fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2227 ]

[ SECRET POST #2227 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2227 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

[Roswell]

__________________________________________________

02.

[Gyakuten Saiban/Ace Attorney]

__________________________________________________

03.

[Pokemon]

__________________________________________________

04.

[The Vampire Diaries]

__________________________________________________

05.

[Teen Wolf]

__________________________________________________

06.

[Les Miserables: Shojo Cosette]

__________________________________________________

07.

[The Hobbit]

__________________________________________________

08.

[Neil Gaiman, Mark Gatiss, Dan Handler]

__________________________________________________

09.

[Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2012)]

__________________________________________________

10.

[Power Rangers]

__________________________________________________

11.

[Star Wars: The Old Republic]

__________________________________________________

12.

[Big Bang Theory]

__________________________________________________

13.

[Breaking Bad]

__________________________________________________

14.

[Troy Baker]

__________________________________________________

15.

[Magi; Final Fantasy IX]

__________________________________________________

16.

[Skyrim]

__________________________________________________

17.

[Supernatural]

__________________________________________________

18.

[Penn & Teller]

__________________________________________________

19.

[Flight Facilities - With You]

__________________________________________________

20.

[Neil Gaiman]

__________________________________________________

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 043 secrets from Secret Submission Post #318.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

http://lkmadigan.livejournal.com/168623.html

According to the comments on this, a lot of people think that authors who have accounts on goodreads shouldn't rate or review books there, because apparently that is somehow insulting? I'm not sure I understand the logic behind this. Are they saying that when you write a book you forfeit your right to express your opinion of other people's books? That if you know what it's like to be a writer, you aren't allowed to criticize, or even dislike other people's writing?

What do you think, F!S?

Don't review your own stuff. Other than that, I don't see the problem with it. Content creators are content consumers like anyone else -- after all, nothing is written in a vacuum. I think it's important to have some constructive criticism of your work from other established authors who, like you, have some knowledge of what goes into writing a book (or anything else, for that matter.)

That being said, if Dan Brown came in and told me my book sucked I'd laugh in his face.

As long as you don't review your own work I see no problem with it. Why the fuck wouldn't an author be able to review?

One could even argue that a writer has more qualifications to review books than the general public on GoodReads or the like.

People are dumb.

Exactly--plus, I've seen the same sort of whiny author make the opposite argument--that unless you have experienced the BLOOD AND TOIL, SWEAT AND TEARS of the writing process, you have no right to criticize those who have.

You want to join a community of writers? You're fair game.

...have they heard of academia? It's called peer review.

Sure, why not? If I like what they write I'll probably like what read/recommend. Alternatively if I don't like the author I'll probably avoid what they like

That said, I'm glad I read the Hunger Games even with Stephanie Meyers' approval review on the front cover

Of course they can, although they're obviously putting themselves up for extra scrutiny :p

lol that journal entry

why did they share their stories with the world/that site if they can't accept that some people won't like it

What IS that journal entry exactly? Flicking through it looks like a bunch of authors backpatting each other on how mean people are for not giving them 5 stars?

It's kind of embarrassing just to read all the comments. Secondhand embarrassment even, eek

Exactly. I get that it could be nerve-racking to be constantly tempted to check your Goodreads rating, and that for some new authors, it could lead to a lot of stewing and self-doubt and wastage of time that could be spent doing productive work.

What I don't get is the attempt to derive an ethical principle from it--that authors shouldn't review other authors' books. It's the self-righteousness of it--"I WILL NOT reduce someone's hard work to a number of stars" because AUTHORS SHOULD SUPPORT OTHER AUTHORS! Where on earth do they get that? I can't imagine the conniptions these delicate flowers would have if they got a nastygram from the likes of Michiko Kakutani.

Seriously, these must be people whose teachers used purple ink to correct their school papers because seeing a lot of red marks would be stressful.

But...in the real world, don't authors review other authors' books all the time? Like, that's a thing. That's where you get the little snippets of platitudes on the covers!

I think you're talking about two different things though. One is the actual review in a journal or newspaper, which is often written by a respected writer in the genre--there have always been authors who were also critics on the side.

But I don't think jacket blurbs are actual reviews--they're really just puffery.

I used to have a few authors friended on lj, and one of them did genuinely lose it when she found out that another author in the same genre (I think they even had the same publisher) posted a 3-star review of Friend Author's book on goodreads. (I'll give her this much - that was a thoroughly patronizing 3-star review. "Oh dear, I am ever so reluctant to admit this, knowing how beloved this book is, buuuut blah blah blah" with "this book stank" dripping in between each line. I lost tons of respect for both of them, which is why authors should NEVER complain about their reviews. Or be patronizing asses.)

I think that some of it ties into the cult of nice crap that readers are so simple-minded that seeing a few less-than-glowing reviews will automatically make them cross a book off their TBR list. And that a review from a popular author will carry a lot more weight with readers than the average one would. It's ridiculous, as everything about the cult of nice tends to be.

(not OP here)

Yes, I suppose giving a lukewarm or critical review to another author in your genre could be seen as an attempt to undercut a potential competitor. But if you were concerned to avoid the appearance of doing that, why not just avoid reviewing books that are too similar to your own--if you write vampire boarding school romance or steampunk dystopian YA, don't review those things?

If I become an author, I'll just keep using my original GR (also under a pen-name) for reading/reviewing separate from my writing. Some authors stir up wank over reviews they don't like with average readers; I can see them doing the same with peers and I don't want to deal with the butthurt.

I was just laughing at some author who kept commenting, trying to defend herself, on a blogger's low review. It was embarrassing, tbh, and though she published one other book since, I saw that people give her 1 stars regardless because of the wank she caused. Not to mention, authors have some degree (though usually small) of celebrity, so I could say, "Blahblah has a really nice concept, but I occasionally found the pacing too slow," and in addition to Blahblah possibly getting offended, there may be other people who bring more notice to the whole situation. I don't want to see a HuffPost piece dissecting why, "Anon is such a meanie to Blahblah."

I don't even like fandom wank, so yeah. Not for me.

Not to mention, authors have some degree (though usually small) of celebrity, so I could say, "Blahblah has a really nice concept, but I occasionally found the pacing too slow," and in addition to Blahblah possibly getting offended, there may be other people who bring more notice to the whole situation.

You don't even have to be a that much of a celebrity. Blahblah could just be googling their name, find your review, and show up to troll your journal with suggestions that you kill yourself and take your cat with you. Seriously, that happened once.

I think I have a theory to account for this bizarre notion that authors should not be reviewers.

Writers who hate criticism love the aphorism that "those who can, write; those who can't, review." The consolation of the mediocre writer is that critics are all frustrated writers themselves, spewing their poison out of envy.

That doesn't wash, though, when the critic is another author! So you need another reason to invalidate the critical review, and voila! The argument that it's unethical for writers to review other writers comes to your rescue.

Seriously, I was horrified by the people beating their breasts over having sometimes given only three or four stars to other writers' months of hard work. There's the Cult of Nice...and then there's that.

Pfft. The fact that I have published work does not mean I suddenly am unable to have an opinion on books I read. Fuck'm.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #2227 ]

Can authors be reviewers?

re: Can authors be reviewers?

Re: Can authors be reviewers?

Re: Can authors be reviewers?

Re: Can authors be reviewers?

Re: Can authors be reviewers?

Re: Can authors be reviewers?

Re: Can authors be reviewers?

Re: Can authors be reviewers?

Re: Can authors be reviewers?

Re: Can authors be reviewers?

Re: Can authors be reviewers?

Re: Can authors be reviewers?

Re: Can authors be reviewers?

Re: Can authors be reviewers?

Re: Can authors be reviewers?

tw mention of suicide

Re: Can authors be reviewers?

Re: Can authors be reviewers?