I'm Not Saying I Condone It, But I Understand

(Image courtesy http://xkcd.com)

by J.D. Rhoades

By now I'm sure you've heard the story:

A lady named  Deborah Anne McGillivray  writes a romance series about beautiful hot blooded noblewomen with names like  Aithinne and  Tamlyn and studly Knights with names like 'The Black Dragon" and such as that. Not my usual cuppa, but that's not important to this story.

After reading the second book in the series, a reader named Reba Belle goes to Amazon.com and writes a three star review, which is actually pretty mild. I mean, check it out...we've all had worse.

Ms. McGillivray (hereinafter referred to as DAM) makes her first mistake. She goes on the Amazon.com site and starts arguing with Reba in the comments.

Now, I mean, really. What is the point of that? Does DAM expect Reba to suddenly have a Road to Damascus moment and go "Holy Shit! You're right! This book is the greatest work of literature in the English language!" Ain't gonna happen, ma'am, sorry.

Then, things go from odd to bizarre. DAM apparently writes to her Highland Press author group and claims to have, and I quote,  Reba's "name, her husband’s name, her children's names, her grannies and great grannies name. Her address phone number and email lol - quite interesting." She demands that other group members "vote this bitch down", i.e. rate her review as "abusive", which apparently causes Amazon to auto-delete them without even reading them.

Okay, so there can be no mistake and no misinterpretation of what I'm about here, let me state some things which I consider absolutely without question: DAM may be a lovely woman if you meet her in person, but what she did  was freaking psychotic. If someone flames you on the Internet, it's a natural reaction to hit back. God knows I've done it enough. But searching out someone's personal info and threatening to use it against them over a lukewarm book review is nuts. Cuckoo. Bat-shit crazy.

I mean, I'm not saying collecting someone's personal info is always wrong, but that sort of thing should be saved for when someone's threatening or harassing you or your friends. I'm just saying.

See, here's the thing: I know there are some readers who sincerely just don't care for a book, and they and their opinions  deserve to be treated with respect. But (and I know there are certain elements who are going to flame me for this) there are some people out there in the Interwebs who are just nucking futs--insane dysfunctional  geeks who are going to hate you for obscure reasons, no matter what, and who are going to post the meanest thing they can think of because their anonymity keeps them from getting a bop in the nose. How do you tell the difference?

Obviously, the best response is to play it safe. Assume everyone you see is sane and sincere. Say "thank you for your input," if you say anything at all, and move on. I also try to hold in my head certain basic principles:

Whatever you do, somebody isn’t going to like it.
The Internet gives everyone who has access to it a voice.
People who are angry, disgruntled, or, as I said,  just plain nuts are more likely to write about it, especially on the Internet.
Therefore, you can expect more bad Internet reviews than good ones. If you’re getting more good than bad, you’re beating the odds. Rejoice.

At least that's what I try to do. But what is it about Internet reviews that makes it so hard to resist the temptation to bite back?  Patricia Cornwell once asked her fans via her website to go to Amazon and post positive reviews because, she said, "she had reason to suspect that someone (or a group of someones) might be mobilizing people to attack me through Amazon and Barnes and Noble, etc., to hurt my sales and reputation." Said someone or group of someones, she hypothesized, might include the Bush Administration and the Billy Graham family (with whom she'd been friends for years). Uhhh...what? A few years ago, Anne Rice stirred up a fuss by not only responding, but by posting her home address on Amazon.com and offering a cash refund to Amazon reviewers who didn't like BLOOD CANTICLE. Now, I'll grant that it's got to be pretty hard not to want to respond to reviews with titles like "What's that I smell? Another piece of first draft drivel?" and "I WANT TO BURN THIS THING!" But posting your home address--well, see "nucking futs," above.

In the long run, it's just not smart to attempt to bite back. As Tess Gerritsen recently discovered to her chagrin, there's a certain subset of bloggers, reviewers and commenters  for whom every amateur review, blog post or comment, no matter how wrongheaded  it may be, is above questioning by the ink-stained wretch who spent months of his or her life creating the work. If said wretch doesn't just grin and bear it, or if, like Tess, they even make a joke about it, they're alleged to be "demeaning and offensive to readers" and/or they're accused of  thinking readers "are smart enough to spend money on your books but not smart enough to offer reasoned critiques."

It's an odd form of reverse elitism where everyone can comment except the author who wrote the work , but there you are. The customer may not always be right, but that's the way to treat 'em.

One issue this raises, though, is:  if  the Amazon review and rating system is apparently so easily gamed, is it of any use any more? If you can mobilize a relatively small number of your buddies to take down bad reviews, or conversely to flood the place with good ones, of what use are they? (Not that I'm trying to discourage my friends from going to Amazon or Barnes and Noble and saying lovely things about my books, mind you. If and only if, the spirit moves you, please, feel free, and do so with my thanks).

All that said, I bet we're all still going to read them.

So how about you? Writers, do some of your Amazon or other Internet reviews make you want to hunt the reviewer down and bop them right in the nose? Have you ever had trouble resisting the temptation to at least post back? Is that from sincere respect for others' opinions or fear of retaliation?

And readers, knowing what you know now, do you really put any stock in Amazon reviews anymore?

Comments

[Mark Terry]

"she had reason to suspect that someone (or a group of someones) might be mobilizing people to attack me through Amazon and Barnes and Noble, etc., to hurt my sales and reputation."

I believe this is called The Hillary Effect. The thing about Cornwall that struck me as odd was how she seemed to start displaying the symptoms of paranoia even earlier than that. I've always thought one of the key elements of paranoia was megalomania--I'm at the center of the universe, which is why everyone is out to get me.

Anyway, the internet has allowed every whacko to have a voice and engaging with them only encourages it.

[Doug Riddle]

Dusty, great take on what has been a very sad episode.

I have kids who play sports and I always tell them....."Don't argue calls with an Ump or Ref. Have you ever seen them change a call because someone agrued with them? No. If you argue then the next questionable call will go against you for sure." Sometimes you just have to bite your lip and walk away, because no matter what you say it is only going to make things worse. There are too many nuts in the world and they all have internet access.

As for Amazon, does anyone with half a brain really see their reviews as anything other then personal opinion poles? I mean on any given book you have reviews ranging from..."My third-grader could do better"....to "This book changed my life." The only real reason to read Amazon's reviews is to get Harriet's synopsis' of the plot.

[Kay]

Well, for me (a reader), I take everything with a grain of salt. I use Amazon to get a feel for what people are saying or, quite frankly, as a database for my patrons' questions sometimes, but I figure the reviews are just opinions like the reviews on my blog. And, the episode you related (which is flying around the blogging world) is just plain crazy.

I say to the author in question, "SERENITY NOW!".

[Kaye Barley]

Dusty, can we say "Holy Shit" here? We can? Cool! That is exactly what I said when I first heard about all this. Without getting into how bizarre this whole thing is, I'll stick with just answering your question regarding feelings about amazon reviews. I haven't read an amazon review in years. Actually, I don't read too many reviews at all. I will read what I think of as "opinions," if they're written by someone I find to be fair minded.

[Wilfred Bereswill]

Dusty, Great post.

I hang out on a few discussion groups and I've seen my share of internet bullies. I have a mental image of them and it's not flattering.

That said, in reality, it's an impossible fight. No win situation. Of course, I'm wondering how I'll react to my first bad review when my book hits the shelves. I'm a realist, I know it will happen.

On B&N and Amazon, I do read reviews of books I intend on buying. Being an engineer, I employ my own statistical sampling. I throw out the highs and lows and take some stock in the middle ones.

[toni mcgee causey]

I come from the screenwriting world, where it was just as common to get comments like, "Oh, we love it, it's absolutely wonderful, but can you make the woman a horse and maybe this could be a fantasy and why not have a talking squirrel as a narrator? But other than that, we totally love your dark, twisted, military thriller."

So maybe I just expected there to never be a consensus of opinion. I don't think any book is capable of generating 100% consensus anyway. The rare time I was bothered was when a reviewer went to the trouble of trashing me, personally, and then said a lot of things about the book which were completely wrong (factually wrong, not an opinion about it), and so clearly, he just either didn't like me or didn't like that type of book. But in the long run, I look back and sort of shrug. I did not write an easy-to-love character. I wrote someone who polarizes people in her own life, so I anticipated--long before publication--that there would be readers polarized, and that's what I'd prefer. I'd rather that than a lukewarm response. And as much as it would be grand for everyone to love me and my book, that's never going to happen. Some people are vocal about the negatives. Some are vocal about the positives. I have books on my shelf which have gotten the "eh, I don't get it," response all the way to me wanting to throw it against the wall because the author broke what I felt was the author/reader contract (bullshit, deus ex machina endings, etc.), and if I have the right to dislike things, I have to grant that to everyone else. But hell, I'm just glad people are reading and caring enough to contribute to the discussion.

[Alexandra Sokoloff]

I've never understood why people bother to trash a book they don't like. If I don't like something, I STOP READING - I don't waste my time finishing and then prolonging the experience even further by writing about it.

So my guess is that even a bad review means that the book had some kind of power over the person who's taking the trouble to write the bad review. Otherwise, why on earth would they bother?

[Bill Cameron]

WordPress wouldn't let me sign on at Tess's site for some reason, but sign me up as a Flying Monkey, plz.

[Stacey Cochran]

I just don't understand why people like that get published, while other folks who would be professional and supportive of other writers (and who would most definitely start throwing keg parties at Bouchercon every year) are left standing with ten unpublished manuscripts in hand.

I'm serious about the keg party, folks. If I had a major book deal, I'd rent out the local tavern and get everyone drunk.

And film the whole damn thing for TV with footage of me holding your book while you do a keg stand.

[patty smiley]

I avoid reading reviews online even my own--good or bad. For me, ignorance is bliss.

[Graham]

Here's another cartoon that may explain this phenomenon (not-safe-for-work language):

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19/

[Louise Ure]

Oh, Dusty, you hit a hot button there, didn't you? Yeah, I read all the reviews. And sometimes I die a little. I've even gone so far as to click on the offensive reviewer's name to read other posts he's done, trying to convince myself that this person ONLY writes negative reviews. Most of the time I'm right.

[JT Ellison]

I have a very strict rule when it comes to reviews. If I believe the good ones, I must believe the bad ones. Which gives me the freedom to learn from the bad, rejoice over the good, and move on. The very first review I ever received was so horrible, I think it inured me to the rest. Like Toni, you stop and wonder where you met this anonymous person and what you might have done to wrong them so terribly that they want to lash out at you. But that's just us writers and our pre-Copernican belief system. We slave over something and if someone says it sucks, that sucks.

But even the best writers get bad reviews. It's life. You can't be universally liked as a person, you can't be universally liked as a writer. But getting a reviewer's personal information and publicly threatening them??? That is so far beyond the pale that it should be criminal.

And the cyber bully's are fed by reaction. Another Ellisonism -- the best way to frustrate a bully is to ignore them. Trust me, it drives them mad.

[Zoë Sharp]

Hi Dusty

I sometimes think there's a lot to be said for the period of reflection generated by having to type a letter, print it out, stick it in an envelope and walk it to the postbox. Typing in anger and hitting the Send key with a defiant flourish might be very satisfying at the time, but it soon leads to that dreadful cold feeling that you've just done something really really stupid ...

I get my Other Half to vet any reviews because I totally believe the bad ones, just as I totally disbelieve the good ones. The only ones that annoy me, though, are the ones that get their facts wrong - even down to character names and plot points. That and the spoilers. I had one review that completely gave away a vital part of the plot of one book, which was extremely frustrating, as the comment served no real purpose in the context of the review. But, I agree that biting your lip and walking away is always the best option - particularly when your adversary is lurking in the shadows of cyberspace.

[Amanda Stevens]

I tried to game the system on Amazon once when I got a really nasty review. I asked my daughter to post a glowing one to counter. Five years later, I'm still waiting for that glowing review.

J.D., I love the cartoon you posted because that was pretty much the scene around here last night when I stumbled across Tess's blog. I couldn't go to bed until I'd caught up on all the drama on the Internets.

[Doug Riddle]

JT, gosh is that ever the truth. Just think back to being a kid, which ones of us weren't told that the only reason someone, usually a sibling, was picking at us was to get a reaction.

This issue has brought up a quesiton for me about blogging and the ongoing flame wars that start from time to time.......Why don't more Blog-Owners just delete comments that they can see were only posted to enflame? This isn't a free-speach issue, the Blog-owner gets to make the rules. It kind of reminds me of the bartender's maxim...Be Nice, Or Be Gone. I know of at least one blog that most of us visit that has done that to calm things down.

[JT Ellison]

Doug, the only time I'm comfortable deleting a comment is when the author of said comment is personally insulting the blog author. Otherwise, we here at Murderati tend to chastise and point out that every one is entitled to their opinion.

Does that mean I haven't been tempted to cut a swath??? Nope. But the risk we run by blogging, by giving our opinions freely to any and all, is that those opinions won't be shared by everyone. I've actually got a post for Friday that I'm concerned about, but I think the message is valuable enough that I'm willing to take the risk.

[Naomi]

If you think online anonymous reviews for books are bad, how about for restaurants? Hotels? Hairdressers?

Teachers are getting reviewed online. So are doctors. Pretty soon children will be reviewing their parents on the Internet.

As a consumer, I usually knock out the worst and the best. Sometimes that works, sometimes it doesn't. After a book that I've written has been out for a few months, I stop reading the Amazon reviews. They are just not that helpful to me as a writer.

[Alexandra Sokoloff]

JT, you're such a tease. Not even a hint?

[tess gerritsen]

Dusty,
I think the frustration a lot of writers feel about anonymous bad reviews is that we ourselves are not, and cannot be, anonymous, and thus we're readily available for anyone's target practice. Sure, we're "public figures", but the nature of many writers, I think, is that we aren't extroverts. We don't feel comfortable as public figures. We just want to hide in our offices and write stories and stay away from large crowds. (well, I'm just talking about myself here. Which may explain why I live in Maine.)

Then our book gets published and we're thrust out into the public eye and, to our horror, anyone can pelt us while concealing themselves in the invisibility cloak of anonymity.

Because of this anonymity, 99% of the time, the rocks go in only direction -- AT the author, not from the author. But then you get that one example of it going the other way and it becomes a man-bites-dog story, and suddenly everyone's upset about all the nutty authors who abuse readers.
When the opposite happens far more often.

[JDRhoades]

Kaye,as far as I'm concerned, you can say any damn thing you want, including but not limited to "Holy shit."

Toni: who was trashing you personally? Who!? I want names. Lemme at 'em! I'll moiderize 'em!

As some of you have learned, the way to really get my dander up is to trash my friends :-)

Bill: the little hats and red and gold vests for Tess' Flying Monkeys are on order.

Graham: I LOVE that cartoon!

Ah, JT, but if you're ignoring the bully on line, there's no way to KNOW that you're driving them mad...and what fun is that?

[Becky LeJeune]

Wow, I'm not even sure how to comment on this one, but I feel compelled to.

I write reviews, not for an esteemed newspaper, but for a site that gets great traffic and has a strong following. I've been doing them for just over two years and I agonize over every single review, both the good ones and the bad ones. Fortunately, I get to pick the books that I review and, as I am a fairly eclectic reader, I am usually pretty pleased with my selections.

There have been some horrible ones, and there have been some lukewarm ones, of course. I feel absolutely awful about writing a bad review. But, the question becomes this, if I take into account how the author will feel when I write this review, would I be doing the readers justice by being dishonest with them? Do I have readers who seek out my reviews? I honestly don't know.

I enjoy writing reviews just as much as I enjoyed introducing readers to new authors as a bookseller. My goal is not to convince anyone NOT to read a book, but to earn their trust so that if I say something is great they will give it a shot. Unfortunately that means that I have to be totally honest in every regard - something I try very hard to do even when I dislike a book. I am not a reviewer who feels that their opinion is the end all and be all on a subject. I can see that a book has merit and will have an audience even if I dislike it and I definitely take that into account when writing a review.To think that a bad review could result in an incensed author and their posse showing up on my doorstep is pretty damn creepy - online stalking and harassment is equally creepy in my mind. I don't want to add this to the list of my worries at night, but again, if I want to offer an honest opinion of a title, I can't let this get to me.

[JDRhoades]

Hi Tess!

Maybe that's my blessing and curse combined. I'm not only an extrovert, I have an ego so large it has its own ZIP code. And arguing is what I DO in my day job, so I don't often back down from a fight.

Finally, I've always subscribed to the philosophy of Robert A. Heinlein's Jubal Harshaw: "I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me."

[JDRhoades]

Becky, thanks for that perspective. I think what bothers me is not so much bad reviews, because, as pointed out upthread, those are inevitable. I'm not saying I like them, mind you, but I can deal. I'm a big boy.

What bothers me are reviews that are (1) anonymous and (2) pointlessly personal. You at least appear to take responsibility for your words, and to think about them.

No, you should never worry about an author's feelings if you're actually telling what you don't like about the work itself. I agree that'll cripple your objectivity. But you seem like someone who'd never, as I've seen one online reviewer do, post a review saying she wished the rest of this author's books would fail, nor, as happened to another poster here, do I think you'd suggest that people walk up and slap the auhtor in the face.

Again, I'm not saying that I, as an author, am going to walk up to you at a conference and give you a big sloppy kiss for giving me a bad review, but I'll at least drink with you.

[Pari Noskin Taichert]

Oh, Dusty,
What a great subject. Thank you for bringing it up.

I don't pay much attention to Amazon anymore because I DO know it can be gamed. While I read most reviews (not all of them), I becoming less attached either positive or negative.

If the reviewer read the book and I can tell that he or she did, I might write a short thank you (even if the review is negative) because that person really took the time to consider.

There've been a couple of reviews online that I wanted to slam back at -- and Tess is right that it rankles that the communication is so one-way, that harm is done through mean-spiritedness and there's no recourse.

I've chosen NOT to respond though. For me it's a question of faith:
1. Most readers are smart enough to see through snotty venom.
2. I don't want to engage and validate -- on any level -- the person spewing that venom.