Skip to main content

Three things not to do when you get a bad review

 I have been lucky enough to have some wonderful reviews, but let's face it, however brilliant your book you may also get some painful ones. For example, Catch 22 is some people's favourite novel, yet I detest it and would produce a blistering review were I to be writing it up.

So what shouldn't you do when you get a stinker?
  1. Don't take it to heart - I know this easier said than done, but bear in mind a review is a personal opinion, not fact. You can revel in the fact that not many people read reviews any more. Then you can play the 'out of context' game. Find some snippets of the review you can use in a positive way on your website. So, for instance, if it says: 'Absolute rubbish. This is a brilliant novel compared with a heap of used toilet paper, but nothing else.' put 'a brilliant novel...' on your website. That'll teach the reviewer.
  2. Don't email the reviewer - unless it's an online review containing a factual error that can be corrected. And 'This book is rubbish' isn't a factual error. To argue about that would be to argue with opinion which is pointless. What's more, the same person may review your next book. Why make enemies unnecessarily?
  3. Don't set up a web page dissecting the review and attacking the reviewer. Someone did this about a review I wrote recently and it really isn't a sensible move. At worst you will end up facing a libel action and at best you will end up looking a sore loser. Once again, you could be reviewed again by the same person. Feel free to tell your friends and relations what you think, but don't go public.
I know it's annoying. I know it hurts. But the best thing to do with a bad review is to ignore it and move on. Some people just don't look at their reviews. I can't do that - I have to peek. But I can shrug my shoulders and think 'They don't get it' without carrying forward a grudge or making a fuss.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope