Good point. The internet is like a dragon. If you aren't careful, you will be burned. What he did was give the dragon more of an incentive to lunge at his book and he brought it on himself.
First paragraph of the author's blurb for the second book in the series: I guess this book is not for me because I am not pretentious enough to learn what it means to "manifest into this realm as a sovereign."
But... Moral relativism is the only true path to enlightenment! Nothing is true. Everything is permitted. Just from the blurb, seems like some liberal version of the Übermensch. And yes, I Googled to get the fancy U. Ayn Rand is turning in her grave, seeing that freedom now equates to respecting mediocrity and entails unconditional acceptance of all things man-made...
https://authorsinterviews.wordpress.com/2014/11/17/here-is-my-interview-with-dylan-saccoccio/ The interview above is from last year where we can learn a little about Dylan Saccoccio.... It explains a lot. The only comment at the bottom says it all. I quote: "lol"
I prefer to jump straight into the voodoo doll methoDOLLogy (see what I did there?). Though, I'm running out of fabric to make so many dolls.
You fool! By doing so, you threaten to awaken the cursed Reagan doll that was thought to have been destroyed in the 1970s! You have no idea what horror you're about to unleashed by making an army of the living dead dolls! CEASE AND DESIST, MAN! CEASE AND DESIST!!
The incredible thing is just how fast the author's little stunt tanked his book's ratings. The 10th comment on Cait's review tells the author to relax because the book's rating is still a healthy 4 stars. As I write this, that comment is 18 hours old. In 18 hours, the book's rating fell to 1.69 stars. Goodreads' histogram thumbnail to the left of the "rating details" link has not even caught up with the surge of 1 star reviews yet.
I hope he thought it was worth it, 'cause now no one will be reading his book. Seriously, a little common sense goes a long way. Don't want to look like an ass even if you feel like you've been hurt? Then get off the internet and cool down! Um...just out of vain curiosity, if I responded to a bad review of my book with something like, "Thanks for the information, I'll be sure to implement them in future writings" or, if it were like that guy's review, "Hey, you should go read whatever gives you the most pleasure. Get yourself a book you'll enjoy. Have fun!" what would that make me?
Everything in this thread made me laugh! The authors tirade is hilarious at best, and absolutely horrible at worst. He's calling anyone who doesn't like his work "immoral" and "trying to suppress the consciousness of humanity." You know, I wonder if the author has some form of Autism? I'm not trying to be insulting, I'm serious. I have some experience with autism and he may just have a version of it. It would explain his lack of self awareness.
God damn it, if only I could make videos, I'd totally do it. Too bad I'd have to stick to script format. >:[ Would take up too much space here unless I put it in spoilers. Writing it out now if you want to read it later. Oh who am I kidding, of course I'll put it here! Enjoy the Hitler Rants parody (script-form) of what we just witnessed today. Spoiler: Hitler Rants About His One-Starred Review! Krebbs: Mein leader, it would seem your book, German Swans has hit the stores. ReichWord and Superior Eagle Stores have reported collecting your copies in the mails today. They've also reported that people are writing reviews already about your romance novel. Hitler: I'm sure loyal Steiner gave it a glowing review. <Everyone else in the bunker shoot nervous glances at each other. Krebbs stiffens> Krebbs: Mein leader...Steiner... Jodl: Sadly, Steiner gave it a one-starred review. He said it was a trite, uninspiring peice of trash. <Hitler slowly removes his glasses and shifts his shoulders a bit> Hitler: Anyone who thinks my book is the next greatest German novel, please leave immediately. <most everyone leaves> Hitler: <shouting> What is this gross betrayal? What is this one-starred review? How dare he give that to German Swans? That was a romance book with deep plotting, resounding characters and an ongoing theme about love, hate and war! Is this what it's come to? 'Uninspiring'? As if he knows what good literature is! He lied to me, he's always been lying. <stands up> He's a worthless piece of trash and everyone who agree with him are too! Burgdorf: You're being irrational, sir! It was just a one-starred review! Hitler: A one-starred review?! Are you stark-raving mad, Burgdorf??! Burgdof: Please! There are worst things in the world- Hitler: This is a crime against all of fucking humanity! <throws his pencils onto the map> ONE-STARRED REVIEW!? That was my lifework, I pour sweat, tears and BLOOD into that damned thing. I halted this god-damned world war to work on this thing, I will not have Steiner give it a one-star review and say it's rubbish. It is meant to be inspiring, something to be discussed about in classes for centuries to come. IT IS INSPIRING, DAMMIT!! I should have...I should have made a Ministry of Literature like Stalin did! Make it so that my books will receive throngs of praise and adulations otherwise they'd be sent to the Russian front!! <outside, Traudl comforts a crying Gerda> Traudl: Don't worry, Gerda, we both liked Twilight, didn't we? Team Cullen forever? Remind me to read 50 Shades of Gray to you when you to got bed tonight. <back in the bunker, Hitler is now seated in his chair again> Hitler: I just...I just can't believe this. All that effort I put into German Swans and...and Steiner of all people gives it a one-starred review! His dear leader?! Adolf Hitler?! <sighs> I...I really thought I'd be the next biggest thing of the 20th-century. Greater than any of our German authors alive or dead. It's over. My dreams are crushed. And anyone here who publishes a book that gets a rating above one-starred? I'll chuck it into a fireplace myself. Go away. I absolutely could not resist doing this.
It looks like he's gone through and deleted all of his posts. The archive link at the top of this thread should take you back to the original page.
The author's rant actually does contain a grain of truth that I can appreciate, but unfortunately it is irrelevant to Cait's review and it is mixed with so much bile that you have to read charitably in order to recognize it. It is kind of crappy to give a low rating to a book not because it fails to meet an expectation we have of every book (like the expectation that it is well-written), but because it fails to meet your expectation or because it is not relevant to your interests at the point in your life at which you read it. (Cait's review is innocent of that, but I did notice some guilty reviews.) This is a problem that contributes to the bigger problem of book ratings being incomparable to each other. A book's rating is more of an indication of how people are discovering the book than an indication of how good the book is. For example, the classics generally have lower ratings on Goodreads than they deserve, thanks to the low ratings given by people who are forced to read them in high school before they have the maturity to appreciate them for what they are. Likewise, The Tale of Onora books now have ratings that are incomparable to the ratings of other obscure self-published books. Books marketed in the manner of The Tale of Onora are rated by a small, self-selected group of people who are already interested in the book, and many of whom already know the author. But now that The Tale of Onora has gotten such bad publicity, its reviewers are a group of people who expect it to be bad and who are already unsympathetic to the author before even looking at page 1. Generally, readers are likelier to rate a book they like than to rate a book they dislike, because writing a review takes time and because things we like tend to occupy more of our time than things we dislike. With The Tale of Onora, the opposite is true -- people form a bad impression of the book and they read it out of the same morbid curiosity that draws us to car crashes. If the book confirms their hypothesis (i.e. if it is so bad it is good), then they are satisfied, and it is quick, easy, and satisfying to leave a 1 star review. If there is no obvious way to lambast the book, then it is not quite as satisfying, and reviewing it would take more thought and therefore more time that could be spent on something else. In this way, a book can easily have a far higher or lower average rating than it deserves, even if every reviewer rates it honestly. Ignoring the author's attitude, I will go out on a limb and say The Tale of Onora has a lower rating than it deserves. Sure, it is pretty badly written judging by the free sample I read. But compared to the rest of the obscure self-published books out there? If they all got the same bad publicity, then The Tale of Onora would probably have a relatively high average rating in comparison. Anyway, this is not coming from any kind of sympathy for the author or any desire to defend the book. It is just an example of an interesting problem. I am more interested in the principle than in this specific example. Even if I found it in me to read this entire book, and even if I hated it from cover to cover, it would feel wrong on principle to rate it at all -- not because a 1 star rating would damage the author's career (that ship has sailed), but because it would not contribute any information to the public other than "I am one more person who heard about this book due to the author's bad publicity and read it just to see how bad it is."
One wonders how his spectacularly evolved moral conscience will ever contend with the deletion of all his rightness?
OK, mocking over for me. Look, I can get that this guy got upset. It probably hurts to have someone think your story, which you've slaved over for years likely, is a loathsome piece of shit from Page 1. I know if I saw someone write a review about my book and they said something like, "God, this book made me feel ill from Page 1. Wouldn't recommend," I'd be a little hurt. It's natural. It's like, 'Well gee, if this made you nauseated, then why did you even look at it? I didn't force you to read it.' However, here's the thing. By posting and starting a fight with the reviewer, he had basically shot his career to death. Now everyone knows he's the guy who pitched a fit and acted like this was a crime most foul because his book got the one-starred-review burn. Hardly anyone's gonna want to buy his book now. Authors can do a number of things. They can ignore the critics and keep on doing what they want, they can take in the good criticism and ignore the ones that are bile, but they're not supposed to do what the author did. He got upset. He overreacted and acted like the reviewer was making personal attacks on him and his family. It's a natural human response. It's not a good one, but it's a response. Especially if it's over something that meant deeply to him. All we can really do is learn from his failure. I can only hope that, when I'm a published author and I see a one-starred review, I'm smart enough to not go in there and start a fight because I got my feelings hurt. This a teachable moment for the rest of us.
I said it in another post and I'll say it again here: fuck reviews! At the of the day, they're just someone's opinion, and opinions aren't facts. Some people -- especially film critics -- usually pan perfectly entertaining stuff, anyway. Half of them are arty-farty bell ends that live in some reality where everything incapable of winning awards is complete trash. I know you should take something from critics, but seriously, they can go and suck a fuck.
The guy is spectacularly full of himself. Also, he seems to feel persecuted by anyone who doesn't like his work. I don't know; maybe a therapist could help him with that. I'm actually a bit worried because he's so pro-gun and has such exaggerated ideas about his own morality and the lack of morality of others that he might eventually do something dangerous.
^ Hey, uh, I'm just gonna play it by ear and assume that this was an author who clearly wasn't used to negative criticism in his book and blew a gasket over it. True, opinions are just opinions and you can ignore them as you please. Someone could straight up say, "Link, your fantasy sounds like every other fantasy in the world and your cat-people, from what I've seen of your sketches, look very stupid. Like, what, is this a fantasy version of Dora the Explorer or something?? Do you really expect me to believe that a race like that could possibly exist in the world you've created? Or that an empire can be surrounded by kingdoms? Do you even know how to write fantasy?" I don't have to listen. The thing we're discussing is the author's reaction to the commentary. What would make me sound very mature? Comment Version A: "Thank you for your comment, I'll consider it in my future writing." Comment Version B: "Then read something you like, I'd hate for you to be miserable reading something you detest." Comment Version C: "OMFG YOU SUCK! YOU ARE TRYING TO DESTROY MY CAREER, MY LIFE! YOU REPRESENT THE WORST HUMANITY HAS TO OFFER! I BET YOU JUST LOVE TEARING BOOKS APART LIKE THAT, DON'T YOU!?" Comment Version D: *I simply don't reply*
While opinions are not facts there are certain elements to a story that can objectively point to good or bad writing. Good reviewers rely on these when writing a review.
I'll take C please, Bob. Nah, I'm joking. Personally, I'd go with D and just not say anything. I would take on bored their criticism, but I feel it's more about majority: if one person out of five says it sucks, then I'll take it with a pinch of salt, but if all five said it was fifty pages of used toilet paper, then I would come to the conclusion that maybe it isn't the best of stories. As for the guy, he's probably just got worked up. If he's smart enough to actually write a story to begin with, he's smart enough to realise (after cooling down) that he made a fool of himself and should re-evaluate the way he approaches criticism.
