For something close to 30 years, I've been an admittedly harsh critic when it comes to writing. I don't deny this, and I've never attempted to moderate my comments when asked for them. And yes, I've received criticism for my harshness. From my earliest experiences as a judge in RWA contests, reaction to my analyses has ranged from gratitude for an honest if painful review to outrage and accusations of bias and crimes against humanity. It's all okay; I live with it.
Several months ago, an author whose work had elicited a one-star rating from me on Goodreads contacted me and asked for an explanation. I had "shelved" the book in a variety of descriptive groups that indicated I thought it was poorly written. Because I had not posted a review, she wanted to know why I had only given the book one star -- "I didn't like it" -- and whether or not my "poorly written" designation came from actually reading the book.
There is, of course, no requirement on the Goodreads site that readers post reviews along with their ratings. Readers don't even have to rate the books, and they can "shelve" books however they wish. Nor is it required that readers have read the book prior to rating, shelving, or reviewing it. (How would they prove that they had? Take a test?)
Now, I have frequently stated here and elsewhere that I don't believe authors should ever, ever, ever contact anyone who has reviewed, rated, shelved, or commented on their book unless they are specifically and explicitly invited to do so. Therefore I politely but firmly told this author that I was not going to provide her with an explanation then, but that if I ever did so, it would be in a publicly available review.
Her action was understandable. The book was her first, and she had self-published it via Amazon's Kindle Direct Publishing and via Smashwords. This information was readily available from the book's front matter. She was not rude in her request to me, nor did she post anything public about the exchange. (If she posted one-star ratings to my books, I honestly don't know. I pretty much pay no attention to those.)
The Amazon listing for her book had received half a dozen or so five-star reviews, several of which read like they'd been written by friends or family members. The couple of one- and two-star reviews cited poor grammar and clichéd characters; one of those reviews was a variation on the "don't waste your time; even free this book isn't worth it." That's not an uncommon remark made on self-published novels.
I generally glance at the reviews, especially the negative ones, when I'm contemplating a digital purchase, but since the book had been offered for free, I wasn't too concerned. I downloaded it, then glanced at the contents.
I was not favorably impressed with the writing, but at the time of posting the book to my Goodreads collection, I didn't have time to do a complete analysis, so I shelved it as poorly written, gave it one star, and moved on. I heard no more from the author and I thought that was the end of it.
A few weeks ago, I learned that she had posted a comment on another books-and-readers-and-authors site in which she lambasted the refusal of a reviewer to justify their negative opinion of her book. She described this person as what amounted to a serial review bully; I won't post the exact phrase because I don't want to give anyone the ability to locate the author via a search on the phrase. Was she referring to me? I don't know for sure. I had never reviewed her book, only shelved and rated it.
I've written a lot of words on this subject, and I really get upset that I find myself doing it again. More than likely, the message is completely lost on those who need it most: the authors who have somehow come into the belief that their work can never ever receive a negative review and that anyone who dares criticize it must be a mean bully, a sociopath, a jealous competitor, or something.
More and more and more of these authors are taking to the blogosphere, to Goodreads and Amazon's forums, to their own websites, and slamming any and all reviewers who are cruel and mean and malicious enough to leave hurtful comments.
There are still comments being posted to Dear Author's thread from July 2012 regarding the efforts of some authors and fans and readers to silence negative reviews.
I can understand authors having hurt feelings. I can understand the disappointment of a bad review. I've been there. I've suffered through the rejection letters. I've had publishers hold a manuscript for a year, sending me occasional encouraging updates, only to receive the material back with no explanation beyond a form letter rejection. I've had bad reviews. I've had malicious reviews and retaliatory shelving and one-star ratings from trolls. I've been there, kids. And I survived.
So what's different now from 20 or 30 years ago? Is it, as I've blogged before, that some of these authors have never experienced any kind of criticism of their writing and just don't know how to handle it? Personally, I think that's far more likely than another explanation, which is that they are the sociopaths and just have it in for anyone who dares criticize anything.
Reviews are for readers. Not just for the people who have already read the book -- actually, that's a pretty stupid definition of "reader" -- but for readers who might buy the book, potential readers. Any reader who has any experience with the book in question or with its author has the right to leave a comment. On Amazon, on Smashwords, on Barnes & Noble, on Goodreads, on any other site where books are discussed.
Reviews are not for the authors. I'm not sure how many times or how many ways I can write that. Reviews are of material that's already been published. The author has said she's done with it, it's ready to be read, and now she's moving on.
If she's not finished with it, if she's still looking for feedback, she shouldn't publish it.
How difficult is this to understand? Amazon and B&N and Kobo and Smashwords are all retail stores just like Target or Kroger's or FootLocker or Lowe's. Customers go to them to buy products ready to be used. And if the products don't perform as the customer expected them to, the customer has a right to complain, to demand a refund, to tell her friends and family about it.
Authors, your books are no different from tires or flashlights, sneakers or toasters, pillows or two-by-fours, ground beef or asparagus. No one cares how much time you put into writing your stories. If people cared about the labor involved in producing consumer goods, they wouldn't buy sneakers made in Chinese sweatshops.
And here's the thing: I do care about the labor that's involved, in both the sneakers and the books. I do my best to avoid buying goods made by companies that I know employ what amounts to slave labor.
But I also make an effort to instruct readers -- some of whom might also be writers -- what makes a good book.
When I read a book, regardless of genre, regardless whether it's fiction or non-fiction, I expect it to meet certain minimum standards. I don't expect every book I read to be a five-star, and I have enjoyed many books that weren't, in the Goodreads rating system, "amazing!". I also recognize that not all readers will like the same things I do, nor will they have the same standards. I don't have any problem with that, either as a reader or as a writer.
I also know that the skills necessary to achieve those minimum standards are not beyond the capability of most people of average intelligence. Basic English grammar and spelling and usage, basic story construction, basic factual research, and basic digital publication formatting are not difficult skills to learn. They take some time and some effort to learn, and more time to master, but all of them are essential to the creation of an end product that will appeal to and satisfy the reading preferences of most reasonably educated potential readers.
When a writer chooses not to learn these skills, when a writer chooses to publish a product that fails to meet the reader's minimum standards, then that writer must accept the criticism the product receives.
I have tried, because I honestly do care about writers and helping them to write well-crafted, interesting, entertaining books, to put at least some information into many of my blogposts directly addressing issues such as punctuating dialogue or preparing an MS Word .doc file for Kindle Direct Publishing. I've written some very very detailed critiques of samples of writing chosen specifically to illustrate concepts of what I consider good writing.
I have never, at least not intentionally, criticized any individual author as a person. And I have advised and encouraged authors to separate themselves from their books. Books are not children, not "babies." Books cannot be killed or raped -- except by their own authors, of course. A review is, for better or worse, the reader's opinion, and the author is always free to take any advice or ignore it.
Writers do not even have to read reviews, because reviews aren't written for them. But if writers do read reviews, and especially if they read reviews of their own work, then they need to be prepared for the negative.
When I rip a novel to shreds -- and yes, I admit that I have done that -- it's because I believe the book deserves it. Does the author deserve it? Um, I don't really care. She put the book out there as a finished product, and now it has to stand or fall on its own. Can the author learn from it? Yes, of course she can. Will she be hurt by it? Oh, probably, but she should have thought about that possibility before she published it.
There are ways to avoid bad reviews. The two most obvious ones are: Learn to write well, and don't publish until you learn to write well.
I am not going to stop writing "bad" reviews. If your book is poorly written and it comes to my attention, there's a chance I will shred it. It may be an object lesson for other writers as well as a warning to readers. I don't care. It may be the only negative review in a stack of five-star raves. I don't care. It may hurt your feelings and drive you to call me names. I don't care. It may enrage you and you'll rally your fans and friends and family to give my books one-star reviews. I don't care.
What I do care about is my integrity. I believe that anything I publish will be well-written, and if there are mistakes, I will own up to them. I will never bash a reviewer, never threaten, never whine. But by the same token, when I come across writing that I consider fails to meet my standards, I will reserve the right to shred it, to point out its flaws and weaknesses.
Maybe other writers will learn from that. Maybe other readers will see my reviews as helpful and honest and will "follow" my reviews on Goodreads. Or maybe not.
But I will not lower my standards to spare the feelings of authors who cannot or will not take the time and expend the effort to at least learn how to construct a coherent sentence, compose a fluid paragraph, create an internally consistent plot.
If the author sees that as mean, then she is failing to put herself in the perspective of all the other potential readers she's trying to reach. If the author sees that as potentially diminishing her sales, then she should have written a book that couldn't be shredded. No one, absolutely no one, owes an author a living. No one, absolutely no one, owes an author an apology for an honest review.
So to the little snowflakes whose feelings I have hurt and who are following me around the Internet, I don't know what you hope to accomplish. Do you think I'm going to be nicer to you because you've done me some big honor? Do you think I'm going to refrain from talking about your books because it might get back to you? It's not going to happen.
Yes, I'm mean. Yes, I'm harsh. But yes, I'm honest. Deal with it.
Showing posts with label Smashwords. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Smashwords. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Monday, July 9, 2012
Update: Those very expensive words
Well, well, well, well, well. You learn something every day.
Or at least you ought to.
Over this past week-end, I began the process of publishing Firefly via Smashwords. The exclusive listing for Amazon's Kindle expires on the 17th of this month, and I wanted to make sure I had sufficient time to check out the various formats offered by Smashwords. After uploading what I believed was a "clean" copy of the file, I checked it using Smashwords' own applications.
This is a screen capture of a page from the Amazon Kindle version as it appeared via the Kindle for PC app, the copy that I downloaded when the book was offered free in April:
As I think you can see, the bottom line on this page reads:
Again, that line is down toward the bottom, and everything looks fine.
The third downloadable version I checked was the Smashwords Kindle/mobi version.
That stopped me cold. Where did that screwed up font come from???
What I discovered on going through the entire file was that every time I used italics, the font changed from Times Roman to "ugly" courier for the entire paragraph, then switched back to Times Roman.
I also discovered that the original Table of Contents I put into the Firefly file for Amazon, then revised for Smashwords but ultimately removed prior to uploading to Smashwords is still present. This is, of course, a MicroSoft Word .doc file, which is what it has to be to upload to Smashwords. And to Amazon's Kindle Direct Publishing platform. I will have to go back through the file to find out where this TOC formatting hides and remove it. Even though it actually functions as a TOC, I don't want it there.
The next thing I checked was the "preview" from the Kindle Direct Publishing platform.
Again, the single word is italicized, but nothing else. This was exactly what the file looked like when I uploaded it originally. There was nothing to indicate that the whole thing would appear on some customers' devices in "ugly courier." The screenshot of the Amazon Kindle version above is, in fact, from this same original upload and not the later "corrected" one. That's why I had no idea it would download in another format.
Here's yet another version, the "Look Inside" sample from the Amazon offering:
This is how the various digital publishing software packages transform the author's file, and this is why it is so very very important that the author check each and every version. Sometimes there may be absolutely nothing you can do. But if you can do something and you don't do it, it's no one's fault but your own when a reader complains.
At this point, I'm not sure if the complaints about the "ugly courier" font on the reviews for Firefly on Amazon were because of something I did or something inherent in the Amazon software or something in the hardware devices the readers were using. I do know that I've done whatever I can think of to make sure the version readers download is as close to what I want them to see as I can get it, but obviously it's not as perfect as it needs to be. So I'm going to keep working on it.
Or at least you ought to.
Over this past week-end, I began the process of publishing Firefly via Smashwords. The exclusive listing for Amazon's Kindle expires on the 17th of this month, and I wanted to make sure I had sufficient time to check out the various formats offered by Smashwords. After uploading what I believed was a "clean" copy of the file, I checked it using Smashwords' own applications.
This is a screen capture of a page from the Amazon Kindle version as it appeared via the Kindle for PC app, the copy that I downloaded when the book was offered free in April:
As I think you can see, the bottom line on this page reads:
She was a good cook, she smiled proudly toNow, here's the same passage as it reads in EPUB format via Smashwords' conversion:
The third downloadable version I checked was the Smashwords Kindle/mobi version.
That stopped me cold. Where did that screwed up font come from???
What I discovered on going through the entire file was that every time I used italics, the font changed from Times Roman to "ugly" courier for the entire paragraph, then switched back to Times Roman.
I also discovered that the original Table of Contents I put into the Firefly file for Amazon, then revised for Smashwords but ultimately removed prior to uploading to Smashwords is still present. This is, of course, a MicroSoft Word .doc file, which is what it has to be to upload to Smashwords. And to Amazon's Kindle Direct Publishing platform. I will have to go back through the file to find out where this TOC formatting hides and remove it. Even though it actually functions as a TOC, I don't want it there.
The next thing I checked was the "preview" from the Kindle Direct Publishing platform.
Again, the single word is italicized, but nothing else. This was exactly what the file looked like when I uploaded it originally. There was nothing to indicate that the whole thing would appear on some customers' devices in "ugly courier." The screenshot of the Amazon Kindle version above is, in fact, from this same original upload and not the later "corrected" one. That's why I had no idea it would download in another format.
Here's yet another version, the "Look Inside" sample from the Amazon offering:
Once again, just the one word is italicized, the way it should be. And this is from the current, updated, supposedly "clean" version, yet it now has lost its right justification, which shows on all the others!
This is how the various digital publishing software packages transform the author's file, and this is why it is so very very important that the author check each and every version. Sometimes there may be absolutely nothing you can do. But if you can do something and you don't do it, it's no one's fault but your own when a reader complains.
At this point, I'm not sure if the complaints about the "ugly courier" font on the reviews for Firefly on Amazon were because of something I did or something inherent in the Amazon software or something in the hardware devices the readers were using. I do know that I've done whatever I can think of to make sure the version readers download is as close to what I want them to see as I can get it, but obviously it's not as perfect as it needs to be. So I'm going to keep working on it.
Monday, February 27, 2012
The wrong words. The wrongest words of all
(Edited to add, 11 Sept 2012 -- Dear STGRB Bullies: I have no idea what you're looking for here, but feel free to look. I won't go to your site, so I have no idea how much of my blog post you've copied. Maybe it's enough to warrant a warning about copyright infringement? Hmm, something you might what to think about.
(While you're here, however, you might want to take a look at some of my other posts. I have no reviews on this blog, and very few comments directed at specific authors, but you should be able to figure out pretty quickly that I do not like, not at all, poorly written books and I really don't like authors, self- or traditionally-published, who make fools of themselves defending poorly written books. I myself am in both publishing camps, so I have no reason to favor one over the other, but I absolutely loathe traditional publishers. I've been screwed by four of them, and one of the four is continuing to do so. I'm one of the most enthusiastic champions of self-publishing you're likely to find anywhere on the Internet, but I will offer no support for writers who publish crappy books and I will condemn very vehemently any writer who criticizes, attacks, or in any way attempts to silence legitimate reviewers of books. Got that?)
I really didn't think this issue of copyright infringement/plagiarism would resurface so quickly, but it has. It's being covered extensively at Dear Author and SBTB.
There is, in my humble opinion, never any excuse for stealing another writer's words and claiming them as one's own. Never. And because there's no excuse for it, there can be no forgiveness, at least from me.
But plagiarism isn't the only form of deceit being practiced these days in the publishing world.
It used to be, in the world of romance novel publishing, there were a couple of magazines devoted to reviewing romance novels. The major literary review outlets -- Publishers Weekly, most prominently -- wouldn't touch them, so we writers were left with Romantic Times, Affaire de Coeur, and a few others. When the mall stores like Waldenbooks and B. Dalton were riding high, they had newsletters, and then the online review sites started up. The commercial reviewers, of course, were more interested in selling books and kept the reviews almost universally positive. The review sites could be more critical, but there was a personality behind them that provided some sense of reliability.
Now, with the advent of reader-posted reviews, how does the reader determine which reviews are honest?
Dear Author did a blog about an author who was sockpuppeting 5-star reviews for his own book and was caught impersonating himself in a forum discussion on Amazon. What was eventually revealed was that the author was actually paying for commissioned reviews but then supplying the reviews!
Let me back up a bit and explain some of this. At one point a couple of years ago, I registered with an outfit called Textbroker. The way they work is that you sign up for the assignments posted on their website, you write the text, send it to them, and if the product meets their (and their client's) approval you get paid. I'm assuming Textbroker is reasonably legitimate -- I'm still getting updates and newsletters from them -- but they're the facilitator in a deal like this. (Edited to add: Textbroker is not involved, as far as I know, in the Mainak Dhar situation. They may be involved in others. I don't track them at all.)
So if I were an author who wanted a bunch of 5-star reviews for my book on Amazon (or anywhere else for that matters), I'd contract with Textbroker for, say, 25 reviews of 50 words each, to be posted with 5-star ratings, and I'd pay Textbroker $5 each for those reviews.
This would cost me $125. Textbroker would post the assignment and wait for their subcontractors to sign up for it. Textbroker takes a cut, say $1 each, and the other $4 would go to each of the 25 writers who wrote the reviews. They'd get paid when the reviews went live. According to the discussion on Amazon regarding the book in question, the author also stipulated that each reviewer had to buy a copy of the book out of the payment. But there was evidence presented that the author also wrote the reviews, and the "reviewers" were merely supplying their name and ISP address for the author to hide behind. When the reviews went live on Amazon (or wherever else they were being posted) no one would be able to trace them back to the author. They'd look for all intents and purposes as legitimate, independent, unbiased reviews.
Except that they weren't.
The idea that this is no worse than a TV commercial in which actors are paid to pretend to be real people facing bankruptcy or suffering from painful joints or enjoying an enhanced sex life because they bought the right brand of pancake mix is possibly justified to a certain extent. On the other hand, we all know that the actors are just actors and that they've been paid to pretend their knees hurt or their house is about to go into foreclosure. We know that they've been given a script written by the purveyors of the product or service.
There's no such transparency with book reviews. There's no way of knowing who's an honest and independent and unbiased reviewer and who's a paid shill and who's the author's spouse.
As Jane wrote on the Dear Author blog, it's sometimes difficult for the average reader to determine which reviews are sincere and which . . . aren't. She suggested that things to look for are reviewers who only have one review or whose reviews are always 5-star. I started with her advice and I decided to do a little sleuthing myself.
I decided to compare the reviews for five more or less random books. These were my criteria as I began trolling the Amazon lists for likely subjects --
1. Historical romance, at least 200 pages.
2. Self-published digitally in the past 12 months, no reissues of print publication.
3. No more than 99-cents, preferably free.
4. At least three 5-star reviews.
5. At least three 1-star reviews.
6. Not discussed on any of the discussion sites/blogs I frequent.
I thought it would take only a few minutes to find five books fitting that description but in fact it was rather difficult. For example, Beverly Kendall's All's Fair in Love and Seduction was only an estimated 136 pages. Denise Domning's A Love for All Seasons had been published years ago and only had two reviews. Charlotte Hawkins' My Lady Gisborne had no 1-star reviews
After an hour of combing through the Amazon listings, I finally settled on the following five, having adjusted my requirements slightly:
All's Fair in Love and Seduction by Beverly Kendall
Daughter of Deceit by Carrie James Haynes
My Lord Wicked by Cheryl Bolen
Eulogy's Secret by Grace Elliot
Seeing the Elephant by Leah Banicki
Here's what I discovered:
All's Fair in Love and Seduction
5-Star -- 9
4-Star -- 9
3-Star -- 1
2-Star -- 1
1-Star -- 3
Daughter of Deceit
5-Star -- 13
4-Star -- 3
3-Star -- 3
2-Star -- 7
1-Star -- 10
My Lord Wicked
5-Star -- 6
4-Star -- 0
3-Star -- 6
2-Star -- 0
1-Star -- 1
Eulogy's Secret
5-Star -- 10
4-Star -- 8
3-Star -- 0
2-Star -- 0
1-Star -- 0
Seeing the Elephant
5-Star -- 8
4-Star -- 7
3-Star -- 2
2-Star -- 8
1-Star -- 10
Authors Kendall and Bolen are not newcomers, and so I wasn't surprised to see a variety of voices in the reviews. As I made a further analysis, I was able to see that many of their reviewers had multiple reviews under their belts. Some of their reviewers had also reviewed some of these authors' other books. I felt that for the most part, the reviews of these two books were honest, sincere personal opinions of people who had read at least part of the book. There may have been some 5- and 4-star reviews by friends, but there were also independent reviews. IMHO, of course.
Grace Elliot's Eulogy's Secret had only 4- and 5-star reviews, so I was a bit more skeptical. However, two things made me trust these reviews. First, many of the reviewers had significant portfolios of reviews to check. Second, and perhaps more important, these reviews went beyond the mere gushing praise of "I loved this book from the first page and everyone who loves romance will love it too!" I got the distinct impression that at least most, if not all, of the reviewers were independent of the author and had read most, if not all, of the book and liked it.
And that leaves Daughter of Deceit and Seeing the Elephant. :sigh: Where to begin.
Let's start with Seeing the Elephant because I think it demonstrates a real problem for readers navigating the now published books that used to be relegated to print publishers' and agents' slush piles, 99% of which was never contracted and therefore never printed. If anyone read these books other than the authors and the first readers in the mail room, it was only friends, family, a critique partner or two, and maybe some contest judges. Now, however, these books are not only out for public viewing, they are for sale. Authors are expecting readers to pay for the privilege of reading them; it used to be the other way around.
There's a huge disparity in the review ratings for Seeing the Elephant, with eight 5-star and ten 1-star reviews. All of the 1- and 2-star reviews lament horrible grammar, especially shifts in verb tenses. The author -- and in one case her husband -- replied to several of these critical reviews by announcing that she had engaged an editor and errors would be fixed. In at least one of those responses dated 2 November 2011, she states that a revised version has been uploaded, but in others she says she's working with the editor and expects the revised version to be ready after "the first of the year." So at some point the author herself acknowledges that the book as it was uploaded to Amazon in May 2011 was not, in fact, ready for publication. She acknowledges that it needs editorial assistance.
Then how does that square with all those 5-star reviews that saw nothing wrong with it?
Well, to begin with, one of those 5-star reviews is from the author's husband. Another is from the author herself. Not hiding behind a pseudonym or a sock puppet. Just right out there. And I guess the fact that they're not hiding who they are makes it somehow okay? I mean, I'm at a loss here. But they are certainly not impartial independent readers with no stake in the game. Doesn't the person looking for a book to buy generally assume that the reviewers are reasonably unbiased? There are, in fact, some reviewers on Eulogy's Secret who explicitly state that they do not know the author and have no connection with her. (Edited to add: I noticed on doing some additional surfing that Sharon Ihle, under her own name, posted a 5-star review for her digital reprint of Dakota Dream, the text of the review being an attributed reprint from the original Romantic Times review by Kathe Robin.)
Somehow or other I doubt the same can be said for all of the other six 5-star reviewers of Seeing the Elephant. Leaving out Jeff and Leah Banicki, of the other six, four of them have only reviewed one book -- Seeing the Elephant. Their reviews are very short, only a couple of lines, and really say nothing about the book except that it's good.
However, to be fair, many of the 1- and 2-star reviews were also very short, and eight were by people who had no other reviews on file with Amazon. The distinction here is that all the low-score reviews cited the horrible writing style, poor grammar, shifts of tense, etc., as their reasons for not liking or not even being able to read more than a few pages of the book. To many of them, author Banicki responded that she appreciated their comments and was going to engage an editor to help her revise the book.
In other words, she knew they were telling the truth. She did not try to defend her work against them, nor cite the glowing reviews with 5 stars, which suggests even she didn't believe those 5-star reviews. Was it because she knew the reviewers were friends or family who were just being nice? I don't know. I can speculate, but I don't know for sure.
So. . . .
Daughter of Deceit by Carrie James Haynes features an elegant, evocative, gothicky cover photo by Konrad Bak. Yes, folks, I cruise through Dreamstime, too.
Of the 13 reviewers who gave Daughter of Deceit 5-star reviews, six have no other reviews on file. Five of the remaining seven have other reviews, but only of other books by Haynes, either under that name or writing as Jerri Hines. The remaining two reviewers, identified as "Ruby W." and "RCardello," have reviewed other books, but they have given all of them 5 stars. "Ruby W." reviewed four of Haynes/Hines' books, giving all of them 5 stars.
Interestingly enough, Ruby and "RCardello" also reviewed books by Annette Blair, and of course gave them 5 stars also.
According to Jerri Hines' blog both Annette Blair and Ruth Cardello are friends of hers.
And while there's nothing wrong with friends helping friends, it does appear to me -- if not to anyone else -- that only friends and family members of Carrie James Haynes/Jerri Hines are giving Daughter of Deceit 5 star reviews. (Edited to add: One of the 5-star reviewers of Daughter of Deceit is identified as "Ramona." Another of Haynes' novels is dedicated to her mother, whose name is Ramona.)
So let's move on to the 4-star reviews. The three reviewers in this group have only reviewed a total of eight books between them, and four of the eight are Haynes/Hines titles. Again, this is beginning to look suspiciously incestuous, especially when on 20 February she announced that she asked a friend "...specifically to give my book a great review, not just a good review but a great one" to test a theory that she had a "stalker" reviewer who was posting a negative review in response whenever a positive review was posted. There are three 5-star reviews posted to Daughter of Deceit on the 20th, 21st, and 22nd of February. All three are by reviewers with no previous reviews on Amazon. Is one of them the review Haynes requested from a friend?
She concludes that blog post by writing "If I'm wrong, then we'll know I'm paranoid. We'll see. Should know within the next couple of hours... "
There were subsequently a number of 2- and 1-star reviews posted, but Haynes has not blogged since then.
In contrast to the 4- and 5-star reviewers, those who gave Daughter of Deceit the lowest marks in the 1- and 2-star reviews had a much more extensive background of reviewing, with four out of the 17 having 20 or more prior reviews. There were seven, however, for whom this was their first and so far only review. Those with more reviews, however, also had a wider range of ratings, which tended to indicate that they were giving honest reports rather than just blanket rave reviews.
The content of the negative reviews was also different from the 5-star. The positive reviews were all quite brief, pretty much saying they loved the story. Some gave a few details of the plot, but not much. The negative reviews were also for the most part very short, with all citing the bad writing -- grammatical errors, usage mistakes, and so on -- for their low rating. Many readers said they could not read more than a small portion of the book due to the distraction of the poor writing.
One reviewer provided a surprisingly extensive analysis, and for her/his pains was rewarded with follow-up from one of the 4-star reviewers, accusing her/him of not reading the whole book (which is not a requirement to post a review anyway) and of disliking the book because it had a gay character.
The replies to the negative reviews can be informative, and this was true of Seeing the Elephant as well, where the author and/or her husband posted about the revised version either being available or soon to be available.
Both authors have admitted their books needed additional editing, but neither has apologized to readers for putting up unedited, poorly written manuscripts and expecting people to pay for them. Haynes believes there may be someone stalking her book to post negative reviews, and apparently she thinks it's because she has a gay character. According to her blog, she's a conservative Christian, and that is a demographic that has had some difficulties dealing with the LGBTQI population. Is it possible Haynes is working through an issue that has come home to her? Yes, I'm sure it's possible. And maybe it's difficult for her, so she's chosen the arena of her novel to explore it.
But none of the critical reviewers have made any mention of the gay character; it's the 5-star reviewers who seem to have the need to add the minor spoiler that oh, by the way, the major secondary character Charles is gay. I'm sure, therefore, it is just a really strange coincidence that two of the 5-star reviewers of Daughter of Deceit style themselves as "CharlyG." and "Charlie G." (sarcasm off)
Preliminary conclusion, then: Is it lying to have your friends give your book favorable reviews? Personally, I think it is. I think the reader who is being asked to hand over cash for the privilege of reading a book has a right to know if the reviewers have any kind of vested interest in the success of the book or have any reason to be biased in their opinion. Personally, in my opinion, not a single one of the 5-star reviewers of Daughter of Deceit or Seeing the Elephant is an unbiased reviewer. I think some of the other reviewers, even with 5-star reviews, of the other books are at least somewhat impartial.
Furthermore, I think this is a problem that's going to haunt the self-published authors for a long time. There are no gatekeepers any more. None. Except maybe the review websites. I recommend readers find those, find a few they trust, and be very wary of those accolades on Amazon.
Lying is wrong. Claiming someone else's words as your own in a case of plagiarism or copyright infringement is wrong, morally and sometimes legally. But giving someone else your words and telling them to claim them as their own for your financial benefit as in the case of Mainak Dhar or as I strongly suspect is the case of Daughter of Deceit and Seeing the Elephant, is wrong, too. Really, really wrong.
More on this subject later.
(While you're here, however, you might want to take a look at some of my other posts. I have no reviews on this blog, and very few comments directed at specific authors, but you should be able to figure out pretty quickly that I do not like, not at all, poorly written books and I really don't like authors, self- or traditionally-published, who make fools of themselves defending poorly written books. I myself am in both publishing camps, so I have no reason to favor one over the other, but I absolutely loathe traditional publishers. I've been screwed by four of them, and one of the four is continuing to do so. I'm one of the most enthusiastic champions of self-publishing you're likely to find anywhere on the Internet, but I will offer no support for writers who publish crappy books and I will condemn very vehemently any writer who criticizes, attacks, or in any way attempts to silence legitimate reviewers of books. Got that?)
I really didn't think this issue of copyright infringement/plagiarism would resurface so quickly, but it has. It's being covered extensively at Dear Author and SBTB.
There is, in my humble opinion, never any excuse for stealing another writer's words and claiming them as one's own. Never. And because there's no excuse for it, there can be no forgiveness, at least from me.
But plagiarism isn't the only form of deceit being practiced these days in the publishing world.
It used to be, in the world of romance novel publishing, there were a couple of magazines devoted to reviewing romance novels. The major literary review outlets -- Publishers Weekly, most prominently -- wouldn't touch them, so we writers were left with Romantic Times, Affaire de Coeur, and a few others. When the mall stores like Waldenbooks and B. Dalton were riding high, they had newsletters, and then the online review sites started up. The commercial reviewers, of course, were more interested in selling books and kept the reviews almost universally positive. The review sites could be more critical, but there was a personality behind them that provided some sense of reliability.
Now, with the advent of reader-posted reviews, how does the reader determine which reviews are honest?
Dear Author did a blog about an author who was sockpuppeting 5-star reviews for his own book and was caught impersonating himself in a forum discussion on Amazon. What was eventually revealed was that the author was actually paying for commissioned reviews but then supplying the reviews!
Let me back up a bit and explain some of this. At one point a couple of years ago, I registered with an outfit called Textbroker. The way they work is that you sign up for the assignments posted on their website, you write the text, send it to them, and if the product meets their (and their client's) approval you get paid. I'm assuming Textbroker is reasonably legitimate -- I'm still getting updates and newsletters from them -- but they're the facilitator in a deal like this. (Edited to add: Textbroker is not involved, as far as I know, in the Mainak Dhar situation. They may be involved in others. I don't track them at all.)
So if I were an author who wanted a bunch of 5-star reviews for my book on Amazon (or anywhere else for that matters), I'd contract with Textbroker for, say, 25 reviews of 50 words each, to be posted with 5-star ratings, and I'd pay Textbroker $5 each for those reviews.
This would cost me $125. Textbroker would post the assignment and wait for their subcontractors to sign up for it. Textbroker takes a cut, say $1 each, and the other $4 would go to each of the 25 writers who wrote the reviews. They'd get paid when the reviews went live. According to the discussion on Amazon regarding the book in question, the author also stipulated that each reviewer had to buy a copy of the book out of the payment. But there was evidence presented that the author also wrote the reviews, and the "reviewers" were merely supplying their name and ISP address for the author to hide behind. When the reviews went live on Amazon (or wherever else they were being posted) no one would be able to trace them back to the author. They'd look for all intents and purposes as legitimate, independent, unbiased reviews.
Except that they weren't.
The idea that this is no worse than a TV commercial in which actors are paid to pretend to be real people facing bankruptcy or suffering from painful joints or enjoying an enhanced sex life because they bought the right brand of pancake mix is possibly justified to a certain extent. On the other hand, we all know that the actors are just actors and that they've been paid to pretend their knees hurt or their house is about to go into foreclosure. We know that they've been given a script written by the purveyors of the product or service.
There's no such transparency with book reviews. There's no way of knowing who's an honest and independent and unbiased reviewer and who's a paid shill and who's the author's spouse.
As Jane wrote on the Dear Author blog, it's sometimes difficult for the average reader to determine which reviews are sincere and which . . . aren't. She suggested that things to look for are reviewers who only have one review or whose reviews are always 5-star. I started with her advice and I decided to do a little sleuthing myself.
I decided to compare the reviews for five more or less random books. These were my criteria as I began trolling the Amazon lists for likely subjects --
1. Historical romance, at least 200 pages.
2. Self-published digitally in the past 12 months, no reissues of print publication.
3. No more than 99-cents, preferably free.
4. At least three 5-star reviews.
5. At least three 1-star reviews.
6. Not discussed on any of the discussion sites/blogs I frequent.
I thought it would take only a few minutes to find five books fitting that description but in fact it was rather difficult. For example, Beverly Kendall's All's Fair in Love and Seduction was only an estimated 136 pages. Denise Domning's A Love for All Seasons had been published years ago and only had two reviews. Charlotte Hawkins' My Lady Gisborne had no 1-star reviews
After an hour of combing through the Amazon listings, I finally settled on the following five, having adjusted my requirements slightly:
All's Fair in Love and Seduction by Beverly Kendall
Daughter of Deceit by Carrie James Haynes
My Lord Wicked by Cheryl Bolen
Eulogy's Secret by Grace Elliot
Seeing the Elephant by Leah Banicki
Here's what I discovered:
All's Fair in Love and Seduction
5-Star -- 9
4-Star -- 9
3-Star -- 1
2-Star -- 1
1-Star -- 3
Daughter of Deceit
5-Star -- 13
4-Star -- 3
3-Star -- 3
2-Star -- 7
1-Star -- 10
My Lord Wicked
5-Star -- 6
4-Star -- 0
3-Star -- 6
2-Star -- 0
1-Star -- 1
Eulogy's Secret
5-Star -- 10
4-Star -- 8
3-Star -- 0
2-Star -- 0
1-Star -- 0
Seeing the Elephant
5-Star -- 8
4-Star -- 7
3-Star -- 2
2-Star -- 8
1-Star -- 10
Authors Kendall and Bolen are not newcomers, and so I wasn't surprised to see a variety of voices in the reviews. As I made a further analysis, I was able to see that many of their reviewers had multiple reviews under their belts. Some of their reviewers had also reviewed some of these authors' other books. I felt that for the most part, the reviews of these two books were honest, sincere personal opinions of people who had read at least part of the book. There may have been some 5- and 4-star reviews by friends, but there were also independent reviews. IMHO, of course.
Grace Elliot's Eulogy's Secret had only 4- and 5-star reviews, so I was a bit more skeptical. However, two things made me trust these reviews. First, many of the reviewers had significant portfolios of reviews to check. Second, and perhaps more important, these reviews went beyond the mere gushing praise of "I loved this book from the first page and everyone who loves romance will love it too!" I got the distinct impression that at least most, if not all, of the reviewers were independent of the author and had read most, if not all, of the book and liked it.
And that leaves Daughter of Deceit and Seeing the Elephant. :sigh: Where to begin.
Let's start with Seeing the Elephant because I think it demonstrates a real problem for readers navigating the now published books that used to be relegated to print publishers' and agents' slush piles, 99% of which was never contracted and therefore never printed. If anyone read these books other than the authors and the first readers in the mail room, it was only friends, family, a critique partner or two, and maybe some contest judges. Now, however, these books are not only out for public viewing, they are for sale. Authors are expecting readers to pay for the privilege of reading them; it used to be the other way around.
There's a huge disparity in the review ratings for Seeing the Elephant, with eight 5-star and ten 1-star reviews. All of the 1- and 2-star reviews lament horrible grammar, especially shifts in verb tenses. The author -- and in one case her husband -- replied to several of these critical reviews by announcing that she had engaged an editor and errors would be fixed. In at least one of those responses dated 2 November 2011, she states that a revised version has been uploaded, but in others she says she's working with the editor and expects the revised version to be ready after "the first of the year." So at some point the author herself acknowledges that the book as it was uploaded to Amazon in May 2011 was not, in fact, ready for publication. She acknowledges that it needs editorial assistance.
Then how does that square with all those 5-star reviews that saw nothing wrong with it?
Well, to begin with, one of those 5-star reviews is from the author's husband. Another is from the author herself. Not hiding behind a pseudonym or a sock puppet. Just right out there. And I guess the fact that they're not hiding who they are makes it somehow okay? I mean, I'm at a loss here. But they are certainly not impartial independent readers with no stake in the game. Doesn't the person looking for a book to buy generally assume that the reviewers are reasonably unbiased? There are, in fact, some reviewers on Eulogy's Secret who explicitly state that they do not know the author and have no connection with her. (Edited to add: I noticed on doing some additional surfing that Sharon Ihle, under her own name, posted a 5-star review for her digital reprint of Dakota Dream, the text of the review being an attributed reprint from the original Romantic Times review by Kathe Robin.)
Somehow or other I doubt the same can be said for all of the other six 5-star reviewers of Seeing the Elephant. Leaving out Jeff and Leah Banicki, of the other six, four of them have only reviewed one book -- Seeing the Elephant. Their reviews are very short, only a couple of lines, and really say nothing about the book except that it's good.
However, to be fair, many of the 1- and 2-star reviews were also very short, and eight were by people who had no other reviews on file with Amazon. The distinction here is that all the low-score reviews cited the horrible writing style, poor grammar, shifts of tense, etc., as their reasons for not liking or not even being able to read more than a few pages of the book. To many of them, author Banicki responded that she appreciated their comments and was going to engage an editor to help her revise the book.
In other words, she knew they were telling the truth. She did not try to defend her work against them, nor cite the glowing reviews with 5 stars, which suggests even she didn't believe those 5-star reviews. Was it because she knew the reviewers were friends or family who were just being nice? I don't know. I can speculate, but I don't know for sure.
So. . . .
Daughter of Deceit by Carrie James Haynes features an elegant, evocative, gothicky cover photo by Konrad Bak. Yes, folks, I cruise through Dreamstime, too.
Of the 13 reviewers who gave Daughter of Deceit 5-star reviews, six have no other reviews on file. Five of the remaining seven have other reviews, but only of other books by Haynes, either under that name or writing as Jerri Hines. The remaining two reviewers, identified as "Ruby W." and "RCardello," have reviewed other books, but they have given all of them 5 stars. "Ruby W." reviewed four of Haynes/Hines' books, giving all of them 5 stars.
Interestingly enough, Ruby and "RCardello" also reviewed books by Annette Blair, and of course gave them 5 stars also.
According to Jerri Hines' blog both Annette Blair and Ruth Cardello are friends of hers.
And while there's nothing wrong with friends helping friends, it does appear to me -- if not to anyone else -- that only friends and family members of Carrie James Haynes/Jerri Hines are giving Daughter of Deceit 5 star reviews. (Edited to add: One of the 5-star reviewers of Daughter of Deceit is identified as "Ramona." Another of Haynes' novels is dedicated to her mother, whose name is Ramona.)
So let's move on to the 4-star reviews. The three reviewers in this group have only reviewed a total of eight books between them, and four of the eight are Haynes/Hines titles. Again, this is beginning to look suspiciously incestuous, especially when on 20 February she announced that she asked a friend "...specifically to give my book a great review, not just a good review but a great one" to test a theory that she had a "stalker" reviewer who was posting a negative review in response whenever a positive review was posted. There are three 5-star reviews posted to Daughter of Deceit on the 20th, 21st, and 22nd of February. All three are by reviewers with no previous reviews on Amazon. Is one of them the review Haynes requested from a friend?
She concludes that blog post by writing "If I'm wrong, then we'll know I'm paranoid. We'll see. Should know within the next couple of hours... "
There were subsequently a number of 2- and 1-star reviews posted, but Haynes has not blogged since then.
In contrast to the 4- and 5-star reviewers, those who gave Daughter of Deceit the lowest marks in the 1- and 2-star reviews had a much more extensive background of reviewing, with four out of the 17 having 20 or more prior reviews. There were seven, however, for whom this was their first and so far only review. Those with more reviews, however, also had a wider range of ratings, which tended to indicate that they were giving honest reports rather than just blanket rave reviews.
The content of the negative reviews was also different from the 5-star. The positive reviews were all quite brief, pretty much saying they loved the story. Some gave a few details of the plot, but not much. The negative reviews were also for the most part very short, with all citing the bad writing -- grammatical errors, usage mistakes, and so on -- for their low rating. Many readers said they could not read more than a small portion of the book due to the distraction of the poor writing.
One reviewer provided a surprisingly extensive analysis, and for her/his pains was rewarded with follow-up from one of the 4-star reviewers, accusing her/him of not reading the whole book (which is not a requirement to post a review anyway) and of disliking the book because it had a gay character.
The replies to the negative reviews can be informative, and this was true of Seeing the Elephant as well, where the author and/or her husband posted about the revised version either being available or soon to be available.
Both authors have admitted their books needed additional editing, but neither has apologized to readers for putting up unedited, poorly written manuscripts and expecting people to pay for them. Haynes believes there may be someone stalking her book to post negative reviews, and apparently she thinks it's because she has a gay character. According to her blog, she's a conservative Christian, and that is a demographic that has had some difficulties dealing with the LGBTQI population. Is it possible Haynes is working through an issue that has come home to her? Yes, I'm sure it's possible. And maybe it's difficult for her, so she's chosen the arena of her novel to explore it.
But none of the critical reviewers have made any mention of the gay character; it's the 5-star reviewers who seem to have the need to add the minor spoiler that oh, by the way, the major secondary character Charles is gay. I'm sure, therefore, it is just a really strange coincidence that two of the 5-star reviewers of Daughter of Deceit style themselves as "CharlyG." and "Charlie G." (sarcasm off)
Preliminary conclusion, then: Is it lying to have your friends give your book favorable reviews? Personally, I think it is. I think the reader who is being asked to hand over cash for the privilege of reading a book has a right to know if the reviewers have any kind of vested interest in the success of the book or have any reason to be biased in their opinion. Personally, in my opinion, not a single one of the 5-star reviewers of Daughter of Deceit or Seeing the Elephant is an unbiased reviewer. I think some of the other reviewers, even with 5-star reviews, of the other books are at least somewhat impartial.
Furthermore, I think this is a problem that's going to haunt the self-published authors for a long time. There are no gatekeepers any more. None. Except maybe the review websites. I recommend readers find those, find a few they trust, and be very wary of those accolades on Amazon.
Lying is wrong. Claiming someone else's words as your own in a case of plagiarism or copyright infringement is wrong, morally and sometimes legally. But giving someone else your words and telling them to claim them as their own for your financial benefit as in the case of Mainak Dhar or as I strongly suspect is the case of Daughter of Deceit and Seeing the Elephant, is wrong, too. Really, really wrong.
More on this subject later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)