Thursday, 2 February 2012

When the Reviewer Gets Reviewed

I’ve been reviewing books for more than ten years, mainly for my own book review site, aussiereviews. I love sharing the word about books with readers and, along the way, promoting the work of wonderful Australian creators and publishers. But it wasn’t until my own books were published and, subsequently, reviewed that I understood the impact of a review.

Reviews are important, in my opinion, for several reasons:
·    
  • They help sell books. By reading reviews, people hear about the book and might go out and buy it (or, online, click through a link and order it).
  • They are free advertising for a book. (If they are positive reviews)
  • For potential readers/teachers/librarians and booksellers they inform them about new books, highlighting their appeal, strengths and weaknesses, so they can make informed purchasing decisions
  • For authors, they can make you feel good (if the review is positive) and (whether positive or negative) they provide feedback.
Note that I've put the benefits to the author last because, in the end, reviews are not written for authors - or, at least, they shouldn't be. They should be written for potential buyers and readers.Along the way that means they help authors to sell books and to learn, but that's really incidental.

So I knew all this, of course I did. But then, having written a couple of thousand reviews of other people's books, I started to get reviewed. My earliest trade titles, Doggy Duo, Floatingest Frog and Pemberthy Bear garnered a few reviews. But when my first verse novel, Pearl Verses the World, was published, suddenly lots of reviews started coming in. My little book was reviewed in newspapers, magazines, on websites and on blogs. It is still being reviewed, almost three years after it was first published.

Before Pearl was released, I'd had lots of people tell me how good it was - my mum, my kids, my editor, my friends. But then it was released intot he big wide world and I had to face what people who DIDN'T know me would say. Waiting for those first reviews was scary.

But then they started coming. And reviewers seemed to like it. They said things like:
 This slender little book is, like its heroine, a treasure.
                                    (Magpies, May 2009)  and
Expertly written.
                                    (Coast Kids, June 2009)  and
A poignancy that is truly touching.
                                    (Reading Time, August 2009)

Reading these reviews made me feel pretty good. They stroked my ego and made me feel like a real author. I printed them out. I showed them to anyone who'd read them. I cried tears of joy when I read them.

But then...

I got a bad review.

And it  wasn't just a little bit bad. The reviewer (in a big name newspaper) hated my book. She said the verse was clunky and that she just didn't feel moved to care about Pearl.  Added to this, the title of the book was misspelled and I wasn't attributed as the author. Instead, the poor illustrator copped the criticism for her writing skills. (Note, I've not named the paper or the reviewer because I do not wish either of them ill-will.)

It was not a good review. There was nothing nice said about the book. Interestingly, the first thing that happened after this review, was that no one wanted to tell me about it. I knew my book was being reviewed on that date, but being interstate couldn't buy the paper. But friends saw it, and didn't know whether they should show me it. Once I did see it, I had an email from my publicist trying to reassure me. And my Mum and Dad were very cross on my behalf!

But me? To be really honest, I was a little cross at the misspelling and the mix up over the author, but as for the comments, I was able to get over them pretty quickly. I guess I was lucky because there had been lots of nice reviews previously, so I was able to focus on those instead.

But did I learn anything from this bad review? Yep.
  1. Not everyone will like every one of my books - just as they may not like my new haircut, my new dress, or (shock horror) me.
  2. Clever titles get misspelled (and the verses/versus thing has been a recurrent problem for this book)
  3. Reviews matter to the person being reviewed - but they aren't FOR that person.
  4. Stuff happens - and then you move on. I couldn't change the review. I had no right of reply, so worrying about it wasn't going to do a thing.
In the three years since then, I've had lots more reviews - for Pearl, for Snowy's Christmas and for Toppling. There's been lots more good ones and, I'll admit, others that were not so good.  I read them, I smile (if they're good) or feel a bit sad (if they're bad) and then I try to move on. With a new book coming out next month, I know I'll be waiting eagerly for those first few reviews especially which tell me how my book is being received, but then I'll get busy with my next project.

Reviews do matter - but they can't rule a writer's life.



Want to see what two other Aussie authors think about getting reviewed? Head over to Meg McKinlay's blog As In Egg and then to Anna Branford's blog. As you can see, we've all got together and blogged about the same topic on the same day, so we'd love to hear what you think about our varying perspectives.
And, if you haven't yet visited my review site, Aussiereviews, please do. It's just been relaunched with a brand new look.

13 comments:

Meg McKinlay said...

Sally, this is such a luminous post. It really resonates with me. Thoughtful, engaging, this latest offering is a worthy addition to the growing genre of 'thoughts on reviews' in this country.

Oops. Accidentally flipped the switch on the 'random review phrase generator' :)

Seriously, I love reading these different takes on things. I wanted to comment on your point:

They are free advertising for a book. (If they are positive reviews)

I know it's another cliche to say that all press is good press, that a bad review gets you as much traction as a good one. But I think that is true for me as a reader. I pay absolutely no attention to negative comments about a book unless I trust the source. And even then, if the plot, or ideas, in a book sound interesting, that's enough for me to want to check it out anyway, regardless of what anyone else says. In the end, I guess I feel that the set of expectations/hopes I bring to reading a book is unique enough that the only judgement I really trust for myself is my own. I don't know if that makes me arrogant, odd, or just someone with sixteen different library cards.

anna said...

Sally, I never saw the bad review of Pearl Verses the World but when I was nervous about seeing the first reviews of Violet, someone mentioned it to me in the context of, 'If Pearl can get a bad review, then its hardly worth worrying about'. It helped a lot.

I have often wondered if writing reviews changes the experience of being reviewed and vice versa, so I was especially interested to read your piece.

I wonder if it's that little bit of insider experience that enables you to write here, 'I read them, I smile (if they're good) or feel a bit sad (if they're bad) and then I try to move on'. Perhaps a sense of knowing something of the general spirit in which a reviewer reviews? I think its a wonderful approach to take.

Meg, like you, as a reader/book buyer, I pay very little attention to the positive/negative judgements of reviewers and focus much more on what they can tell me about themes and ideas in a book. I only have one library card, so that leaves me the options of arrogant and odd for wanting to make up my own mind about what I read. I'd like to think I lean more towards odd :)

Sally Murphy said...

Glad to hear my negative review helped you, Anna! And yes, I think having been a reviewer I know that most reviewers do it in the spirit of sharing, of wanting to contribute to the conversation (as Meg puts it, so nicely).

And ladies, I agree with you both that a bad review does not necessarily turn all readers away. Sometimes I read a bad reveiw which makes me want to read the book to see what is so awful about the book. But I do think negative reveiws will impact on some readers, especially if they come from an authoritative source. It depends what draws you to the reveiw in the first place. If you are a librarian or store purchaser, for example, you may be reading reviews expressly for the purpose of deciding which books to order.
I've ehard auhors say that a single bad review impacted on their sales, and I wonder how accurate that is, because it assumes taht every potential reader/buyer/stockist has read THAT review. But a series of bad reviews - that's another matter.

Meg McKinlay said...

But I do think negative reveiws will impact on some readers, especially if they come from an authoritative source.

And now I think I must fall into the 'arrogant' camp because when I read this, I immediately thought, "Oh, but there's no such source." Again, I guess this just reflects the way I see reviews as one part of a broader dialogic process (in which I, of course, am central. Mememe!) But I can certainly see why others might view particular sources in that way. I guess I'd like to think that bookbuyers of any stripe would never rely on a single review to guide a decision, but a series of bad reviews would be pretty difficult to get past.

Sally Murphy said...

I don't think you're arrogant at all. I too hate to thik that anyone would make a decision against a book based on a single review. But I'm sure it happens. But I do think there ARE review sources that are considered more authorative than others. Just online, for example, a starred review from Kirkus would hold more sway with post readers than a glowing review from Barry's Bookorama Blog (BTW, I made that blogname up, so if there IS such a blog, I'm not referring ot it). And if Kirkus gave a negative reveiw, but Barry gave a glowing one, probably the Kirkus one would hold more sway for many readers. As you said in your earlier comment: "I pay absolutely no attention to negative comments about a book unless I trust the source". So, in my example above, a negative review from Barry would hold less sway than one from Kirkus.
(Again, I want to stress that there is, to my knowledge, no real Barry's Bookarama, so if there are any reviewers called Barry reading this, I am NOT referring to you)

Meg McKinlay said...

I don't think you're arrogant at all.
Ah, but what you haven't understood is that I don't care what you think :). I am impervious to the reviews of others! Come at me, slings and arrows!

I am totally joking. I was just messing about in my head thinking about sources and authority. I actually do think I'm arrogant. And also very self-effacing and insecure. I reckon that's probably a fairly common mix in the creative arts.

As you said in your earlier comment: "I pay absolutely no attention to negative comments about a book unless I trust the source".
Yep, but I qualified that very quickly in my comment, and on re-reading it a nano-second before I saw yours, actually felt I might like to retract it. What I would say is that I give more weight to certain reviews than others, but it's not about sources in a static sense eg Kirkus over Barry's, The Guardian over some random blogger. For me a reviewer acquires authority because of the way they review, on a case by case basis, within the specific context of the review I'm reading. Which is kind of what I was getting at in my own post about being critical of reviews. I don't ascribe authority to a single source or reviewer. It's a movable feast; you're only as authoritative as *this* review, which sets its own parameters.

Hey, how long do you reckon it's going to be before some bloke named Barry shows up spoiling for a fight?

Dale Harcombe said...

Hard to believe anyone didn't like Pearl, Sally.I loved that book but I guess it goes to show not everyone is going to like every book. I recently started to read one by an 'acclaimed 'Irish writer and have given my thoughts on Goodreads which is very different from what others thought. That time I was the negative voice. Good to read your thoughts on this subject. Dale
www.daleharcombe.com

Shirley McKinnon said...

Sally, I so admire your ability to move on from a bad review. My experience is that all the rejections you get on the path to being published, should help to reduce the impact of bad reviews. I know it's too much to ask that everyone likes my books, but it still is a dart in the heart to me when I get rejected. As for reviews, I haven't had many for my non-fiction books. Sales themselves are the reviews and I have had up to 60 orders at a time so am pretty happy with that. I guess I'm going to have to toughen up when the fiction starts rolling out.
Cheers, Shirley

Sally Murphy said...

Thanks all for your comments. Sorry I'm slow geting back to you - been rnning around the place being a writer :)
Meg: I'm arrogant. And also very self-effacing and insecure. I reckon that's probably a fairly common mix in the creative arts. Yep. I think that is very common mix. And, as a reveiwer I am aware of that mix all the time. I started a book review site when I knew little about reviewing and was unknown and still find myslef thinking 'who am I to judge these books?' And yet, if someone else said that to me about themselves I would tell them off for thinking it and tell them that everyone who ahs ever read a book is justified in holding - and sharing - and opinion about the books they read. BuT i thinkw e actually almost on the same page with our discussion about reliable sources - because whilst I do feel that a review in Kirkus or the Guardian or the Weekend West even might hold more sway than poor old Barry's review, I also believe that any review becomes a reviw when it is well-considered and the reader of the review knows what it is that the reviewer actually liked/disliked about the review.

Dale - I agree that not everyone is going to like every book (just the same as tv shows, movies, clothes, music, wine, food, men...). And a reviewer shouldn't pretend to like a book just because other reviewers/readers do. I haven't read your Goodreads reveiws but have read some of your reveiws on your blog and on Aussiereveiws (of course) and they are always well considered reviews.
Shirley - I hadn't thought about rejections preparing one for reviews, but you are absolutely right. Most authors, by the tie they've been publsihed, have been rejected multiple times, which does thicken our skins.

Gabrielle Wang said...

This is a really interesting conversation and a never ending one. Being a reviewer and an author yourself, Sally, you have a great perspective on the subject. Sometimes I think reviews say more about the reviewer than the book they are reviewing. Of late I've had some pretty negative reviews of The Garden of Empress Cassia which was published in the US in September. They weren't just negative but scathing. One source was the magazine you mentioned, Kirkus and I was pretty devastated by it. The others were online bloggers which count but not as much. I told myself that at least Kirkus reviewed it. That thought was no compensation. If the book hadn't done so well in Australia (it's been my most successful so far and been published in many other countries) I might have given up writing all together. (Creative people have thin skins) One common criticism was the broken English used by the main character's mother and father. The reviewers would have liked them to speak perfect English which is not true to life. One reviewer added at the end of her article that it's up to the teacher to decide whether their students should read this book because of the Pigeon English used. Phew! Lucky in Australia we celebrate difference! But then, as is always the way with writers' lives, I get the good news. The Garden of Empress Cassia was named on the 2012 United States Board of Books Outstanding International Books Honour List along with fellow Aussie authors Deb Abela, Shaun Tan and Sonya Hartnett and it is this list that is published in the American Library Journal. I'm hoping that librarians and teachers pick up on this rather than on one review in Kirkus. So again, it gets back to where the reviewer is coming from.

Sally Murphy said...

Gabrielle, thanks for reading and commenting. I agree that a review can reflect the reviewer as much as it does the book, which can be a good as well as a negative thing. I am so sorry to hear of your experience> I sometimes wonder when there is a spate of negative reviews if some reviewers are influenced by each other, particularly if a prominent publication has been negative. But massive congratulations on beinglisted - I'd suggest that is proof that the book is just fine, regardless of the reviews.

Sandy Fussell said...

There are some books that almost everyone in the whole world just loves (and I would put Pearl in that category).But there are also some good books (that win awards and have a strong readership) that seem to polarise reviewers - I'm not sure why - they might strike a chord with the reviewer - the type of language might grate, the subject matter might be personal or a whole range of things - along the lines of what Gabi said.

I too have had a poor Kirkus review (although the next one was much, much better) - but despite the poor review the same book was an 2011 IBBY selection for books about disabilities.

The real eye-opener for me personally, which put reviewing into perspective with a thump, came with two of my titles reviewed in Reading Time and Magpies. In one magazine, White Crane was described as a good story but slow with awkward humour and in the same month in the other magazine as action-packed and fast moving, clever and funny. Go figure! Jaguar Warrior was described glowingly in one with a long review and praise for the meticulous research seamlessly woven in the story. The other review was sort-of positive but said I had created a total fantasy version of Aztec times that was a bit too gory (I haven't yet found the gore and none of the readers I talk to have seen it either. And I'll stake a big box of chocolates on its historical accuracy. But I don't feel the need to fight that battle. Readers will make up their own minds and some may not care anyway.)

Ultimately I found a coping stategy that works for me. If I like the review, I take it to heart and it motivates me. If I don't like it, I say "that's not right at all" (*grin* because I believe in myself!). And sometimes I do learn something useful from a line in a less than positive review. Then I move on.

I am accepting of negative reviews but what I really dislike is when a review is as Gabi said 'scathing'. In reviews, as in everything else in life, as far as I am concerned, there is no need to be nasty.

Sally Murphy said...

Thanks Sandy. I like your coping strategy - and will adopt it forthwith. I also agree re scathing reveiws - I wish I'd thought of that term when I was trying to explain what I menat by unfair reviews.