I’m coming in late to this (work: KICKING MY ASS; the mess in my apartment: KICKING MY ASS; life in general: KICKING MY FUCKING ASS) and am jumping in the fray only because an alert reader very kindly *snort* provided us with linkage, but in case you’re a blind or somehow incapacitated and completely unable to do your blog rounds: Angie managed to blow things up quite nicely yesterday on RTB with her article about credible reviews, and Karen Scott picked up the torch, and MaryJanice Davidson provided some hilarious commentary, even if I said “bitch, please!” more than once while reading what she had to write. Which really isn’t too different from how I am when I’m reading her books, heh.
Y’all know how I feel about reviews, reviewing and authors who think readers aren’t qualified to review. If you feel any doubts, then check out this little bit of mouth-frothing from days of yore. (Tangent: Smart Bitches is almost a year old. What the fuck, y’all?)
I only have one more thing to throw into the discussion, and it’s probably nothing particularly new (I’ll be the first to admit I haven’t read all the comments in all the threads about this issue): Authors who snip and snipe about how readers just aren’t qualified to review a book because they don’t know what it’s like to
give birth to precious, precious babies all by their little selfses
survive the rigors of the publishing process love to draw similes to professions like medicine, law, engineering and the hard sciences. Look, no schlub off the street is qualified to critique, say, a research paper on quantum mechanics. And that’s a perfectly valid point. Y’all need to be certified to do that shit. The implication is: the average reader’s view is invalid, and only authors can know another author’s pain and be qualified to provide commentary on a published novel.
Oh, you know what I’m gonna say next: BITCH, PLEASE. What I want to know is: how many published authors—especially authors who write genre fiction—have advanced degrees in, say, English, Linguistics or Fine Arts? If these standards are to be accepted as logical, then off the top of my head, Sara Donati is allowed to review books and THE REST OF US (myself definitely included) need to sit down and shut the fuck up.
Here’s the terrifying part that authors hate, just hate to own up to: you really don’t need any special qualifications to get a novel published, much less write one. I’m not saying it’s easy—it’s patently not. But unlike a doctor, or an accountant, or an engineer, you don’t need any sort of professional certification to be recognized as an author. People who have successfully published books—massively bestselling books, even—have come from all over the economic, education and class spectrum: high-school drop-outs, college professors, single moms scribbling story ideas on the backs of napkins, teenagers, ex-cops, accountants, bored English majors. Shit, if books like The Lighthouse Keeper are any indication, you don’t even need to be particularly literate to write a novel that’s consquently slobbered over by readers like a 10-year-old boy at a NAMBLA meeting. And experiments like Naked Came the Stranger have proved that crap, well, sells.
So on one hand: Kudos for being published.
But on the other hand: Your masterpiece is sharing that honor with books like Desire’s Blossom and To Tame a Renegade.
And one last thing: I’m also amused by the people who are swearing off MaryJanice Davidson because of her views. My personal opinion is, yeah, she’s being an asshole, but she’s a funny asshole, and that’s some hard, hard shit to pull off. I can sympathize with the urge, but hell, if I swore off asshole authors entirely, my list of authors I could read would be very slim indeed, and frankly, I’m too selfish for that because I’m such a book whore—I like ‘em big, I like a LOT of them, and often several different ones at the same time. There’s only one reason I no longer bother to read anything MJD releases, and that’s because I’ve decided her recent books have sucked a lot of ass, even though I enjoy her distinctive, snarky voice.
OMG. If I ever forget why I love this site, remind me to hit this post again.
Bitch, please. 🙂
As an author, I can say that readers are the only people qualified to review because readers are all that matters. Yeah, yeah, it sounds like pandering. Bite me, it’s true. Even the quote-unquote qualified reviewers are readers first, far as I’m concerned. Granted, I get a little more jazzed when there’s a good review from EW than in anything else, but that’s mostly just because it’s E-frickin’-W.
Another thing – before a book is finished, I’m all up for constructive criticism. I need it, I crave it, I must have it. After a book is published, and I can’t go back and change it, then reviews go into two camps – My Reader (people who like the book) and Not My Reader (people who don’t.) I love My Readers, and I wish Not My Readers the very best in finding a book that suits their tastes. It won’t be as good as mine, but that’s their cross to bear. (Go ahead, say it. I know you’re thinking it. Bitch, please. Tee hee. I don’t know why that’s cracking me up so much, but it is. I freakin’ love Candy.)
Now, I have been very blessed in that the majority of my reviewers have been My Readers (knock on wood, may the trend continue), and I heart the shit out of them. NMRs don’t really bother me, unless they’re of the “This writer sux,” variety, in which case they annoy me, but I try to get over it quickly. Life’s too short. As long as you’ve got a backup for your opinion which you’ve taken accurately from the text, I have nothing but respect for the review, no matter who wrote it.
That’s my story, and I’m sticking to it. Unless one of the SBs gives me a bad review, in which case, I will weep. No pressure, girls. 😉
Why are you trying to kill me? I have bronchitis and its burns like hell when I laugh.
“you don’t even need to be particularly literate to write a novel that’s consquently slobbered over by readers like a 10-year-old boy at a NAMBLA meeting.”
Fricking classic!
Ah! The Lone Star Review page is by Matthew Baldwin of Defective Yeti.
Of course it was funny!
God, I love this site. Intelligent women who can actually have their own opinions (which might very well – gasp! – not all agree) without the passive-aggressive, insipid apologies that mark too many romance writer/reader discussions.
*side note: On a professional writer’s loop I’m on – one of many – there was a writer who stated her viewpoint on an issue. Several other writers chimed in with conflicting opinions (nothing inflammatory, mind you – they didn’t even say fuck or asshat). The first author immediate posted saying that she’d never state her opinion again. What the fuck? Then a bunch of the other authors rushed in to appease her. Bitch please! Grow a fucking backbone. See why I love this site?
Anyway…
I agree with Lani. Reader reviews are what it’s all about. The good ones make me think I’m doing my job and keeping My People happy. The bad ones are hard to read, but I do pay attention. Perhaps I did, indeed, fuck up. Of course I tend to ignore the poorly written bad ones that can’t even manage to get names and major plot events correct, and I assume that My People (or Potential My People) reading the crappy ones are smart enough to see the bullshit therein.
Of course if I got a crappy review from the Smart Bitches I’d rend my clothing, weep, wail, and gouge my eyeballs out.
How about the fact that technical papers are aimed at technical audiences, while novels are aimed at—hmm, let’s see—READERS.
Am I the only person who noticed that Mrs. Giggle officially passed the torch to Candy & Sarah today?
http://kg184613.bravejournal.com/entry/20280/
Congratulations, Ladies.
Speaking of reviews, am I the only person who hadn’t noticed these Gabaldon entries on Amazon?
http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A3RLR7I90KXZI5/ref=cm_pdp_reviews_see_all/104-3473040-9588743
Either she wrote those reviews or someone has gone to a great deal of trouble to fabricate a cover story to impersonate her. Whoever it is knows about her Ph.D., her involvement with the RFB&D organization, and the fact that she lives in Arizona. If you Google angustroll and scroll down to the German Amazon location, the Amazon software gives up the reviewer’s real location, which is Arizona instead of Minnesota. She lives in Arizona.
“I’d read the phone book, if Ms. Gabaldon wrote it.” — angustroll
Even better Scroll down to the bottom and look at the sig line on the Biology of Plants review by angustroll
DG writing her own reviews also satisfies MJD’s PhD requirement for romance reviews. So, you can believe what she says about the books. Just say’n
But… DG’s Phd is in the non-artsy-fartsy, geeky-labcoat-wearing, formaldehyde-snorting, frog-bothering subject that is Biology.
Unless documented evidence indicating an alternative classification would be more appropriate is brought to the attention of the committee, a PhD is typically classed as a level 5 expert.
However, the rules clearly state that in the interests of fairness she may only legitimately criticise parts of a novel that fall within her own area of qualified expertise. This would be: Biodiversity in Upland Bracken of Inverarie or, bubi5.
Another classic, this time in the review for Outlander:
“The series (I couldn’t separate it into books; it’s all one huge, marvelous story) is the best thing I’ve read since I found WAR AND PEACE in my teens.”
::boggle::
That’s kind of sad, actually.
I agree, Mademoiselle le Bat. She’s famous, highly successful, beloved by her fans. Why do this?
I guess it just goes to show that sock-puppeting is not for amateurs. I recommend getting a degree from Sock Puppet University of Northern Kentucky.
Off Topic:
I’m unashamed to say that I gave Outlander five stars (not as a romance, but as fiction), but I’m interested to know what others hated about it.
I was traumatized by Jamie’s, um, attack, and I didn’t particularly care for Claire, but that was okay, because it gave me comfort knowing that I’d make a better lover for a strapping, young, bonny Scotsman. Oh, yeah.
But I think it’s one of those love it or hate it kind of books. So those of you who hated it. . . what really chapped your hide, if you don’t mind my asking?
As for Gabaldon possibly writing her own reviews: I don’t buy it. It just doesn’t fit with the tone of her interviews elsewhere online – she’d post as herself before posting as an anonymous reviewer, I think. I mean, she writes about time travel via standing circles so you know she’s got big stones (ba-dum-bump-bump!).
Yeah, I’ve gotta say that I’m not exactly an obsessed fan, and I knoew that she has a PhD and lives in Arizona. *shrug*
I don’t think she needs to post her own Amazon reviews. I think she’s doing okay, people.
I KNEW you guys weren’t reading what I said earlier. That link takes you to a reviewer named angustroll.
On your way panning down the reviews of Diana Gabaldon’s books look for
Biology of Plants by Peter H. Raven
Edition: Hardcover
Price: $92.30
Now look at the sig line in that review by angustroll.
This is not guessing guys.
I ADORE Diana Gabaldon. Someone that talented and brilliant should not have to do that. What hope is there for average joe writer-girls if the gods of the language are resorting to faking reviews? Everyone has been saying that Amazon reviews are worthless but look at the lengths she’s gone to there. Why?
Goddamnit, I am a LAZY smart bitch, and now you made me go and do work and shit.
I agree that the review is signed “Diana Gabaldon, PhD”, but anyone could have typed that in. Also, I found that review all over the internet, so it may not have originated on Amazon. Someone may have copied it from the original source and pasted it there.
More than that, my gut feeling just says NO! Someone would have to be crazy—and I mean, has-she-been-taking-her-meds crazy—to post something like “The woman has class,” in a fake review about her own book. That’s supremely tacky and takes balls the size of time-traveling stones AND an inflated sense of being able to control your public.
Sure, I would’ve considered doing it at some point if I get published, but not after that Canadian Amazon debacle where you could see the reviewers’ real names for a couple of hours. *shudder*
Oh, and what kind of drunk-at-8-in-the-morning idiot would then accidentally SIGN HER OWN NAME to a psuedonym created solely for pumping up her own ego?
I have written very few (reviews recommendations) for books on Amazon. Look for Lisa Valdez’ Passion for ccruciger if you want to see what I’ve liked enough to post on—and no I’ve never met Lisa Valdez. Judi I know and love but I have favorites on her list and not so favorites.) I have a LOT of writer friends and there are several books I need to go post a blurb on for at least two of them. But. BUT. If I don’t have an opinion on a book one way or another, I’m not posting a review. If I hated a book, I would not post a review.
A. I do not have time to do it justice.
B. There are better qualified reviewers out there—and not PhD’s but people who read a lot and know how to express their opinion in an informative way.
and
C. I’m suck ass at being diplomatic.
Until Revenge Gifts I’d never even noticed that Amazon HAD a review section. I take RT’s reviews, recommendations from friends, and online reviews (No offense but my reading tastes do not synch with the SB’s so I am more likely to buy from their CD list than the A’s and B’s. ) and I click my way through the list to the shopping cart and get the fucking hell out of there before I go broke.
Now? It makes me nuts. Because I have no idea what to think. Are they important? Do they matter? Should I have solicited reviews from readers who email me? Or. Is it just a comment wasteland that everyone ignores like I used to?
What*The*Fuck??? Someone who knows something needs to find out the facts and report back immediately because I think everyone is completely full of BS.
I just ranted, didn’t I? Damn. Where did THAT come from? I must have unresolved review issues.
Damn Diana for shattering my blind spot. I was so happy there in that corner.
Pardon the typo’s —I have deep, unresolved review issues—aparently.
Victoria – why would the location appear as Minnesota or wherever and translate to Arizona under the German Amazon reveal thing?
>>Victoria – why would the location appear as Minnesota or wherever and translate to Arizona under the German Amazon reveal thing? <<
I gotta tell you, I’m as inexperienced as you at the Amazon review thing. I’ve only posted three myself. (Two fives and a one. Like you, if a book is a 3, I don’t feel passionate enough to write a review. The 1. . . I felt compelled. I didn’t want some young girl reading the book and learning that Love = Emotional Abuse. It was disgusting. Anyway. . .)
When you create your reviewer name, don’t you put the location in yourself? I just don’t understand where the German site would pull from. Surely not your shipping address? I have no answer for you. *blank stare*
And FerfeLaBat, I love, love, love your name, btw. What does it MEAN? Every time I see it I am intrigued.
Maybe it’s just me, but the new slant to this thread is making me squicky. If it’s true, then it’s sad. And humiliating. I’m embarrassed FOR her, and vaguely reminded of the time a jerk-off in middle school pantsed The Fat Girl and everyone laughed at her.
If it’s not true, then accusing her of it is pretty heinous.
Nobody asked my opinion, but there it is. Can’t we just leave this one alone?
Victoria,
College Nick Name. I’ve used it for more than half my life and most everyone knows who I am regardless. Mr. Mike wrote an article for Rolling Stone spoofing charities. FerfeLaBat was the poster girl for sexually deprived prostitutes. My room mates thought it was hillarious because I’d never had sex. TMI? You asked. It stuck even after I … I’ll stop there. 😉
Stef,
I agree. But why would a fan do that to Diana if it’s … I can’t wrap my head around it in any direction.
I honest hope it’s NOT her. If it’s someone who has been impersonating her since 1999, that’s pretty freaky, and I hope she knows about it. And has a restraining order against them.
If I recall correctly, Amazon didn’t always have a way for you to look up everything a reviewer has ever written. As they’ve built up the “community” aspects of Amazon, they’ve added all these little personalized areas, including recommendation pages, wish lists, and so forth. Back in 1999, a reviewer could post under the same user ID for multiple reviews and safely assume that it would be difficult to connect the dots between all of them.
Amazon reviews are regularly plagiarized by other sites. I’ve seen reviews that I wrote ONLY on Amazon show up on 10 other sites that I’ve never even visited. My guess is that the same thing happened with the original review that contained DG’s sig line. That’s why you’re seeing it all over the place. It’s unlikely that the original poster did anything more than post on Amazon.
The Amazon user ID is tied to your shipping, billing, and email information. Back when they had truly anonymous reviews, you could put any old thing you wanted for your location. They’ve tightened up that process considerably, and as I understand it, if you ever posted under a user ID, the software displays the city and state from your shipping address. I haven’t done any exhaustive testing on every possible permutation, but from what I’ve seen with my own reviews, that appears to be how it works.
P.S. Under the new pen name/Real Name system, pen names do give the option to manually enter a location. I suspect that the German site is putting up both pieces of info (what the user says is his address as well as the shipping address) for the old user IDs that don’t quite fit the new profile. When these reviews were posted, the new ID system didn’t exist.
I just think we should give the poor woman the benefit of the doubt. Hell, it could be some person who retired and moved from Minnesota to Arizona. It could be someone who WANTS to be Gabaldon.
>>Back in 1999, a reviewer could post under the same user ID for multiple reviews and safely assume that it would be difficult to connect the dots between all of them. <
<
I agree with you there, but the last review was written in 2003, so unless she was living under a rock. . .
>
>Maybe it’s just me, but the new slant to this thread is making me squicky.<<
And I agree with Stef also. I don’t know why, but the whole thing is uber creepy. And, as usual, here I am involved with the creepy stuff. Damn it.
I don’t think brushing it under the carpet works on the DG issue. Sock puppetry is rampant in epublishing (yes, I realize she’s with Delacorte or similar and not with an epub). There’s also the issue of purchased reviews (referencing epublishing and not DG) and I wouldn’t be surprised to find out, given some of the reviews I’ve read versus the book supposedly under review, that some authors are reviewing their own books on book review sites (as opposed to on Amazon or B&N). And then there is the viral marketing on the reader lists. Giving someone a pass, particularly someone of this stature, is giving the whole practice a pass.
given some of the reviews I’ve read versus the book supposedly under review, that some authors are reviewing their own books on book review sites
This is an interesting point because I’ve heard of this happening. An author or editor using a pseudonym to work for a review site and then reviewing a book they wrote or worked on.
Personally, I don’t know where they find the time.
AngieW: “Personally, I don’t know where they find the time.”
AngieW,
Well, one guess, they’re taking from the time they could spend writing better books. 🙁
Someone’s probably thinking “just write the best book you can” blah blah blah. But I find that hard to swallow, like a teacher telling the *fat* kid to sit on the side of the playground where the other kids won’t kick and punch him. Or being told to just make sure your child is as well prepped for the SAT as he/she can be and don’t worry if there is rampant cheating on the tests.
So, (question to the group) are viral marketing, fake reviews, etc., acceptable business practices? Companies engage in the practice in other industries … double blind weight loss studies, physician endorsements, etc., etc., etc. If it’s standard business practice, should authors everywhere take the kid gloves off and start acting like *true* professionals?
I feel like I hould clarify that I absolutely LOVE the first 2 books of the Outlander series. But I also DESPISED the last two and blogged it in no uncertain (and vulgar) terms, in case y’all missed that. What’s funny to me is that I never considered what I wrote a “review” – it’s just me blabbing about books like I always have and always will. I have no doubt that some people who read it actually decided to buy the book. I also have no doubt that I did a lot of Gabaldon fans a service in warning them away from the last few in the series.
The great thing about the internet is that reviews often become a dialogue, and I personally think it’s great when reviews get reviewed. Pick it apart and say it’s an empty argument, if it is. Show us all the ill-considered and plain ignorant things the reviewer is saying. No one ever accused me of being too vague about what I disliked, or of not having actually read the book – they just hated that I cursed and that I didn’t continue to worship at the altar of The Great Gabaldon.
And on the topic of angustroll=DG: I hang out with writers – published and unpublished, very successful and very untalented, the whole gamut. Pretty much every single one has ego issues, and I don’t think even humongous numbers of books sold (or scads of adoring fans) magically cures insecurity or the desire to have rave reviews. Someone mentioned the Canadian Amazon Disaster, which pretty well shows that authors high, low, and in-between will write their own glowing reviews.
I also have no doubt that I did a lot of Gabaldon fans a service in warning them away from the last few in the series.
I’m one of those people. I didn’t read the last two, although Fiery Cross has been on my bookshelf since it’s release. But I read your blog post and what you said made complete sense to me. So I happily decided to pass on them and remember the series in a positive way.
Weird thing with this is that Amazon.co.uk won’t let you see all of a reviewer’s reviews or search for a particular reviewer. I’m very in touch with my inner Luddite at the moment, so please let me know how if I’m wrong. Still, I didn’t even realise you could do such a thing.
Anyhow, it does have my antennae twitching, but quite frankly, this is the internet. For all anyone can tell, my posts could be the randomised output of an infinite number of monkeys merrily bashing away on keyboards in some wrinkle of the space-time continuum. If they are, and this is in no way intended to be a comment on the validity of this theory, they’re probably rather beautiful, highly-evolved marmosets who smell faintly and attractively of nastursiums.
What I mean to say is that this debate has been centred on the fact that a review’s origins are the only source of its validity. But I prefer to come to things from the other end of this spectrum. An author has just as much of a right to publish comments on their own books as any other
simian
human with an internet connection. I really don’t have a problem with this, and their point of view can often be just as informative.
Even if they feel the need to spend untold hours constructing false identities and hiring teams of crack reviewing operatives
call 0-800-MON-KEY for friendly, reliable reviews guaranteed to make your sales soar! Rates from as low as 3 bushels assorted tropical fruit + 1 kilo mealworms a week! 10% discount if you mention this article!
to flood the internet with positive feedback, so be it. In fact, that sort of determination is rather impressive.
No one can control this sort of thing, but we can evaluate a review on its own terms as well as look at the source. And we can debate the lot. Which is more entertaining and probably does more for “buzz” than any stellar review.
What do you mean mealworms? I hate bloody mealworms. Do you know what they do to your digestion? The last lot had me blocked for days. And where’s my tree gum? You know I can’t function without my morning….
I love you,
pretty, pretty wee marmosets redolent of nasturtiums
EvilAuntiePeril. If I were a man, I’d want to have your
attractive, silky-furred offspring
manbabies.
Candy, many, many thanks for the kind offer, but truly there’s no need for you to hide your true self behind an equivocation like “if I were a man”. We all know you for the hard-bitten, flinty-eyed, testosterone-driven, 32-year old ex-Navy SEAL, secret agent sheikh you truly are. It’s okay that you like romance, really. Promise the guys won’t laugh as they shave off all your body hair and stake you out naked in nothing but a lacy negligee on the gun turret of USS Titan Uranus.
We also know that SB Sarah (aka Cardinal Liqer Richelieu) is currently residing in the Vatican as the pope’s closest adviser, and he likes romance too. Especially the “naughty” bits. (S)he’s working on a mission to get him to peel the fake “Lives of the Saints” covers from his prized collection of first edition Sandra Browns and post the best bits from the latest EC e-book on the Holy See’s intranet.
Come into the light, it’s beautiful here. Oook.
Evil Auntie Peril: Weird thing with this is that Amazon.co.uk won’t let you see all of a reviewer’s reviews or search for a particular reviewer. I’m very in touch with my inner Luddite at the moment, so please let me know how if I’m wrong. Still, I didn’t even realise you could do such a thing.
Try this. Go to amazon.co.uk and search with the string loretta chase scoundrels. Scroll down to the first review, which is by a Top 500 Reviewer. Click on the icon with the 5 stars. You’ll be sent to that reviewer’s spot on the reviewer rankings page. Click the link under ambersaxon696’s name, and you’ll see all her reviews.
I haven’t yet seen a feature on Amazon where you can search for a reviewer by name, but depending on how deep the Google index of a particular country’s Amazon site is, you may be able to dig out a reviewer by Googling and restrictiing the sites it searches amazon.co.uk (or .ca, .de, .com).
That should have read “searches, such as amazon.co.uk”.
One of the most destructive things about overblown sock-puppeted reviews is what they do to the authors who write them. A person who already has a problem dealing with negative feedback is only going to make herself more insecure. And she may find herself resorting to this practice more and more, including other situations where she might receive other-than-glowing feedback. It’s poison.
That’s one of the reasons why I’ve said repeatedly that I hope angustroll isn’t Diana Gabaldon.
celeste: “That’s one of the reasons why I’ve said repeatedly that I hope angustroll isn’t Diana Gabaldon.”
Oh, celeste, me sock puppet you long time, honey.
ahem … WELL you could go ask the angustroll that hangs out on DG’s book boards … I particularly like this posting at:
http://www.voy.com/14018/1/12696.html
where good ole angus “not a sock puppet” troll states: “I’ve lurked for a long time on Compuserve, and I’ve never seen DG make *any* grammatical or spelling errors. I don’t think I’ve ever found any in the books, either—and I’m a professional editor (technical stuff). There are typos, sure, but these aren’t “mistakes,” as such, just typesetting or keyboarding errors.”
HEY, why doesn’t someone invite her over to answer? I could use one of my sock puppets to do it.
Of course, it’s quite possible that maybe, way back in 2000, angustroll was being helpful and posting a review on Amazon of a book that DG really wanted a review posted for … and that’s why the name was deliberately signed as Diana Gabaldon PhD.
That actually sounds plausible
But, of course, it’s self serving to have both DG and angustroll disclaim … and sock puppeting your own book boards … guess we’ll have to go on faith.
Oh, celeste, me sock puppet you long time, honey.
Hmm? Wasn’t quite sure what you meant by that.