Sure, maybe the good reviews are great for the egos, but frankly, there's TOO MANY PEOPLE who can review something that simply should NEVER review anything. People who think bad books are genius (I won't cite an example, as that would be insulting), and then there's people who think great books are horrible. But the truth is, you CAN'T please everyone.
Absolutely true -- in that you can't please everyone. I do know that authors have negatively reviewed (and anonymously) the books of other authors they don't like, but that's just stupid because I don't actually think the reviews make that much of a difference.
Also? The good for the ego part? Never works for me <wry g>. If the review is bad, I think "Oh. Great. My book sucked." If, on the other hand, the review is good, I think, "Oh, great. But what I'm working on now is so much worse that everyone will Hate It With A Passion." Thus, ego conspires in either direction.
It's like checking to see if other bookstores have my books (as one can safely assume that I know when ours does or doesn't). If the bookstore doesn't have it, I assume they never carried it. But if they conversely do have it, I assume it isn't selling because it's sitting there.
So I don't do that either <wry g>.
Otoh? I think that whoever wants to review a book on amazon should be able to review a book on amazon. Reviews are opinion calls, and everyone's entitled to one. Yes, yes, I know that Harlan Ellison says they're entitled to an informed opinion, but as I'm hardly going to be an objective judge of what informed means in this case, I figure it's just better to go with mayhem.
I don't read Anne Rice, so no bias here. :) I do think though that if writers know they're easily provoked, they should not be reading those kinds of reviews.
Absolutely. Oddly enough, I don't read her either. All of my reactions here have been purely visceral, rather than textual.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2004-09-22 08:28 pm (UTC)Absolutely true -- in that you can't please everyone. I do know that authors have negatively reviewed (and anonymously) the books of other authors they don't like, but that's just stupid because I don't actually think the reviews make that much of a difference.
Also? The good for the ego part? Never works for me <wry g>. If the review is bad, I think "Oh. Great. My book sucked." If, on the other hand, the review is good, I think, "Oh, great. But what I'm working on now is so much worse that everyone will Hate It With A Passion." Thus, ego conspires in either direction.
It's like checking to see if other bookstores have my books (as one can safely assume that I know when ours does or doesn't). If the bookstore doesn't have it, I assume they never carried it. But if they conversely do have it, I assume it isn't selling because it's sitting there.
So I don't do that either <wry g>.
Otoh? I think that whoever wants to review a book on amazon should be able to review a book on amazon. Reviews are opinion calls, and everyone's entitled to one. Yes, yes, I know that Harlan Ellison says they're entitled to an informed opinion, but as I'm hardly going to be an objective judge of what informed means in this case, I figure it's just better to go with mayhem.
I don't read Anne Rice, so no bias here. :) I do think though that if writers know they're easily provoked, they should not be reading those kinds of reviews.
Absolutely. Oddly enough, I don't read her either. All of my reactions here have been purely visceral, rather than textual.