Some
actors, artists and writers say that the only thing worse than a bad review is
no review. Is it?
And,
good or bad, would you, do you, read your reviews?
Lots
of people don’t read their reviews. AL Kennedy leaves it to her publisher to
read and tell her about, but she won’t read them for herself.
Newspaper
reviews and magazine reviews of your work, if they are good, are often used on
the book, either on the back or on the inside. Otherwise they are generally
forgotten over time. When it comes to Amazon and Goodreads the story is a
little different. The reviews, the ratings, given for a book stay there
forever.
Reading
some of the reviews on these websites, it becomes clear that there are some great reviews
from people who have read the book and enjoyed it, and there are those who read the book but
don't connect with it for reasons they discuss intelligently. This is all fine because the enjoyment of a book is subjective and reviewers will have their own opinion.
But
not everyone who leaves a review or a rating has necessarily actually read the book, If they had, that would be different! As a writer it is incredibly
galling to see one star reviews being given for reasons such as the book being
delivered late or arriving damaged. Why do people do that?
Take 1984 by George Orwell. The reviewers who gave it one star were for these reasons: 'there were lots of typos', 'the copy was in German not English', and 'the pages were marked', etc. There were a few reviewers who did review the book itself before giving it a one star: 'Unbelievably boring' and 'a dystopian snoozefest', are a sample of these. Somehow I don't think any of this would have bothered Orwell.
I
know authors who make it a policy not to read their reviews on Amazon or Goodreads.
I’m beginning to think they’re right. Someone left a two star rating on
Goodreads for my next book. The book hasn’t even been printed yet - even I don't have a copy of it! Fellow writers
have advised me not to respond to the reviewer.
Over
the years, authors who have responded to reviewers on Goodreads have come off
very badly. It’s a lose-lose situation as the reviewer has nothing to lose, and
the writer can come off sounding peevish, precious and, in some cases, abusive
towards the reviewer. Here’s a link to an article where the writer responded to
the reviewer – it went viral, and did not end well for the writer - HOW NOT TO RESPOND
Writers
have to develop a thick skin early on. Their writing is critiqued by
themselves, their agents, their crit group, their publisher etc. But the kind
of thick skin you need to read some of the reviews that are left on Amazon and
Goodreads, well, I'm not sure I will ever be able to grow skin thick enough to
handle them. So come the time when reviews for my book start going up, which will be in a
month’s time when the book goes out to reviewers pre-publication date, will I read them? Or will I leave it to my publisher or my agent, or a kindly friend to read and sift
through to the ones I need to know about, and the ones I really don’t!
So,
if you are ever tempted to respond to a bad review, take a deep breath and think again. Go for
a walk. Beat up a pillow, vent to your friends, go and play with kittens or
puppies, but don't respond to the reviewer on Goodreads who gave your book a two star rating, or comment on your one star review on Amazon.
Of course, in your head, your book will always be a 5 star book.









