Furry Writers' Guild Forum

The Role of Criticism Within Furry

General Writing Discussion
#101
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.

This is true, yet it seems throughout this thread we keep pointing back at one single example of this happening. Nobody’s brought up any others, and that one example is apparently so shocking we’re talking about it years later–which suggests to me that it’s already outside our cultural norm. Is it possible that in practice very few furry authors publicly shout J’ACCUSE! when they get bad reviews?

Again, I’m being a little contrarian not because I want to encourage authors to publicly challenge bad reviews–I don’t–but because there’s an undercurrent in this thread of “reviewers are all fragile flowers.” I sure hope they aren’t. They’re putting their opinions on the internet, a venue in which people have been known to start arguments. You know how I’ll know when Claw & Quill starts having actual influence? When people start showing up to tell me I’m a flaming idiot because I failed to give a resounding five-star review to their favorite book. It will be awesome.

#102

It may be one example from years ago, but it’s an ongoing example. She’s still arguing with that review. That means we, as a group, are willing to tolerate an author complaining about a review of her book publicly for years without collectively shouting at her to shut up.

#103

Or, I mean, getting someone to quietly take her aside and politely explain that she’s breaking a taboo and needs to stop. You know, whatever would be kinder/more effective.

#104

Some of you may have already seen it, but Kyell Gold has published a counterpoint of sorts over on [adjective][species]:

http://adjectivespecies.com/2015/05/09/the-role-of-reviews-in-furry-another-perspective/

Kyell’s point is similar to Phil’s: reviews don’t appear to be really that important when it comes to book sales. Kyell suggests from his experiences as a writer and as a former market researcher that word-of-mouth is the key factor in encouraging sales.

#105

A side bar: because this is what I do for a living…

I also find it hard to credit that the manager would not be aware of the name of the company working on his building’s HVAC system.
Yes, actually. these days its true that they might not know the name of the HVAC company. In chain stores especially. I know it's not your story, but so far it's really the only thing I could comment on from my actual experience. I need to get out more.
#106

No offense meant to Kyell, but I tend to take all that with a grain of salt, since he’s more of a statistical outlier than the average furry writer. It’s fine to encourage your fans to talk about your books, and word of mouth is best, but most of us are still working to build small fanbases, and I think reviews do help with that visibility, even if it’s just a tiny part of the whole process.

Edited to add: Which it looks like is what JM has already pointed out in his comment on (a)(s), now that I read that. XD

#107

Adding my perspective as a bookseller, Kyell’s post is accurate. I often hear from customers at cons that they’ve heard about a book from friends so they pick it up. I’ve also seen customer reviews on various sites which say the same.

Other factors such as species of main character (we get asked for books with X animal a lot) and “if you liked this, try this” recommendations are also true. At cons personal recommendations, including from sales staff, carry a lot of weight.

Popularity helps once you have it, but Kyell didn’t just arrive on the scene popular so I don’t think the various comments about him being an outlier are really helpful. Anyone can build an audience, it just takes time, perseverance, and writing stories which connect with readers.

My two cents on the role of criticism in furry. If you’re talking about reviews written on a review/news site, then their role is not important as far as impacting book sales. We haven’t had a single sale linked from Flayrah.com after years of reviews being posted there.

I think about what I do as a reader, how I pick books when they aren’t written by friends. I’ve read reviews of what friends have read on Goodreads and have picked up a couple of book recommendations there. The rest of the time if I buy online from Amazon, I read the user reviews. I don’t go seeking out so-called professional reviews on magazine sites like Publisher’s Weekly. I look for topics or genres I’m interested in and read the use feedback. Also, the “if you liked this, then try this” feature on most websites is handy for that too.

I’m sure this is even more true of book buying in our niche community. Readers don’t go to the news/review sites and read reviews to help them pick a new book to read. These sites either don’t have communities interested in supporting furry writing or don’t have a large readership. This problem is further multiplied every time someone decides to start a new site rather than contributing to an existing one or posting their own reviews on established platforms.

When the advice is given that authors need reviews, what that means is getting your readers to write reviews and post them on the sites selling the books. This creates a community of your readers and advises potential readers what they might find in a book. With a small number of reviews, the concern is that one 1-star review will badly sway the overall impression so you need a lot of reviews. When signing copies of Deathless, Graveyard Greg implored every customers to post a review on FurPlanet if they enjoyed the book. The result is Deathless has more reviews than any other book on our site.

In short, professional reviews on review and news websites are useless for selling books.
Word of mouth and personal reviews on sales sites have the most impact on book sales.

That is of course, excluding elements of the book itself. Things like cover art, blurb, etc.

#108

I spend so much time on “My Recommendations” at Amazon…

I agree completely as, even with movies, I prefer to see a collection of scores rather than a single “professional” review. However, I think “professional” reviews (as I imagine the Flayrah reviews are meant to be) serve a legitimizing purpose within fandom writing and publishing. Professional reviews, rather than customer reviews, do a lot for “legitimizing” to the “mainstream” and thus normalize. As fandom writers and publishers we are outliers and while we may not need to legitimize or justify what we do among ourselves, it is necessary if we want to be seen as professionals outside the fandom. As much as I wish it were otherwise, the reason we write, publish, and sell stories is all a means of seeking some sort of validation. We want our work to be economically and culturally valuable. I think professional reviews serve that purpose more than effecting sales.

I think the importance of this kind of “mainstream” means of validation, at least economically speaking, will slowly fade away as alternative avenues open up and the fandom grows. Personally, I love the idea of being paid to write rather than paid for a specific product. Still, professional reviews will remain a part of cultural validation because to get one, good or bad, is already a sign of (sub)cultural importance.

#109
If you're talking about reviews written on a review/news site, then their role is not important as far as impacting book sales. We haven't had a single sale linked from Flayrah.com after years of reviews being posted there.

I think it’s worth exploring how you can determine that. You’ve mentioned this before and always used the word “link,” and I think you may even explicitly said you’re talking about link referrals. That’s a very (ahem) fuzzy measure, though: it only counts anyone who reads the review and immediately clicks on the link from the review to buy the book right then.

If they come back a week later – or even an hour later – to the FurPlanet site directly? You can’t associate that to the review.

If they buy the ebook, even at Bad Dog Books? You can’t associate that to the review.

If they see the book at a con and think “Oh, yeah, I read a positive review of that,” and don’t happen to mention that’s how they found it when they hand their money to you? You can’t associate that to the review.

I certainly wouldn’t argue that there are dozens of sales driven by Fred’s reviews, or mine, or anyone else’s, that you’re missing. :slight_smile: But I wouldn’t be surprised if there are at least a few sales you’ve made over the years influenced by reviews that simply aren’t that easily tracked. I know that my own book buying habits are influenced by reviews to some degree; the best book I’ve read so far this year was The First Fifteen Lives of Harry August and I found it because reviewers were talking about it. I’ve found music through reviews. If I’m on the fence about a movie, checking a few reviews may well push me to one side or another.

Between “my friend said he liked thing X” and “this guy on a blog said he liked thing X” and “this reviewer on Amazon said he liked thing X” and “the critic in F&SF said he liked thing X,” it’s “this reviewer on Amazon” who’s the least trustworthy out of that set; we’re essentially betting that if there are enough reviews on Amazon, the aggregate will be a reliable indicator. This sort of works, but only sort of. Niche stuff – like furry – is likely to have inflated ratings due to the “it has a skunk, five stars” syndrome that Kyell talked about. From a publisher/author standpoint, that’s awesome. From the standpoint of a reader who will not buy solely based on his fursona species, it’s not so helpful. I don’t actually care that it has a skunk (or even coyote). If I don’t get a recommendation directly from a friend, I’m going to want a good, well-written review – or better yet two or three. I’ll take the ones on Amazon, but I will also Google “[title of thing] review.”

Maybe I’m an outlier. (It wouldn’t be the first time, let me tell you.) But the evidence from my site analytics is that there’s a hundred regular readers or so down with following a furry-specific review site. It’s not a huge audience, but it’s still an audience – and it’s my suspicion that even a hundred people who have implicitly declared themselves to be readers of furry fiction are kind of a big deal give the sales numbers most furry authors have.

Beyond that, there’s a question about whether the sole purpose of reviews is to drive sales. If that were really what it was all about, then why are so many authors in this thread worried that reviewers are afraid to be critical? If reviews are only there to drive sales, we shouldn’t want negative reviews! A culture that supports well-written, thoughtful reviews is arguably a culture that supports elevating the overall quality of furry fiction. I’d love to start seeing books from Sofawolf and FurPlanet get noticed in Locus. I’d love to see them on non-furry recommended reading lists. And I’d like JM to eventually find a furry book that blows his socks off, and not because his socks are unusually loose that day.

#110

FuzzWolf, thanks for your interesting perspective. As someone who is (merely) a reader, I’m fascinated by the writing & publication process.

As a publisher, I imagine that, once you have a completed book that you have deemed worthy of your time and money, an important part of your role is to help with publicity. You mentioned that good recommendations at dealer tables are important, and of course there are lots of social things you do like the website, twitter feeds, and engaging with people on forums like this one. But what else? I’m sure there is a lot of work that isn’t immediately obvious to an outside observer.

#111

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.[/quote]

You’re missing the point here. Troll reviewers are the ones that say a story sucks simply to get a rise out of anyone. Nobody needs that crap, and we do not need to be open to it. It’s fine to miss the point and fine to dislike a story, but it’s quite another thing to be inflammatory. See youtube comments for examples.

#112

I’ve presented most of my thoughts on this in the [adj.][species] article comments but I mostly agree with Chipotle. Treating reviewers like pieces of glass is, in a way, infantilizing them, which ironically both coddles reviewers and implicitly disrespects them. I think insular reviewing hubs can have the same problem as, well, insular writing communities. The internet is not a stagnant pond-- and ripples are stronger in niche spaces. Both reviewers and writers need to realize they are putting their words in public, and they do not exist in a vacuum.

Rick from House Pets pointed out that independent authors (which, most of us in furry writing will spend some time being) often have to be both agent and writer, as opposed to a publishing house where a writer’s PR is handled by somebody with that job. So, often, furry writers must have two skill sets and two different ways of handling their work in public.

I think reviewers build their own reputation just as writers do with the consistency and the quality of their work. Claw and Quill produces strong reviews dependably and I go to them first when I want to gauge whether or not I’d be interested in something, and that’s a dependability that they’ve earned over time. I think it’s worth it to interact and appreciate reviewers who do good work in a small fandom.

However, when it comes to “here is a collective hub of reviewers that are interested in pushing a specific genre away” it’s going to be noticed over time, and authors and readers will assuredly comment and have input. (And yes, at least one member of Flayrah has been very transparent about disrespecting adult works and its authors to the point where it can’t be ignored any longer.) I think in this case polite disagreement should be open and welcome. However, in even more colorful cases, if we are going to talk about keeping a reviewer culture from being toxic, Ryffnah, we absolutely should not be permissive of chan culture or open disrespect, or we’ll just end up with our own version of the Sad Puppies, and I’d rather be preventative.