I didn’t mean authors were preemptively worried about bad reviews. (Of course we are, but that’s eternal.) I meant I see people preemptively worrying about authors going on jihads over bad reviews. Nobody’s calling for “shaming the reviewers.”
Then I must be interpreting things wrong.
I’m not going to sift back through all of these comments to support this statement, but a great deal of this conversation (especially when combined with the comments on the [adj][spe] article) already come across as “shaming the reviewers.”
Something to think about: as far as I can tell, more time has been spent reviewing Fred’s review of Kristina Tracer’s “Bonds of Silver, Bonds of Gold” than has ever been spent reviewing the original book.
I only looked at the comments over at a|s in passing, but they seemed more…combative.
You and Duroc may be right; I suspect some things don’t strike me as particularly nasty that strike others as, well, more so. I’ve played amateur tech pundit for five years, and like reviewing, that involves putting your opinion out there. What I’ve learned from that experience is that sometimes your opinion will really make people angry. I’ve been insulted by a VP at Adobe Systems, called “ridiculous” by the main author of a widely-quoted rumor mill site, been briefly stalked by GamerGate, and gotten into discussion-slash-debate with multiple people who were much, much less polite than anything I recall anyone saying in this thread. 
Maybe these are my pundit-colored glasses, but even Kristina’s original comments that sparked that all didn’t really seem to be “shaming” to me. One can argue whether they were ill-advised, but the more generalized question that sprang from it was “can a reviewer who doesn’t like erotica give an erotica novel a fair and well-informed review,” and that doesn’t strike me as a fundamentally unfair–let alone mean–question to ask.
Kristina Tracer has publicly objected to Fred Patten’s review of her book. And her objections have been repeated, discussed, and treated as legitimate.
This suggests that any time a reviewer says something an author doesn’t like, they’re not just risking making the author unhappy. They’re risking the author complaining, engaging with a wider audience, gaining sympathy, and discrediting them. Because that’s what you can see happening right now.
Personally, I don’t care if Krisitina has any valid points. She shouldn’t be making them at all. The only acceptable response to a negative review is, “Thank you for taking the time to review my work.” Not responding is probably better.
I think outside criticism from fandom outsiders (or less exposed insiders) is more helpful to the writer than to the reader. As fandom writers we take quite a bit for granted and having someone ask why is necessary sometimes. My concern was more related to a combination of your piece on Green Fairy and my view on the subject of this thread. I was confused as to whether I was reading a complicated review or the start of an analysis of furry writing that ends too soon (and an exploration of specifically the limited reader base as the limiting factor is certainly interesting). That is why I feel it is important to separate a critical review from critical analysis. I think this fits into the larger discussion of when is a review for a reader, a writer, or no one/anyone (as primarily an academic writer I do not consider an audience when I write, but I also don’t get paid for it). Personally, as a furry writer I tend to take more from academic sources than I do from fiction or reviews.
I think the response to any review is dependent on the personality of the author, some thrive on conflict with critics, some appreciate ANY review they can get, some only read good reviews, others only bad, some decide to publicly defend their work, some not at all, and some privately. While I do not know the full extent of the argument, it seems to me that this probably could have been better handled as a one-to-one private discussion between the author and reviewer. Now I am tempted to read Kristina’s book if only to engage in queer feminist criticism with it. From Fred’s review sounds like it could be fun.
I am less concerned over a reviewer’s bias against subject matter and more for reviewers who avoid engaging in actual criticism out of fear. I think that is a far greater issue as we are a small community and it is difficult to criticize a friend or colleague without risking personal offense. Perhaps to encourage a healthy system of review for fandom works reviews could be peer-reviewed (for quality not opinion) before publishing and published anonymously. That way the review could be taken objectively by the author and readers. I know some of the published works I have read from the fandom had quality control and editing issues that should not have made it to print, not including the writing itself and narrative, but there is that fear that has me saying, “nope, I’d rather not openly discuss it.” At least using specific examples.
I want this on a branding iron.
I think there are two different points being conflated –
[ol][li]Should an author respond to negative reviews publicly[/li]
[li]Are reviewers above criticism[/li][/ol]
No, I don’t think an author should respond to negative reviews publicly; we’re all really in agreement there. But I don’t believe reviewers are above criticism. I believe reviewers sometimes get things factually wrong, even to the point where that affects their conclusion. I believe reviewers sometimes give things careless readings. I believe that a reviewer who really doesn’t like erotica may still be able to give a fair review, but maybe can’t review erotic books as well as one who does. (That’s what I was trying to get at with the phrase “the more generalized question.”)
And, beyond that, I believe that talking about these things – and talking about what the role of criticism in furry is – is perfectly acceptable for furry writers to engage in. I think reviewers should absolutely not be afraid of making critical comments, but I also think reviews that lead people to good material that they might never have found otherwise are far more valuable to furrydom right now than reviews that warn people away from stuff that they very likely wouldn’t have bought (or even heard about) anyway. Reviewers should be (to paraphrase Maggie slightly) trying to help books find their audience, and a book that has no audience is probably a book that actually isn’t worth reviewing, because a book that’s genuinely so bad it shouldn’t have been published isn’t one you can review – it’s one you can only mock. And that’s not a reviewer’s job.*
That’s an assertion about the role of criticism and for all I know it’s wildly controversial – but it’s also worth arguing about.
*One can argue about exceptions for authors who are “critic proof,” like Dan Brown, but furry has no authors like that yet. No, not even him.
I think that is a far greater issue as we are a small community and it is difficult to criticize a friend or colleague without risking personal offense.
I think this points to one of the biggest problems we have as far as reviews and criticism: the fandom is such a small niche that the writers are the readers are the reviewers are the beta readers are the best pals are the whatever-else-you-can-think-of, and it’s all such a big intertwined mess that it winds up keeping everybody walking on eggshells due to conflicts of interest in practically any situation. I don’t have any solutions in mind for that problem, but it’s certainly frustrating.
Actually, I haven’t seen nearly enough evidence of this belief in these conversations. I think it bears a little more repeating.
I can’t figure out how to make the quote-thing work the way I want it to, but Ryffnah did in fact wisely say…
“The only acceptable response to a negative review is, “Thank you for taking the time to review my work.” Not responding is probably better.”
This has been my own basic guideline for many years, for public and private criticism alike. I mean, at least someone was motivated enough by my work to make an effort to type out their words and either send them to me or put them in a place where they can be read. Worst case scenario, I wait a couple days to reply until I’ve cooled down. In the long term I’ve found it works well. Reviewers who are unfair and misrepresent their subject matter generally don’t hold many readers, and I deserve precisely what I get from those doing a good job.
I was was once young and sensitive myself, I admit with considerable shame. But at least I’ve grown out of it. (One of the good things about being old is that few who remember this stage of my development first-hand are still around.) =:)
On another front…
If you do get a bad review, this may give you heart. Fred was kind enough to give a long, positive review to my David Birkenhead books on Flayrah while their sales were still very high. At that time, in fact, every book in the series was in the top one-hundred in Amazon’s ‘space opera’ category.
The result of this good review was… a notable drop in sales, as I’ve mentioned to Fred (with a virtual smile) before. Then they were back up the next week.
My learning from this is that reviews probably aren’t as important as they seem. Most especially, they’re not as important as they feel.
From what I’ve seen go by on Twitter recently, I would agree. Granted, what I’m seeing there are the typical conversations one would expect among writers, and I’m not saying all the criticisms I saw were invalid… but one would also expect that kind of conversation to be held more privately.
I think “what makes a good review” and “can you review something fairly when you don’t like the genre” and the like are all good, fair questions when they’re being asked and debated on general terms. Personally, though, I do wish there were more of an effort being made in the community to discuss those questions on general terms rather than focusing so much on specific reviewers or reviews. It’s one thing to use a reviewer as an example; it’s another to use them as a target.
I think it’s also easy to make them a target when they’re the only one constantly reviewing things. When it’s the only thing to complain about, that’s what people will pick on.
There’s been a lot of discussion about how – given our small community – reviewers feel the need to treat authors with kid gloves. It seems only fair that reviewers should, in turn, be treated with an equally gentle touch.
Since my review of Kristina Tracer’s “Bonds of Silver, Bonds of Gold” is being discussed here, showing the review itself seems pertinent.
None of the criticism of my criticism has made me feel any different about her novel or my review. Is it a fair review? I’ve tried to make my own prejudices evident, and to say whether I think that readers who like erotic novels will consider this one worth their time & money. That seems to me to be what a reviewer’s job is. From the comments to my review, it has persuaded readers who do like erotic fiction to read this one. So the author may not like my personal viewpoint, but is it a valid review or not?
And as we have all been saying, we need more reviewers so there is more than a single review of a book, for a diversity of viewpoints.
I am, for the record, entirely opposed to this. I feel that genre writing of any kind should be subject to a higher standard of criticism within a genre community. After all, if you’re a vintner, you’d expect connoisseur’s of wines to rate you more critically, and with greater care and higher expectation of a standard. If you’re an author of any genre, I expect that you should want and welcome the tough love of a particular genre’s fans and aficionados.
The difference between a pop-culture ghetto and a genre is, I believe, that sense of responsibility-to-critique. I think the FWG needs to be up-front about that. Our mission, after all, is “Supporting, informing, elevating, and promoting quality anthropomorphic fiction and its creators.”
I am, for the record, entirely opposed to this. I feel that genre writing of any kind should be subject to a higher standard of criticism within a genre community. After all, if you’re a vintner, you’d expect connoisseur’s of wines to rate you more critically, and with greater care and higher expectation of a standard. If you’re an author of any genre, I expect that you should want and welcome the tough love of a particular genre’s fans and aficionados.
The difference between a pop-culture ghetto and a genre is, I believe, that sense of responsibility-to-critique. I think the FWG needs to be up-front about that. Our mission, after all, is “Supporting, informing, elevating, and promoting quality anthropomorphic fiction and its creators.”[/quote]
I’m in agreement with this. If we don’t hold ourselves to a higher standard, things will never get better and the quality of furry stories will never improve. It’s one thing to be tactful, but it’s quite another to call a story good on the basis that it has furry characters and ignore any gaping plot holes, inconsistency, etc. We should strive to make good art; not settle because we might hurt someone’s feelings. I hate negative reviews as much as the next writer, but damn if I didn’t learn from some of them!
Critical reviews, not trolls. There’s a special circle in hell for troll reviewers. -_-
If we want reviewers to feel safe taking off the kid gloves, then I think we need to do a better job as a community of enforcing cultural standards about the taboo of authors arguing with negative reviews of their work.
If an author object to a negative review of their own work, I’d argue that the proper response is, “You really shouldn’t be commenting on that.” Any form of engagement – regardless of the content of the author’s objection – is tacit acceptance of the idea that authors are allowed to object to negative reviews.
[Edited to clarify that I’m talking about authors responding to reviews of their own work.]
If we want to invite reviewers in, then we need to be open to all kinds of reviews – brilliant in-depth analyses, one line statements of “I [loved/hated] it!”, and reviews that entirely miss the point.
If you don’t find a review useful, then don’t make decisions about whether to buy a book based on it. Also, don’t waste your time complaining about it. 'Cause we need reviews, and if we have a culture of complaining about them, then people will see that culture and not want to give reviews.