't belong in that space. An author can never be impartial about their own work. They just can't. And often, even if it's friendly, an authors presence in that readers space feels intrusive. It hinders honest discussion.
I'm not sure why authors want readers to think about them. That should be the last thing you want them thinking about. The best books are the ones where you forget someone even wrote the dang thing. If the reader is thinking about you and your feelings and your beliefs and your dog, you've failed them as an author.
Reviews that focus on the author, not the book, are against the rules. If you feel that a review crosses that line, flag it. Arguing with the reviewer, author or regular member, is not going to help anything. It'll just draw more attention to the review.
And I'm sorry to break this to you, but Warts review and the comments below don't focus on the author personally. Not even close. Talking about an authors writing is not only allowed, it's appropriate. In fact....
As per GRs review guidelines
"Harsh critical statements that apply to the book or the writing in it, such as "This guy can't write a lick," or "This book is absolute trash." Again, honest opinions about books are always going to be welcome and encouraged on Goodreads"
TinaNicole ☠ Le Book Nikita ☠ wrote: "Kate wrote: "Skyla Happy Go Lucky and Lost in Books wrote: "Never use names and NEVER link to someone's review unless you are like "OMG! I got my first review and it was awesome!" It is never a ..."
Yup, what you say makes sense.
julio is basically a loving person wrote: "it's about criticism. and the rules of critique predate goodreads.the dynamic is different. effort must be made to maintain the distinctions between attacking a work—which is noble, and good, and..."
And really, it's not an author's territory. It's not built for them. There should be little skull and cross-bones saying "enter at your own risk, idiot author"
I'd just watched someone who was NOT part of that particular review be basically destroyed by a review. I purposefully did NOT link to her review.
I watched her sob and puke -- and thought that pain is useless and stupid. It's also real.
And, it turns out, that pain is a little contagious. So I slashed out a bit and in public.
How embarrassing.
Skyla Happy Go Lucky and Lost in Books wrote: "You removed the link and yet kept the names in. That still breaks TOS."Whoops. I must have missed some. But even it I take them out, there are mentions of names in the comments attached to this. Do they break TOS?
Yeah, I think just the username in comments is allowed. Also, I'm not sure whose feelings you think you hurt by linking the review in the blog post. Certainly not mine.
It really is just b/c it's against the rules. At least for me. Rules that are in place for very good reasons.
Whether I agree or disagree, it's not hurting my feelings or offending me.
TinaNicole ☠ Le Book Nikita ☠ wrote: "Yeah, I think just the username in comments is allowed. Also, I'm not sure whose feelings you think you hurt by linking the review in the blog post. Certainly not mine.
It really is just b/c it...">
I got that...eventually.
and dayum. I wonder how many people goodreads employs to go through flagged stuff (and how many of them end up misanthropes).
Skyla Happy Go Lucky and Lost in Books wrote: "The switching between your two different accounts to comment is really confusing btw."Goodreads keeps knocking me out of one account and FB signs me into the other automatically.
The internet must be trying to tell me something.
julio is basically a loving person wrote,Yo, speaking of names, yours is still giving me the mortified giggles.
out of here, really really really really really.
julio is basically a loving person wrote: "*basically gives you a hug*"REMOVE THE DAMNED ADVERB. And we will never speak of it again.
Gone five minutes ago.
Can I just say that as your editor, I would feel horrible if you got slammed for the editing in your story :( I don't think you will, but the fear is there for me too xD
Samantha wrote: "Can I just say that as your editor, I would feel horrible if you got slammed for the editing in your story :( I don't think you will, but the fear is there for me too xD"You're a fabulous editor. If there are mistakes, they're mine. Maybe we can blame that other proofreader. Or--wait! The internet did it.
LOL YES. It's all the Internets fault!
ThreeRs (Got Logic?) wrote: ""I don't, ever, because I'm an author and no one wants to see authors babbling about this stuff on reviews--even if it's not their book. ..."You're right. Everything you wrote is true, and you wrote it clearly.
But the essential point I made, that feelings getting hurt are actually hurt, that there is real pain involved--sometimes terrific pain--that remains true.
I was grouchy and decided that particular form of pain shouldn't be entirely shrugged off. I still believe that, but I remembered (a little too late, obviously) that to do so publicly isn't possible in a forum for readers. It invades their space even if it does reach the people I was thinking about.
I know my friend will learn to stay away. As for the stranger who puts something up and gets stomped--even if the stomping is gentle and justified--he or she will probably have people to tell him or her that the pain is real and that it will go away. I hope he does.
I suspect everyone of us who uses the internet learns to stay away from some discussion threads. They can go toxic fast (or even just SEEM to the reader to be toxic) It's just not a pleasant process to go through. And it's almost impossible to walk away or ignore threads about your own books or writing (witness me, here)
Although really, my main point isn't about me--I had my last crying fit about a review in 2004.
ThreeRs (Got Logic?) wrote: ""I don't, ever, because I'm an author and no one wants to see authors babbling about this stuff on reviews--even if it's not their book. I get that. But sometimes, I can just feel the pain and I'm ..."Hallelujah.
ThreeRs (Got Logic?) wrote: ""I don't, ever, because I'm an author and no one wants to see authors babbling about this stuff on reviews--even if it's not their book. I get that. But sometimes, I can just feel the pain and I'm ..."The more I think about it, the more I see why it would annoy readers to have authors come along and demand the big E = empathy.
As people point out again and again the books are the thing, not the author.
I was reminded of this because another author mentioned Orson Scott Card and, man, I didn't want to know about him. I used to love his books.
And after hours of thinking about this, I agree that it detracts from any review to have any authors chime in any role other than as readers. It's infuriating. It's not the reader's problem if there's a person behind the book.
......
But still. There is.
And from now on, it's nothing but blue skies and baby goats around here. Are BGs that much better than the last big internet trend of sloths?
I'd have to a reluctant vote yes on that one.
But not adult goats. Once they grow up, those slotty pupils are just creepy.
Why on earth are people so opposed to any kind of discussion that's not sunshine and rainbows and baby goats? There's no rudeness going on here. Or cruelty or anything else like it. Maybe I'm just extra cranky today, but seeing you write something like that in response to Three's very insightful and intelligent comments seems a bit dismissive. Actually, more than a bit.
Eh, whatever.
@Three: right back atcha, lovely. :)
TinaNicole ☠ Le Book Nikita ☠ wrote: "Why on earth are people so opposed to any kind of discussion that's not sunshine and rainbows and baby goats? There's no rudeness going on here. Or cruelty or anything else like it. Maybe I'm jus..."
Yes, it was a really good response.
And I was about to write another all about the fact that there is a bit of kindergartner in everyone, and really, that's what I meant. Not completely sneering at the kindergartner . . . and then I realized that I needed to Shut The Hell Up.
And in a state of anguish, because I can't seem to STFU, I tried to think of a way to stop myself. The remark wasn't entirely dismissive. Not of her remark, more the whole subject. It was also desperate.
I wanted out. But it didn't work--even after I watched this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnYJa...
Also, and here, I'm only adding this because I should be honest...
I did cry at a bad review fairly recently. Maybe last year? The year before? That review was polite, all about the book (not about me) and too accurate.
So really the snark and the SMH comments etc...they aren't as devastating as the truth, which rather undermines my point of incivility.
So okay. You're right. She's right too.
Yet I'm still convinced that I'm not completely wrong. The internal kindergartners are there. God knows they shouldn't come to into the brain when someone is writing or editing or driving a truck. And they definitely shouldn't show up at an author's public life. But to dismiss them entirely is to dismiss something about the experience of being human.
And didn't I say I was going to STFU? DIDN'T I?
"But to dismiss them entirely is to dismiss something about the experience of being human. "But they're not being dismissed entirely. They just don't have a place in reviews of your books.
I care about you as a human being. I'm sure you're a lovely person. We may have lots in common. I wouldn't wish hurt or harm on you. I hope you have a loving family and an awesome pet to snuggle with.
But none of those things have shit to do with YOUR BOOK.
Eta: It's like me saying that because you wrote a book that I didn't like, you don't care about me as human being.
Is that fair to you?
Kate wrote: "What's new--and I hadn't really thought about before-- is that a review thread as a private space is automatically assumed by nearly everyone involved.And that feels like something of an injustice. Just as a book is out and about in public, so is a goodreads thread out there for anyone to read and comment upon..."
I know you either don't understand it, or don't agree with it, but yes, comments responding to a reader's review are the space of that reviewer. It's like posting on someone's Wall on Facebook. People have the option of posting their own reviews.
And if I had my way my reviews would be private. I've asked Goodreads for this option several times, and been refused (so far). So the fact that reviews are viewable by the public is due to Goodreads enforcing that, and not necessarily the preference of the reviewer. I would be happy if no one but my friends ever saw my reviews. So if you, or anyone else not on my friends list, happen to see one of my reviews I hope you will keep in mind that is entirely against my will and not within my control.
I absolutely understand how an author's feelings could be hurt from reading reviews.
However, reviews, particularly reader reviews, are for other readers. They are not for the author. Readers have the right to be able to express their honest opinions. Reviews that are not honest opinions have no value to me whatsoever. Nor do I want other readers to feel intimidated from providing other readers their honest opinion. Although I know some are. Reviews on Goodreads are personal opinions of a product, for the benefit of other consumers.
We already have people who don't post reviews anymore, and people who post false glowing reviews. We don't need more of that.
If authors don't like it, or find negative reviews hurtful (and I certainly can understand), then they shouldn't read reader reviews.
Sure some reviewers get more unpleasant or mean-spirited that perhaps I would, or I would like. But I absolutely would defend their right to do so over any attempts to silence criticism, or intimidate readers out of stating their honest opinion according to what some other individual(s) thinks.
And I find it incredibly interesting that although I see a number of authors bemoaning negative reviews I have never once seen an author complain about the vast number of fake and false positive reviews that are flowing around on the internet. Those are at best completely unhelpful, and at worst are intentionally misleading people into purchasing a book under false pretenses that they likely won't enjoy. I can't help but wonder why authors don't strive to put an end to that phenomenon. Surely it can't be because they want people to be mislead into purchasing a book they won't enjoy.
This is also why I don't put a lot of stock into glowing reviews, unless it's from someone who's opinion of the genre I know is similar to mine. I typically won't even consider purchasing a book anymore unless I can read some mid-range to negative reviews along with the positive to ensure I'm getting a well-balanced view, and hopefully some honest opinions.
So, negative reviews don't hurt authors as much as they might assume. Readers are not lemmings. We know simply because someone else didn't like a story doesn't mean we won't. Let us give each other honest feedback and make up our own minds.
Thanks.
Here I am posting something else which is not about the subject of reader/writers/internet--that topic has worn me down (even as it made me think). It's about a writer's life. I'm posting a link mostly because I loved it and whole lot of people seem to reading this blog post's thread.
For once I have people's attention, and this is a cool column.
http://sf-fantasy.suvudu.com/2014/06/...
Wait a sec. This isn't not entirely off topic, because, look! This is when immaturity in the writer works.
Alright, well, I've said what I wanted to say. And it's dinner time and I made homemade roasted garlic mashed potatoes with Asiago and Parmesan and they smell too yummy to leave sitting uneaten.
Have a good night, everybody. :)
Auntie J wrote: "I know you either don't understand it, or don't agree with it, but yes, comments responding to a reader's review are the space of that reviewer. It's like posting on someone's Wall on Facebook. People have the option of posting their own reviews...."actually this was NOT something I knew when this all started. Julio [who is a loving person] schooled me on it.
You can see when the light went off in the thread for me, a kind of a list of what counts as public and then less public. There have been aha moments that I will cherish, eventually.
And it's worth noting that this is my blog, but there is no way for me to remove or edit any remarks other than my own. So this is definitely in the far-more-public realm.
edited to add: oh, damn. That whole last paragraph? WrONG. But I think it would be an appropriate goodreads rule.
And it's better for you not to comment. Authors are attacked much quicker and seem to have no right to an opinion.
~snuggles~