![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I have really enjoyed reading the answers and discussion to my question about what people think about writers linking to reviews on their blogs (or, I suppose, on social media in general). I have several opinions about this, which I'm mostly not going to talk about right now.
One thing I have noted recently is how many book bloggers there are these days and how book blogs are a relatively new and quite wonderful way in which like-minded readers can discuss the books they love and hate with other readers.
I have reservations about writers entering these discussions as it seems to me to perhaps break a wall that might be better left in place--that behind which the readers can discuss a work feeling able to say exactly what they wish without regard for the feelings of the author. Yet I also know that the new social media is changing rapidly the larger web of interactions in ways we obviously can't predict or control. Which is neither good nor bad, it just is. What I would guess this means is that different people will have different expectations and desires about how interactive the entire circular process should get.
I do read reviews and look for them. I work so much in isolation that as far as I know, the books are wandering in total solitude out in the world, too. Reviews give me a periscope.
Naturally I am pleased by the positive reviews, because it is nice to know the book is working for someone.
Thoughtful mixed reviews I often find quite valuable. A reader who likes and seems to "get" some aspects of a book but has reservations about others may sometimes (not always) be able to articulate a lacking element that may perhaps be something I'm already gnawing over or which, upon reading the review, I think might be worth gnawing over. Such reviews can be a bit of a craft check.
I do not see many solely negative reviews (my favorite is still "Kate Elliott writes fantasy for the brain dead"), and I have to admit that while quotes from these may stick in my brain forever (oh, wait, here's another one: "Why did you have to kill [redacted]? He is the only reason I read your very boring and too long books."), they usually aren't helpful to me in any way. A reader who really hates one of my books probably is the wrong reader for my books, or s/he may wish I were writing a book I am not writing and have no intention of writing (I recall a review for my first novel in which the reviewer essentially said that I ought to have written a different book than I one I wrote, a book the reviewer would have wanted me to write). Very rarely, on a couple of occasions, reviewers have written very insulting things (the "brain dead" comment I don't actually consider insulting; I think it's just funny)--'insulting' in this case being to impute my motives as writer and human being and believing the reviewer knows something about me they do not in fact know. Such a review can take me a week to shake off, that is, to let go of (I've yet to have a review stop me from writing for even an hour, though).
You note here that I wrote one sentence on positive reviews, three on mixed reviews, and considerably more on negative reviews. Interesting, isn't it?
As in life in general, I think we work harder to absorb the criticism than the praise, or we may even believe the criticism is more meaningful or fairly earned than praise. It can be hard to accept praise as much as it can be dangerous to uncritically absorb praise to the exclusion of other talk. In some cases we may be socialized to dismiss praise of ourselves and reflect or amplify criticism.
And add to all that, that as a writer I am to some degree heavily self absorbed, so I feel I must always be cautious. My general rule of thumb is to take things with a grain of salt, try to remain open to my flaws, but not to short sell or denigrate myself either. It's a tricky balance for me, and I suspect for many others as well.
So, if you are a writer, do you read reviews of your work or do you avoid them?
I should note that, as always, I ask questions because I am truly interested in hearing people's opinions, not because I need validation or to be told what to think or because I don't know or to shore up my point of view or to tear down someone else's.
See, you people are just so interesting that I can't stop asking you questions to hear what you have to say.
One thing I have noted recently is how many book bloggers there are these days and how book blogs are a relatively new and quite wonderful way in which like-minded readers can discuss the books they love and hate with other readers.
I have reservations about writers entering these discussions as it seems to me to perhaps break a wall that might be better left in place--that behind which the readers can discuss a work feeling able to say exactly what they wish without regard for the feelings of the author. Yet I also know that the new social media is changing rapidly the larger web of interactions in ways we obviously can't predict or control. Which is neither good nor bad, it just is. What I would guess this means is that different people will have different expectations and desires about how interactive the entire circular process should get.
I do read reviews and look for them. I work so much in isolation that as far as I know, the books are wandering in total solitude out in the world, too. Reviews give me a periscope.
Naturally I am pleased by the positive reviews, because it is nice to know the book is working for someone.
Thoughtful mixed reviews I often find quite valuable. A reader who likes and seems to "get" some aspects of a book but has reservations about others may sometimes (not always) be able to articulate a lacking element that may perhaps be something I'm already gnawing over or which, upon reading the review, I think might be worth gnawing over. Such reviews can be a bit of a craft check.
I do not see many solely negative reviews (my favorite is still "Kate Elliott writes fantasy for the brain dead"), and I have to admit that while quotes from these may stick in my brain forever (oh, wait, here's another one: "Why did you have to kill [redacted]? He is the only reason I read your very boring and too long books."), they usually aren't helpful to me in any way. A reader who really hates one of my books probably is the wrong reader for my books, or s/he may wish I were writing a book I am not writing and have no intention of writing (I recall a review for my first novel in which the reviewer essentially said that I ought to have written a different book than I one I wrote, a book the reviewer would have wanted me to write). Very rarely, on a couple of occasions, reviewers have written very insulting things (the "brain dead" comment I don't actually consider insulting; I think it's just funny)--'insulting' in this case being to impute my motives as writer and human being and believing the reviewer knows something about me they do not in fact know. Such a review can take me a week to shake off, that is, to let go of (I've yet to have a review stop me from writing for even an hour, though).
You note here that I wrote one sentence on positive reviews, three on mixed reviews, and considerably more on negative reviews. Interesting, isn't it?
As in life in general, I think we work harder to absorb the criticism than the praise, or we may even believe the criticism is more meaningful or fairly earned than praise. It can be hard to accept praise as much as it can be dangerous to uncritically absorb praise to the exclusion of other talk. In some cases we may be socialized to dismiss praise of ourselves and reflect or amplify criticism.
And add to all that, that as a writer I am to some degree heavily self absorbed, so I feel I must always be cautious. My general rule of thumb is to take things with a grain of salt, try to remain open to my flaws, but not to short sell or denigrate myself either. It's a tricky balance for me, and I suspect for many others as well.
So, if you are a writer, do you read reviews of your work or do you avoid them?
I should note that, as always, I ask questions because I am truly interested in hearing people's opinions, not because I need validation or to be told what to think or because I don't know or to shore up my point of view or to tear down someone else's.
See, you people are just so interesting that I can't stop asking you questions to hear what you have to say.
