As you all know, I am both a writer and a reviewer. It’s a tricky position to be in: I know that I have to be honest with my reviews–I want to be honest in my reviews–but I also don’t want to discourage any budding writers. I know how hard it is emotionally and psychologically to put your work out there for the whole world to scrutinize. At the same time, I feel an obligation to let people know when there’s a flaw in the book that could ruin their enjoyment of it. I also feel a sense of duty to the writer to let them know when there’s a plot hole in their fiction, when their poetry does not flow well, or when their argument in an essay, self-help book, or whatever does not hold up for the reader. Reviewers, after all, need to be as dedicated to the art of writing and the joy it brings as the writers they review.
Which brings me to the heart of this post: the relationship between writers and reviewers. It’s a partnership of sorts. Writers need reviewers to spread the word about their works. Reviewers, well, they don’t necessarily need writers for any other reason than they want the entertainment and/or information their books provide (except, of course, for reviewers paid through magazines and other similar outlets). Still, they want writers around so that they can continue to have a steady stream of reading material.
The relationship should be pretty straightforward: writers write, reviewers read and review what the writers write, everyone’s happy. Right? But when is anything that simple?
Image retrieved from Publisher’s Weekly
As writers, we simultaneously crave and dread reviews. We want to know people like our work, but it hurts to find out what they don’t like about it. Even writers who are just writing technical manuals, self-help books, health books, etc. still form an attachment to their work without realizing it, and so take some offense to anything less than 5 out of 5 stars. (Not to mention it might hurt a writer’s bottom line.)
Now let’s switch to the reviewer’s side. Most reviewers just love to read and want to let others know what’s good and bad about books they read. Some just have an egotistical need to share their opinions, and still others want/need the money they get from publishing reviews in magazines, newspapers, OnlineBookClub.org, etc. Many reviewers–myself included–are a mix of all of the above, depending on the day and our mood.
We aren’t usually out to hurt the writer. Heck, some of our reviews end up more positive than they should because we don’t want to discourage the writer. Other times we don’t sugarcoat it and give the whole, uncensored truth; it’s nothing against the writer (typically), we just want other readers to know how it is.
Then we have the trolls and fluffs. Trolls are reviewers who go around leaving very negative reviews for no good reason. They might not like the topic of the book, they might have something against the writer, or they might be in a bad mood. Some can be trolls just because they’re sadistic enough to enjoy trashing other people and tearing them down. Many troll reviewers don’t even read the book, maybe the summary at best.
Sometimes these keep out trolls, and often they don’t.
Image retrieved from Just Publishing Advice
Fluffs are the opposite of trolls. They leave overly-positive reviews unjustifiably. They might be a friend or relative of the writer, or they might be the kind of paid reviewer who blindly leaves positive reviews. (Mind you, that’s not all paid reviewers, and as a writer, you must be very careful to distinguish between the two.)
The good things about fluffs? They don’t hurt your ratings and, more likely than not, their reviews aren’t subjected to their mood swings. The bad things? Get too many of them and places like Amazon and Barnes & Noble will get suspicious, which never ends well. More importantly, readers will not only stop trusting the reviewer once they realize the truth but they will probably stop trusting you as well. That will definitely affect your readership.
Sometimes reviewers hassle writers, and sometimes it’s the other way around. Given the anonymity of the online world and the plethora of ways in which to contact someone or spread rumors about them, it’s easier than every for reviewers and writers to be jerks to each other. Is it right? No, of course not. Still, reviewers and writers are human. We get offended and react mindlessly just like everyone else. Sometimes we regret it and apologize, and other times we double-down on our remarks.
Such antics are toxic for the writer/reviewer relationship. Writers and reviewers need each other to keep the writing world afloat. Writers pump out the reading material, and reviewers let people know about these works. If we turn on each other or let the “bad” reviewers get to us, this relationship falls apart and the writing and publishing worlds suffer for it.
At the end of the day, writers just have to keep doing the best they can and reviewers need write the best reviews they can. Reviewers shouldn’t unnecessarily tear a writer down, but writers need to embrace a reviewer’s honesty. We don’t have to be mean to each other; we just have to be honest and respect each other.
What do you think about the writer/reviewer relationship? Are there too many trolls and fluffs out there? Can a reviewer be positive and honest? Do writers take reviews and critique too personally? Leave your thoughts in the comments below!
Designed by Stephanie Hoogstad circa 2011