In which I list good reasons why authors shouldn’t, two reasons why I wish they would, and I admit to an excess of selfishness.
There is a prevailing opinion among authors and others in the literary community that asserts that authors should not respond to reviews.
This is certainly an understandable contention, for several reasons.
1. Authors have limited time to begin with, and responding to every review would take way too long.
I agree with this wholeheartedly. As a reader, I’d rather an author spend her/his time writing another novel, improving their craft, or simple working up a great piece of entertainment. I’d rather they spent their time completing interviews to explain their novel, writing essays on the writing craft, or whatever it pleases them to do with their talent.
2. Responses to trolls will get nowhere.
Due to the anonymous nature of the internet, people can really let opinions fly without regard for who they hurt. (I have made this mistake, and that is why I make sure my name is there for all the world to see – if I act as a troll, at least people know the name of the person who is such an idjit.) Any author’s defense of their work to a troll – like that guy/gal who really, really hates Brian Herbert and Kevin J. Anderson – will go nowhere, as that person does not want discussion, they just want to vent and the author is their chosen target. Perhaps their criticisms may be justified or even correct, but responding to “trolls” (usually anonymous, uncivil, and totally unyielding) isn’t worth the frustration. Justine Larbalestier eloquently points out that responding to “bad reviews” will get you nowhere. And she develops this argument in a subsequent post (with good quotes and links to others).
3. In some cases, it might be the wrong forum.
Just like those “authors” who get friends to write positive reviews on Amazon just to climb up the rankings (though I believe this is less effective now due to the new ranking system) so too would writing a response in the review section of your book be completely the wrong forum. This does not mean that an author could not take a negative review, excerpt it at their blog or website and then respond to it, but doing so at Amazon is probably the wrong forum. As evidence, I point to this lengthy and interesting post on someone who did just that in June of 2009.
4. Reviews are for readers, not for writers.
While writers may choose to use reviews to help them improve, ultimately, a review is meant for readers, as a help for them to decide whether to read a book or not. Since this is the intent or most reviews (we are not talking about critical analysis here, which is a whole different ball of wax), any author response can seem out of place.
5. The reviewer (or commenters) may misunderstand your response.
A written response does not always convey what you really meant to say. Verbal dialogue works best for the learning of literature (in the sense of thinking beyond your own preconceptions about a work). Since literature is subjective, a good face-to-face dialogue (where facial cues and body language can help a lot) is always preferable, in my opinion. This is not to say it cannot be done in written format, but it is certainly more difficult. And why would an author want to go to that hassle? Even if s/he does, as Philip Roth once did, it may not even be worth posting the response anyway, at least initially.
There are likely other reasons. These are the ones I have most often encountered. (If you have or know of others, please do leave them in the comments.)
I totally understand and agree with all these reasons NOT to respond to reviews.
BUT, I’m also disappointed that they don’t, and wish they would for two reasons:
1. Reviewers want to dialogue (though what they really want is #2).
Part of the joy of reviewing, for me, is the dialogue (both public and private) that I have had on occasion with authors. Literature, being a subjective discipline, is all about learning from one another, having differing opinions, learning and learning from those who would a point of view different from my own. In that same Philip Roth article above Harper’s contributing editor Wyatt Mason prefaces the posting of Roth’s letter by saying “Well, my sense remains that not only can one dispute taste without sounding defensive but, when driven to it by what one deems critical stupidity, one must. Not, of course, to the end of proving that one’s creative enterprise should be liked; rather, to the end of suggesting, to other readers of an unappreciative review, that the critic’s argument was misleading—a suggestion best made through a public, well-reasoned, well-argued rebuttal.”
Part of the reason I review science fiction and fantasy is because I want to dialogue about these books, as the American subculture which is a major part of my physical reality does not have very many readers of my favorite genre (or at least none that will out themselves to me). So I turned to the internet as an outlet for discussion the latest and greatest happenings in my favorite genre.
I want to have good dialogue like what happened a few years ago at Nethspace when the blogger talked about how he could not finish Carole McDonnell’s Wind Follower. At the first, the dialogue was great, talking about African-American fiction, the historical roots of the work, and the use of rape in fantasy. This early part of the conversation was what lovers of literature should be talking about. Sadly, a good conversation got a little snarky, and so it pretty much ended, as the commenters did not rise to the bait. This sparked a similar discussion to this essay, many bloggers and authors talking about this self-same topic.
But that early discussion was interesting to read and great learning opportunity for me (I had just really gotten going on this whole reviewing thing at the time). I learned a lot about my preconceptions and used that to question some of my thought processes and reviewing methods. Shouldn’t literature and its ensuing discussion do that?
Of course, that dialogue can occur without the authors. It is certainly not necessary for them to chime in at all. I think doing so gives the whole discussion a unique perspective that can be found nowhere else, but good conversation can (obviously) be had without an author.
Ultimately, I would like to see some authors taking the opportunity to train some of us reviewers by responding to our reviews. Yes, many of us are amateurs. Yes, you may not know us personally and so shouldn’t care (a la Scalzi). And yes, it might be a total waste of effort. But as a reviewer, I can tell you I crave it. I want to hear from you, even if all you do is say thank you (comments or private email). I really, really, really want to dialogue with you about what you liked or didn’t about my commentary. I want to be taught by those who are most likely smarter, skilled, and talented than I.
I’m being selfish, I know. I’m sorry. I know you have more important things to do. I know that asking for authors to respond to reviews is more about me needing validation than about any real desire for discussion. Yeah, let’s get it out there; let’s talk about the real reason reviewers want authors to respond.
2. Validation
The real reason that reviewers care so much about author responses is that we are seeking validation from you. It may be negative, it may be positive, but it sure does make us feel like we are important for a couple of seconds, an hour, or even a day. “Brandon Sanderson linked to my review of The Gathering Storm, he must like me!” Well, no, he doesn’t really even know who I am, but the link to my review made it round the internet and he decided to link to it on his blog. I felt validated. On another occasion, several contributors to an anthology I reviewed came by and said thanks in the comments. This was good marketing by the small press who published the novel, but it also made me feel good that day.
I think that is the real reason why so many reviewers want authors to respond to their reviews. We want that high we get that “an author I like/dislike noticed me! I have importance!”
When I began writing this essay, I wanted to make the argument that authors should respond to reviews. But now that I think more and more about that second reason why I want authors to respond to my reviews, I see more and more just how selfish and self-involved I am being. Sure, I like validation as much as the next guy, but if the act of reviewing isn’t enough for me, maybe I should get out of this gig. That I could be so self-absorbed and/or needy that I think an author should respond just to make me feel good is horrible. I’m sorry, authors, for even thinking I should argue that you should respond to reviews. I’d like to get the literary discussions going, and I would like to get validation, but I get it now. I get how selfish I am, and how you have gently tried to avoid calling me out on it by giving rational reasons for not responding to reviews.
Please do whatever you wish and I promise that I will be grateful for the responses I do get, enjoy any literary discussion or learning that may ensue, and look for my reviewing validation in more important things, such as the act of creating the review itself.
Paul Magrs had some great comments on his own blog about my review of his book, Conjugal Rites:
Another lovely review – NextRead has just covered ‘Conjugal Rites’… And I really like what he says about the way I don’t press the ‘reset’ button with each book. My characters have to live in the wake of decisions made… to me it’s a properly ongoing story, with repercussions and consequences.
“I have the feeling that Magrs doesn’t want to give Brenda and Effie an easy life nor does he seem to condone resetting events after a mystery is solved (I’ll have to ask him about that though).
“Events in this spooky mystery pick up from the very ominous ending of Something Borrowed…
“It’s not only Mr Danby, quite a few more of the supporting cast make a welcome, and in some cases an unwelcome, return. This is what I meant by not resetting events. The consequences of their previous choice and actions are continued. And those threads are cleverly tugged and pulled about, sometimes like heart strings, by Magrs.”
That’s perfectly balanced I think!
Here is the link to the review Gav mentions:
http://www.paulmagrs.com/blog/2009/11/forty.html
Due to an author comment in an original review of The Warded Man by Peter V. Brett Gav revisited his review to clarify a misconception:
Original: http://nextread.co.uk/2008/10/16/review-the-painted-man-by-peter-v-brett-harpervoyager/
New: http://nextread.co.uk/2009/03/01/repost-review-the-warded-man-by-peter-v-brett-del-rey/
This kind of think is why I like authors commenting, though of course it is up to their discretion.
Thanks for doing a much better job of that than me!
Brain is running on empty – wresting with NaNoWriMo plot and everything else is getting pushed out.
I’m interested to see what people think. This is the age where the barriers of communication are just a tweet or comment away.
Unfortunately things went much further downhill than is evident from what you linked and drew out for quite a while. I was glad when all ended and went away (hopefully this post doesn’t raise it from the dead).
Neth – I don’t think it will. It is a good exemplar but I’m sure no one wants to revisit that particular volume.
I also meant to mention the Alice Hoffman broohaha in the original post. GalleyCat has the story,
http://www.mediabistro.com/galleycat/lit_crit/alice_hoffman_is_ready_to_rumble_120199.asp
Getting into an argument over what people did or didn’t like is largely an exercise in futility (for anyone, though it often looks worse when authors do it). If the criticism is thoughtful and well-reasoned, it will likely look bad to respond. If the criticism isn’t reasonable, it’s probably a waste of time trying to engage the person making it.
On the other hand, I would draw a distinction between an author responding to an opinion he considers foolish or unreasonable and responding to objective errors of fact. If a reviewer criticizes some alleged historical or scientific inaccuracy that is in fact correct, or says the book is clearly intended as an allegory for such-and-such when it isn’t, or mistakenly concludes from the book that the author must believe or endorse this or that, a critical reply is more likely to be useful.
John M. – That is an excellent distinction and one which commentary on this issue does not often acknowledge.
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by johnottinger: NP: On the Opinion that Authors Should Not Respond to Reviews http://bit.ly/2yXUHh #scifi #fantasy…
Good discussion point, John. The technological age we’re moving through demands a reappraisal of the relative positions of author and reader or reviewer. It’s no longer a case where an author can sit on high, occasionally sending out their words of wisdom like the emperor flinging out bread to the poor. Increasingly, a book needs to be like an interactive dvd, with the author providing the story and then getting involving in the on-going commentary. It’s going to be increasingly expected by the readers in this new egalitarian world.
However, I’m not going to engage with someone who hates my work. Not because I can’t take criticism – I can, and seek out constructive criticism from reviewers I rate (some reviewers are like wise friends, some are like the drunks at the bar in the local pub, shouting out their views to anyone close enough – you soon know the ones you want to talk to, same as in the real world). But you’re not going to change their opinion, and if they don’t like what you write, they won’t be of the same mindset as you and there’s no fun in a dialogue.
And there’s the main point. This doesn’t have to be a chore. It should be fun for the author – talking about their work, discussing points and opposing views – because we’re all part of a community. Like you mention near the start of your piece, John – we probably won’t find like minds on the same street, but thanks to the net we don’t need to. Authors and reviewers are part of the same village, and neither should forget that. We exchange ideas, we argue and we have a beer afterward. That’s how it’s got to be from now on, and authors need to recognise that as much as anyone.
This idea that authors are somehow higher is so 20th century. They’re the bards of the community, doing a job, just one of the jobs in that community.
I’ve probably gone waay off topic here, but I wanted to pitch in with something that’s close to my heart.
And don’t beat yourself up about validation. If you didn’t want that, you’d be the weird outsider, and everybody else in the community would throw rotten fruit at you on the village green…
Mark- Thanks for the commentary (and good books worth reading, btw).
I like this notion you have of the aloof author as a twentieth century construct. As community changes, so do roles, if I get your meaning, and so the author can move with it, being closer to her/his readers than ever before.
And I think your point about engaging those critics and readers whom you respect is a good idea to an extent. However, I would hate for an author to accidentally create a community of yes-men. (I don’t think you are arguing for that, I just think it is all to easy for that to happen unintentionally.)
PLUG BEGINS:
I was reading a fun short story in THE TROUBLE WITH HEROES called “Ballad of the Groupie Everlasting” by Robert Jeschonek that illustrates this in a humorous way.
PLUG OVER
Do you think that just as an author should engage those s/he respects, that there is a tendency to listen only to the yes-men (unless your psyche loves a challenge)?
What should an author do to avoid that tendency?
I don’t think there are very many yes-men, to be honest (though there are some no-men). Most reviewers I encounter have strong opinions and personalities, or they wouldn’t do what they do. The respect, or my respect, doesn’t come from whether they like my work or not, but how they approach the matter of reviewing. Then, if they point out areas of improvement, you take it on board, learn and grow.
If somebody is shouting at you, you have no yardstick to judge their views so there’s nothing to learn.
I tend to link to reviews of my books on my livejournal when I see them, sometimes with a little comment like “this guy hated it” or “this reviewer really saw what I was doing”. I don’t see that as “responding” in a bad way. What I feel authors shouldn’t do is get into arguments with reviewers by correcting their errors and misconceptions. It’s really tempting sometimes — I could give examples at great length — but it’s really a bad idea.
Jo – I really think you are taking the high road in your method. You link to even the bad reviews and don’t even make a judgement call, just a succinct statment of the facts as presented. I think that is a very professional thing to do. I wouldn’t say an author has to do as Jo does, but she certainly is a good example to follow.
Another reason to contact a reviewer–
The review gives away, often inadvertently, a major plot point or the ending. For liquid media like the Internet, the review can be changed so anti-spoiler readers don’t go after the reviewer’s head.
Marilynn, good point. As a reviewer I would never intentionally give away too much, but it does happen every so often.
I’d appreciate it if authors did so for me (publically or privately).
“Any author’s defense of their work to a troll – like that guy/gal who really, really hates Brian Herbert and Kevin J. Anderson – will go nowhere, as that person does not want discussion, they just want to vent and the author is their chosen target.”
Well, I can’t imagine that you could possibly have been referring to me with that, but just in case you were … NICE!
@ghostfinder on twitter pointed me to this hilarious use of bad reviews by author Brad Meltzer.
He gets kids and the elderly to say what the press said about his book THE BOOK OF LIES.
What an honest article! I second everything you say. I love it when authors respond to my reviews. But to be honest, I love it when anyone takes the trouble to comment on my reviews. That the readers find my reviews valuable is what makes me feel validated. Author comments are come nice icing on the cake, though!
Very nice information in this book.
This is interesting: what’s the best way for an author to comment on or join the discussion about their work – as, despite the negative examples you refer to, this is still desirable. Taking issue with perceived negative reviews clearly isn’t a particularly good way to do this and I think in fact there are plenty of other ways for an author to respond – personal correspondance with a reviewer or fan, writing an article about their book (could be a foreword or afterword to a future edition!), author blogs or guest posts on other blogs, face to face discussions at conventions, letters to fanzines etc. that might be much more rewarding for everyone.
Something that also occurs is the levels of reflection: taking the article in Dear Author that you link to, the author in question is reviewing the Amazon review of her novel; Jane at Dear Author is reviewing both the review and the review of the review; your post (and my comments!) are two further levels of reflection – so you can lose sight of the original book and the discussion of the ideas in it. That might be one guide as to whether further discussion is helpful or not.
[...] Peter V. Brett responds to negative review of The Warded Man Dec 24th, 2009 by John Ottinger III. If you have been reading this blog for the past month or so, you may remember my long essay where I opined on the subject of authors responding to book reviews. [...]