I thought it was interesting that the author fails to recognize the difference between idea and execution. And that just because you follow certain steps doesn't always guarantee success - here's his quote -
He's not the messiah, He's a very naughty boy! I cannot believe the attitude of this guy! "If you can't write a good review, you shouldn't write on at all"??? Then what would the point be in reading reviews, anyway? The whole point is to read, both good and bad, and make an informed decision - not always based on the score, but about the 'loves' and 'hates' of the reviewers. If they love what you love, and hate what you hate, it gives you validation of your want to read the book, or not! If you aren't the type to do this, then you aren't the type to read reviews in the first place, are you? Also, if you state something that the reader feels to be correct, or not, in the blurb, then they are able to validate it, or say why they believe that it is not the case for them. In this case, the reviewer feels that the mention of Harry Potter, etc., to be incorrect for her. (Though, reading his interview, I wonder how he knew that it is similar to the books he mentioned in the blurb - seeing as he states that he never read a fantasy book, prior to writing, so as not to influence his work. And that makes me wonder what type of work it would be, as he has had no experience of the writing styles that people of the genre enjoy! It would be like me writing a book about car maintenance, when I have no idea where a spark plug even is, in an engine!?! No matter how good, how literate, my writing was, I would be missing the understanding of the target audience!) I hope that I NEVER give an account of myself, such as this guy did! I will go over and give his work a chance, by reading the free excerpt, however, as I feel that I owe it to the author to give his work as much consideration as I have him, today.
OK, Having read the excerpt, I'm not sure that I would pay to continue, based upon this. I tried very hard to give it a fair shout, and not let anything colour my views. If it had been a free book, as a first of a series, I may have continued a bit longer - this was the prologue and 1st chapter, only - but I would need something to keep me hooked to happen soon, otherwise I wouldn't go too much further, and definitely not as far as to read the next book. I can certainly say that, I don't feel that the book was for me, either, even as a fan of the genre. There were some really frustrating errors, and the book could certainly do with being at least waved in front of an editor. I wrote a bit of a critique, as I was reading it, but this isn't the place for that. I will say that I was surprised to see that there are ebook, paperback and audiobook versions. That's not bad work for a self-published author, who's not yet full-time, according to his interview. Though, it would be interesting to hear how the reader dealt with some of those comma-less sentences! Based solely on reading the excerpt, I would say that a review score of 2 out of 5, is higher than I would rate it, but with the possibility of some character development, maybe it could achieve it!
I got that when he accused the author of being a shameful blight on humanity the first few posts. 'Cause, y'know, giving someone a one-star review is totally like being Adolf Hitler. Mein Gott!!
Definitely a Dylan move to pull Stop dylaning around! WE need to figure out as many puns as possible.
Ouch. Talk about confidence issues. I can understand why one review can make a good day terrible. If someone badmouthed my book with an un-insightful review, with an ungodly amount of 'people who found this review helpful' marked underneath it, I would be furious. It's like a person threw their own e-penis around to make their words carry more weight then they should. when something like that happens to somebody who isn't on the radar yet, it can seem like two steps forward, three steps back. On one hand, replying will most certainly receive negative PR, but if you don't reply, it is in your own heart accepting the limitations of your ability to defend your own book. Is there a way to reply without being the bad guy; turn their weight on their head, like a professional Judo master? Some part of me wants to believe that their are certain words, that if said in a certain order, can change the hearts of those who agreed with the review, except maybe the person who originally wrote it. Before I ever replied I would find out as much as I can about the reviewer and the audience they are using as their little army. Depending on what I would find I would make one of the following conclusions: 1. The army is too close-minded/dedicated to the reviewer to hope for a change of hearts. Replying would be too risky, as convincing such a group is nigh impossible. Alternate solution: See if you can find other people who were unjustly harmed by this reviewer, and see if positive free PR is available from the enemies they've made. 2. The strong presence comes from a combination of different sources that doesn't necessarily rely on the individual reviewer, or mainly comprises of my target audience. I would reply, in a non-confrontational manner that devalues the original review. Hopefully, some of them realize how much more qualified I am at reviewing books, and decide to follow me instead. This may seem a little drastic, but to a new published author, PR is too scarce and comes in too many unpredictable forms to simply ignore. By acting indifferently you are losing out on an opportunity. If supposed 'internet stalking' is going to help me get a ton more books sold, then you better believe i'm going to take the chance. Like @Wreybies said, we know where the strings and levers are that trigger these responses. In a way, you can reply without pulling on them directly... Sometimes it's okay to indulge the chimp, as long as you know how to keep it dressed in a suit.
In truth, the smart thing would be to know how to pick your own battles. A newbie writer is like a little mouse compared to the lion riding a battle tank that are folks like Stephen King. I'm a bit of a wimpy baby, so if I ever publish, my philosophy will then be, 'It's out there, do what you will.' I'll look for criticism that helps me improve my writing, not criticism like 'I wipe my ass with the pages torn from the book this dumbass wrote'.
Yeah, from that perspective it is fine. But wouldn't you get a bit salty if the person that said the latter was the one people were listening to? IF you could do something about that, then it wouldn't necessarily be in your best interest to ignore them... In terms of selling product and getting more recognition.
Well yes, I would be pissed if that were the case, but two things: (1) I'm not sure I feel comfortable fighting long-winded battles over the internet. I don't even know how to do that. (2) If someone had amassed a following for thinking my book was like toilet paper, then what would that make me, the newbie, look engaging into that stuff? Sometimes, some battles just aren't worth being fought.
You are right, It is really risky to respond, possibly making things worse for yourself. That is why it wasn't my only suggestion. Someone like that is bound to have made some enemies. Finding them can give you a source of good PR to counteract the bad that began flooding your book. Either way you have to find some way to combat it, because it can be equally as damaging to do nothing about it.
I think the only thing that can change someone's opinion of a creative work is time. When we have stated our opinion of something, and then someone contradicts our opinion, we instinctively defend our opinion (thus strengthening it and making our minds even harder to change). Only time can reliably distance ourselves enough from our opinions. I think it would be more effective to use sock puppets or shills to drown out the negative voices. Every well-known book out there has at least one extremely negative, ranting review and many people who agree with that one review. What matters is whether the negative voices are the exception or the rule.
I sincerely hope, for the author's sake, that the person writing the comments was a slanderous troll and not the author himself. On the other hand, if this is actually him, what does "...every person henceforth can see ALL OF YOU for what YOU ARE. DESTRUCTIVE to the consciousness of humanity" even mean?! May I ask, in my lowly drowsiness, what the consciousness of humanity is?
I do not have the attention span, nor the interest to read past the first page of comments. Partially because I was losing sight of what his posts actually meant after he dug 20 miles deep into his "SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS". The other half is merely because I am a teenage girl: I don't have time for that. It seemed to me as if it was some kind of twisted storytelling while he was the pretentious villain, telling his plan to the spy while we were all - of course - on the side of the protagonist, Cait, and her posse, just waiting for them to jump out of the cages and carry on with their mission. Sounds good enough to me. I would give a curt nod as a sign of respect, but this is the internet and such actions could not exist over my computer.
I think @minstrel nailed it back here. (Not a professional opinion, but) you can read the same paranoia, persecution, narcissism and will to dominate others in the writings of those who've gone on to perpetrate mass shootings. Not that that means everyone who feels this way does terrible things, but it's certainly bad mojo IMO. I wouldn't have continued to bait the way many of his respondents did. He's certainly an example of how not to deal with criticism, but I wouldn't have imagined that many of us would consider his method. I think most of us live in markedly different realities.
Readers enjoy different types of stories and what one person sees as a five-star story another may totally hate. Even authors who have written best-sellers are going to receive a few bad reviews for the book. It's just the nature of the business. We have to develop thick skin.
Yeah, pretty much. If you can't take the heat, you've no business getting into the game. Once your work is out there, it is at the mercy of anyone who wants to review it however they wish. No one can stop them from savagely ripping your book apart. Once it's out, it's out.
One of my favourite writers puts links to ALL reviews of his work on his facebook page and his only reply is to thank them for taking the time to review his work or if it's particularly glowing, blush electronically and bask in the praise. This is masterfull because his work gets reviewed by more people because they know he will share the review and his work is more widely read. Plus, his fans read the reviews and reply to the negative ones - so he doesn't have to. But I always knew Mark Lawrence is a genius
It's such a bother to see everyone hitting on that guy. I think both the author and the critic (Cait) were out of balance. Clearly the poor guy was very sensitive about his work, and clearly Cait was too whimsical and mean in reaction, and even got out of her to say she'd tarnish his name on other places. She did try to subside the fire later on. I must say that there was no avail in Cait's "review". If you critic a work, any work, you'd better provide a contemplated composition of what is X and what is Y. Merely stating that something sucked has no effect but ill, and should be regarded so. I also don't approve of Dylan's reaction, the guy was very into his own point of view and had hard time receiving pure negativity from Cait. Now I see people say things like "he shouldn't be an author" or other things beside utter mockery. The guy's sensitive. We all have flaws, we're all scarred. Who are we to decide who "deserves" to be an author? It is true that in the line of work you must match its criteria, which for that matter is being able to take negative critique, but what gives us, who can't feel what he feels and who don't think what he thinks, the right to condemn his professional aspirations? Beethoven was hot-headed, I don't see anyone denying his work because of that. The point is, sometimes you have to deal with the bad to extract what good it holds. Merilyn Monroe had a great line about that. Compassion and respect are the key for a healthy debate. Thank god for opinions, but one thing we suck at is exchanging them without someone being hurt in the process. Ego is the bane of us all.
You're right, you're right. It could be he was just simply frightened and unable to process the short ‘this story sucks, don't read it’ review and this was his reaction. Maybe he's not really the narcissistic fool that his words led us to believe of him. And maybe Cait was acting a bit too mean-spirited about it. But here's the thing, his writing career is probably at risk now as a direct consequence of his action. People who care to remember him and his work will know he was the guy who completely lost his shit when one person went online to say that his story sucked. Hell, it wouldn't surprise me if they then passed this on to others, warning them about his work and his personality. And her review was actually pretty tame, she could've written something like, “I'd rather go fight in Iraq, get cancer, or develop a painful neurological disorder than read even one page of this...this pile of dog turd.” If he lost his shit over her actual comment, imagine how he'd have acted if she wrote the alternative I put here. Yes, it can be scarring when someone looks at something you've spent years slaving over and brushes it off with a ‘sucks, don't read it’ remark. It obviously hurt him, but when you consider who has more to lose, it's him. I've never read his book, and from what I know of him, I doubt I ever will. Yes, ego blinds logic, and yes, freedom of speech does mean that someone somewhere will get hurt, but as writers, the burden is on us to not flip out when faced with a negative review. Even if we feel we've been wronged, even if we feel a sense of outrage and that outrage demands that we do something about it, logic must prevail because if we given in, we could risk alienating a lot of people from our works.
Thank you. I agree with you, we gotta do what we gotta do. All I wish to pass on is, there is always a better approach, and we should not be quick to cast aside our empathy
But, at the same time, we have to recognize that a single human is not the same as a group of humans, and a group of humans is nothing like a vast number of humans. There are significant behavioral differences that I think psychology is only now coming to see as regards humans en masse. And though the paradigm is relatively new given that it comes of technology, still, one needs to recognize that it exists and to idealize it away is foolish. This kind of public massacre is a thing. It has autonomous reality. There are articles all over the internet concerning seemingly trivial tweets that go on to become viral and incur digitally savage repercussions. When one enters into a sphere where it has the possibility of raising its head, one needs to behave accordingly.
True. But I'm saying people aren't perfect. Those who are weak on certain fields of personality, require - without having the dignity to even ask for it - a mass of patience from their surroundings. In the end it's about individual power. If you're strong enough to assist without hearing a thank you, that's getting my respect, but my respect worths nothing in material value. I think we should aspire to be powerful because the world needs powerful individuals. A part of being really powerful is getting hurt while helping others and not regretting it, nor backing down from the next opportunity.
