What do you folks think? Is is a good thing or a bad thing for a published author to respond to every single review on Amazon with a personal remark or two? I'm referring to the newly-published The January Man, by Christopher Sommerville. He is extremely courteous and grateful to every person (so far the worst review he's received is a 3-star) and his personal response probably makes each reviewer feel good about the contribution they made. However, something about this approach just seems a bit ...over-eager? Don't know. Is this courtesy, or over the top?
Yeah, maybe that sums it up for me. I read through some of the responses and just thought ...urgh. It's different when you receive a critique on the workshop. Then it's good to thank the critique-giver for their time, and let them know if there are any parts of the critique you found particularly helpful. But a review? I'm sure the author means well and seems like a really good guy, but all the feedback just comes across as being excessive. At least to me. It wasn't a 'good look.'
This is a really interesting topic and my reaction to an author doing this sort of thing also interested me. The truth is I can see a side of that conscientiousness in myself, a need to thank people for giving their time and for even noticing that I've written something... except, of course, if I'm a published author then someone reading my work is because they've picked it up and bought it. Even if they're people I've asked to review my book for me, I would hold back from thanking them for their reviews on the website. I would probably thank them in person if I knew them, but publically I wouldn't want to get involved at all. If they're just normal readers reviewing my book, I wouldn't ever thinking about replying to them, and I'm not sure I would even read them. At first, perhaps, to see how well it's doing and because I'm so nervous about it bombing, but after that I think I'd just let it be and think about my next project. The thing is, he sounds like a nice guy and it's good to see that sort of etiquette because you don't see it in any industry a great deal. But I agree that it's not a good look either. That's the difference between our professional self and our personal side. If a reader wrote to me personally (assuming I had a webpage with an email address on it), I would do my best to reply to them, the way the author of The Song of Achilles did with me. But again, that's because it's private and it's addressed to me. If it's just a review left about my work I don't want to meddle with that or get involved. It's their opinion, and I don't want to try and change their minds about it. Even if it's high praise, I still don't want to come rushing in with thank yous, because it looks kind of desperate. I expect he's probably a newish author and he's insecure (which we all would be) but he would be better off distancing himself and finding a new way to communicate with his fans. I would rather take the Neil Gaiman approach or someone like George Martin where I have my own website and can communicate with readers online that way. It wouldn't be to look for their approval but more as a way of building a relationship with my readers and discussing with them anything which might help me with future research or just generally share my interests. What I wouldn't want to do is show off all my fears as a writer. Ultimately, readers want to think you're in control and they want to know your author persona, not all your doubts and worries as a writer. That's not to say I wouldn't be more open or honest in interviews or say how grateful I am to be published, but I'd distance myself. That's the one thing that annoys me about JK actually. She doesn't thank everyone for their reviews obviously, but she's often getting involved on social media or talking so much about Harry Potter that she doesn't let our imaginations run free... instead, she tells us what the characters think and how we should feel about them (sometimes) when they were written perfectly to start with.
I'm glad you brought this up. I'm sure that, in some hypothetical future when I'm published and have gotten at least a handful of reviews, I would have done the very same thing without even thinking about it. Now I'm encouraged to reconsider. It's true that reviews are hardly fan mail, and you're probably right in saying that it's not necessarily a good look. In and of itself it isn't terrible, but what happens when and if the bad reviews start rolling in? Do you ignore those and respond only the positive ones? For lack of a better term, that seems a lot like selective deafness, which is decidedly NOT a good look. Do you, God forbid, bicker and argue? Yeah, no. Of course it's possible to be diplomatic and courteous even to negative reviews, and it would probably be the best thing to do. The problem with that is that it smacks of desperation. Not very charismatic. But, I don't know... I can only speak for myself, but I would be very happy if an author I like replied to my review. The issue is more how it looks to outside observers. It might be a good way to build a loyal following. Maybe. I don't really know anything about marketing. I still think it's too easy to shoot yourself in the foot. All important things to consider. As for me, I think I've decided to leave any and all eventual reviews well alone.
If it was one of my favorite authors, I'd see it as a waste of time for them. Why are they wasting so much time on the internet instead of writing their next thing . Anyway, I think it's cringy to be that obsessed with what people think about your book. Participating in discussions about writing in general is great, share the wisdom, answer questions, talk to your fans - also great. But responding to somebody's opinion is just pointless. And creepy. Like stalking: " Omg, the author now knows what I'm thinking of them!"
The book doesn't have any reviews on Amazon US (yet), but there is this: "Christopher Somerville is the walking correspondent of The Times. He is one of Britain’s most respected and prolific travel writers, with thirty-six books, hundreds of newspaper articles and many TV and radio appearances to his name." Given that, I think his responding to reviews is OK. It may just be an aspect of his personality, rather than some marketing ploy.
Yeah, which is why I was a little taken aback at my gut negative reaction to his responses. There is nothing inherently wrong in responding to reviews, I suppose. I certainly wouldn't tell him not to do it, but it did make him sound, as @Jupie suggested, a bit desperate. Any point the reviewers made that wasn't 100% positive, he 'explained' why he was doing it, or how he planned to address the issue in later books, etc. He stayed totally courteous, so he wasn't grumping about the reviews. But he seemed to feel the need to explain himself constantly. That made me uncomfortable. I don't know anything about him, but I'm a personal friend of the man who wrote "The January Man," the song the book is based on, so I have a special interest in this book. I'll probably buy it, as a result. However, these diligent author intrusions would have put me off buying it, if I had just run across it on Amazon without knowing anything about it.
As usual, you've thought this through pretty thoroughly. I think you've touched on lots of excellent points. And yes, the constant need to explain himself, which is what the author seems to be doing, does come across as slightly desperate, or anxious. I like the idea of having an author website, where an author can exchange correspondence with readers outwith the 'reviews' they get from Amazon or other places. Seems like a good way to get and keep in touch with readers, without influence what gets said on review pages.
I think Mr. Somerville makes a strong case of why a writer should remain somewhat aloof. Also, there's no good reason why it should take an entire year to walk Britain. How many ways are there to describe a dreary day of rain and dipping biscuits in your tea?
I'll say it is odd.... I would imagine they hired a firm to do the responses or set up some sort of auto-posting. Or if actually doing it themselves, I would guess it is being done for some sort of research.
I'm actually a fan of travel memoirs and such, but usually prefer ones written before 1900... when the world was bigger.
The only time I ever responded to a review was one single time when the reviewer stated something that was factually inaccurate - that Under the Knife was revised Top Chef fanficiton. I wasn't defensive or anything, more like a "hey, just so you know..." kind of thing, and the would up thanking me and correcting their review with and ETA. I only did it because: a) It was a review blog, not an Amazon or Goodreads review, and I assumed they wanted to give accurate information to their readers b)UTK was the first completely original story I'd written after 3 years of writing fanfic, and I admittedly wanted credit for creating everything from scratch c)Top Chef is a reality program, and I am personally opposed to writing fanfic about real people (commonly referred to as RFP, which I think stands for Real Person Fic) as opposed to fictional characters. I didn't want anyone to think I'd ever written RPF But other than that one specific situation, I just let reviews exist as is. The more I write the less I concern myself with them; when I UTK came out I was a little obsessed with them, but I think that was a lot about transitioning from fanfic where the reader/reviewer relationship is a lot more informal. Now that I'm published I take my cues more from submission acceptances and book sales.
I just thought I’d mention: I’ve seen readers remark before that they don’t like it when authors respond to reviews. They don’t like feeling watched, basically. Reviews are for other readers, not authors. If someone leaves you a positive review, they’re not doing you a favor. That’s just what I’ve seen. Different people probably feel differently about it. If somebody has a question, I’ll answer it, but otherwise I keep my mouth shut.
I'd never, ever, ever, ever respond to a review no matter how praise-worthy or slanderous. That's like negotiating with terrorists. Empower one Internet hero and a million more will come out of the woodwork. (Unrelated, but restaurants tend to do the same thing... the last thing you want to do is turn a review stream into a discussion thread. The internet douchebags have us outnumbered, and you can't beat them)
Yeah, I've seen that with restaurants a lot. To be fair, sometimes the 'reviews' are totally ignorant and malicious ...and I think reviews can influence a restaurant's business more than an author's sales. One restaurant I love got a 1-star review from an idiot who complained that when she arrived, there was a guy sitting on the sofa near the front door who PAID NO ATTENTION TO HER and kept reading a newspaper instead of taking her order. So she stomped off in high dudgeon and wrote a review about how the service was terrible. The sofa by the front door is where people wait for their take-away orders to be ready. The guy was a fellow customer. Bloody hell. But her 1-star review brought the overall rating down. I don't blame a restaurant for responding to nonsense like that.
I see you haven't been to the right places yet . There is some scenery out there that needs to be taken in slowly, it's just compulsory to stop, or sit down and enjoy it for a longer time. I suppose that's also long enough time to come up with interesting ways to tell other people about it. On a writerly note, description is more than just "the sun was not shining, the rain was falling in torrents" and the possibilities outside that are really as immense as the author's imagination (I haven't read this particular author, but I've read amazing travelogues, so the thing exists, somewhere out there). Not to mention that some of the best views can be found in those parts of the country where it rains every day but the rain actually enhances the view. Yeah, it does. It dooooooooes I'll leave the biscuits out of the conversation, those are a matter of taste I love reading one-star restaurant reviews on tripadvisor. They are hilarious. But with a food joint, I would expect the owner to reply to negative reviews. After all, it could be a one-off incident and the customer could come back again. It's not so with a book. You've already bought the book. It's a one-off experience. And I'm going to buy a book whose plot has intrigued me even if the author eats live puppies for breakfast
I don't know the case you're speaking about, and I wasn't that curious to search it, but I've been thinking about this topic. I can see the marketing benefits of responding to at least some reviews, especially if it's non-fiction. I think it's a travelling book were talking about? If so, if a review goes like: "... but the author missed a couple of nuances of the sub-culture of..." it can work to the author's advantage to reply: "Thank you for you review. Since interest has been expressed by many reviewers, I intend to address that sub-culture in full detail in my next book totally dedicated to its nuances (...) The book will be out as soon as a date is agreed on with the publisher", etc. I would totally do it! Shameless self-promotion of another book? Perhaps, but I'm thinking of the "one happy customer" rule. This reader will have their question addressed and their curiosity engaged. Maybe enough to tell their friends about the new book about their interests that the author promised to be out soon. It's hard out there! Non-fiction is for making a living. All promotion that can be conveyed as customer pleasing is good promotion. It's trickier with fiction. But if the author's is fortunate enough to find a review saying that this or that secondary character is not explored enough, and they happen to be working on a story including this character, marketing dictates it would be foolish not to promote it: "Thank you for your review. I'm happy to announce that the new book will be exploring the character you mention..." It's all about how professional and detached it comes across. But it's not this simple either. In my culture, familiarity makes the author come across as humble and close to the readers, while in other cultures it's a must that the author remains aloof. Something else to consider is the site where the replies to reviews are given. The author should stick to the site's practice. That's also part of the "one happy costumer" rule. Don't engage the costumer if the costumer is not expecting to be engaged. But do, if there's nothing to lose in doing it. When in doubt, don't.
He's got some time on his hands. Wife's having a baby, he doesn't 'do' nappies. And he shall write a 'humorous' piece for the Times lifestyle mag: 'How I Responded to Every Dickface on Amazon.' I knew I really shouldn't have, y'know but hew hew hew hilarious I responded to each psychotic patient. Finally, I received a single negative review. I was delighted...' comments Ha ha ... Brilliant ... The master is back ... You swine, daddyo!
Reviewer: I thoroughly enjoyed the part when XYZ happened, it was brilliant. Yet I keep wondering how the author came up with such a clever way of solving it. Author Reply: Why thank you dear reader. To be honest it came to me in the heat of passion. My face buried in the muff of a high priced hooker, and as I licked her into a frenzy on the hotel bed, it occurred to me that the MC should take that approach in solving the problem.
It is in the camp of remaining the silent observer, and letting the reader ponder in the mystery of how and why. No body likes a metaphorical brown noser.
It doesn’t bother me much if an author is thanking for a good review (though I don’t think an author should feel it necessary to do so). If the author is trying to “explain” to a reader who left a bad review or, worse, attacking them, then there is a problem.
