
As a matter of fact Ann got both Fitzpatrick books for her daughter. One detail that maybe you will be surprise is that her daughter didn't like the story.

This is all most of us are trying to say Lindsey. We merely are offended that because our ideas about the book are not exactly as the author would have them be - ergo, our opinion should be silenced? We are NOT condoning brutal personal attacks on the author. Not in any form. We only think that this is a form of censorship and a threat on a part of the author.
You may not think that she meant it in a threatening manner and that's perfectly fine. We are just saying that is how we took it.

Ceilidh wrote: "I'm wondering how Ms Fitzpatrick feels about sites like Amazon admitting they sometimes don't allow negative reviews to be posted to their site if the other reviews are overwhelmingly positive. Is ..."
Regrettably, it's business. They want money no matter what, even if it means lying, which is unfortunate. I work at a book store that discourages us from telling customers how we really feel about books if they ask us for our opinions which is why i'm here on goodreads.
Regrettably, it's business. They want money no matter what, even if it means lying, which is unfortunate. I work at a book store that discourages us from telling customers how we really feel about books if they ask us for our opinions which is why i'm here on goodreads.

Edit: Hey Michelle, it is interesting to know, but I really want to know what she'd think of the reviews post reading the book, whether they were informative and good to have or if it was all just unnecessary negativity.



The letter comes directly from the editor and its purpose is to give the author a blueprint for revisions. But the day I receive the letter, that's not what I see. I see page after page detailing every last thing that is wrong with my novel. The letter screams, YOUR NOVEL SUCKS!
This is the person we are expecting to handle negative criticism with maturity?

I think not! "
I had to get back tot his....I'm sorry,but WHAT?????
Talk about mixing cats and dogs...
Did my kid get paid for wearing old shoes?
If he did,and he has big bucks coming in,then yeah-suck it up if people do not like it!


Still, editing is an intensive process. I can see how you'd feel bad if your editor is harsh. And re-writing page upon page is tough. But I like harsh critique on my writing. I'm weird like that.
Are you writing a book Hellion?


Not really."
Huh?
:/
She did?
Are we,like,back in middle school? :/


Thoughtful reviews -- even negative thoughtful reviews are useful to both readers and writers. As a writer, you take serious criticisms into consideration. I know I've thought, "Yep, she's got a good point."
But reviews are for readers, not writers. A good reviewer helps her readers decide whether or not to invest time and money in a book. A good reviewer helps you sort out the gems from the dross.
Now by a "scathing review" I'm guessing that Becca meant a rant. Those can be fun to write and fun to read. Frankly, I love a good rant. I totally love an out of control rant. I adore a train-wreck of a rant. Reviewers should rant when they want to rant.
However, if you rant about how my writing is stoopid and that my mother dresses me funny, then perhaps you shouldn't ask me for a blurb. I will wonder at the dissonance there. I mean, if you hate my writing and my mother's impeccable taste in selecting my chic velour and BeDazzlered warmups, why do you trust my opinion? It falls into a "does not compute, Will Robinson" category and makes my brain circuits fry.
"Be nice" is professional advice to an aspiring author, not to reviewers. "Be nice" means that you are grateful for readers and that you understand how lucky you are to write. "Be nice" means that you treat others with respect. Again, this advice is for authors and aspiring authors, not reviewers.
I would say to reviewers, be thoughtful. If you hate something explain why. If you love something, explain why. In conclusion, stay klassy, San Diego!

I'm kind of annoyed that Lindsey deleted her posts, because there are holes in the conversation, but I suppose that's her right as a contributor... namely, to decide that her contribution isn't actually worth offering. Whatever.
Edit: Marta, thank you for acknowledging that readers are the indended audience of reviews. However, as people have pointed out in this comment thread and elsewhere it's not clear if it was, in fact, the author who asked for a blurb.
Your second-to-last paragraph has a line of advice which I don't think Fitzpatrick was communicating (or at least if she was, she was doing it poorly) but which I do think she should take: "Be nice" means that you are grateful for readers and that you understand how lucky you are to write. She's not being grateful for her readers, at least not the ones who disliked her book but who spent money and/or took time to read it anyway and respond. And as for respect, well, it goes both ways. If I was even the slightest bit inclined to read another of Fitzpatrick's projects after she finishes the Hush, Hush series (and for the record, I'm not, but this is hypothetical) I would lose that inclination based on this post, because she is not treating reviewers with respect. There is an element of implicit threat here, as I believe Lucy already said, and that convinces me wholly that her books are simply not worth my time.


It makes it look like she is above the readers.
I'm published in my country and...I've been in the process.
I stood on book fairs and people read my summaries and..well some snorted.Nice,huh? :)
It was not.They just didn't like the genre I write in.Or me.Or my hair.
So nobody could tell me it does not hurt sometimes.
But please!Be a man(woman) and live it down!
You can not go around kicking people in the shins or invoking God's anger on them if they do not like your work.
Yeah,sometimes the negative rew has no point.
It goes something like this-i do not like fallen angels.
Well,why did you read it?
I read it to trash it!
This I can not stand.
But when people write genuine arguments you just have to sit down and think.
OMG!Maybe they are right!
So Hush Hush is a series.The 2 books were...erm...not so good.Stop going around with a torch and stop the yelling about burning down the negative rewires careers.Just change!Small changes cane make the world of difference sometimes.
Why is this so difficult to understand?

I wouldn't. In fact BF herself speculates that in all probability, the editor was approaching her for a blurb without the author's knowledge. But to tell you the truth, the whole story sounds a little made-up and implausible to me. Someone called it a wish-fulfillment anecdote or something on another thread, and I think that's what this is. The whole thing with all the other authors banding together and refusing to blurb her book sounds very far-fetched. This is the problem with "this one author" type stories. You could be talking about anyone, or no-one at all.

Let me tell you a story about a GR friend of mine. This is a story that almost everyone else on this thread knows and can back me up on, so you know I'm not making this up. SO my friend wrote a beautifully detailed review of Shiver, questioning several aspects of the book and its ideologies. You know how the author responded? By telling her that if she wasn't nice, she wouldn't get published. Is it only I who think its weird that all these YA authors are telling reviewers how to write their reviews? AM I the only one to whom "Be humble" reads as "Lick my ass"?

The story sounds pretty funny to me too Vinaya. I'm wondering who the author in question is. Still no response from Fitzpatrick on that. And no link to the mean review.

I imagine the authors waiting for the new ones with baseball bats when they go to the publisher. :)


If someone who's published can't take the good with the bad then maybe they shouldn't be writing. I'll take any sort of opinion I can get on my writing. It means that it's actually caused someone to think about it... even if it is in a negative way.

And I actually found Ceilidh's Sparkle Blog and her review there through a comment Maureen Johnson made on the Bitch Magazine 100 YA novels for young feminists. She said something about calling them a clique so I started searching YA clique and the comments Maggie S. left on the blog popped right up. I was pretty horrified at the time. It's funny she did it on a blog and not on the goodreads review.

-Anila, blurbing makes me crazy. Sometimes editors ask for blurbs without telling the author, but sometimes they confer first. As to the other point, I think it's really really hard not to react to negative criticism when you've worked so hard on your book. There's a reason I don't want to know anything personal about writers. I'm pretty sure a lot of my faves are total douchebags in person...but they write brilliantly. I'm buying the book, not a friendship. (If I could buy a friendship it would be with Tim Gunn, but that's another story.)
-Vinaya, thanks for the clarification. I really sensed that this site is for passionate readers, so I generally let them be. I wasn't aware that many of you are also writers. That changes the dynamics. Although I'm guessing that every YA editor is asking the same YA bestsellers for blurbs.
-Dinjolina, you mean I have a Louiesville Slugger for nothing?



Lol. She also unfriended me and deleted all of her comments on a review of mine. I'm pretty sure she was referencing me about how she can't understand why someone would read and review a book to rip it apart.
If I read a book I bought and I hate it, I will be brutally honest about why I did. I won't personally attack an author, threaten her family, or fire bomb her house. I will critically examine the book, give my reasons for hating it as concisely as possible, while also giving as many examples of anything I may have found redeeming in the work. I'm not going to drop every book that I deem less than 3 stars. That's just ludicrous. I hardly ever give any books 4 or 5 stars even, they have to be really really special for me to feel they deserve that.
And you know what? They're my reviews. I paid for the books, I can say what I want. I can rate them anyway I want. And then hopefully steer my like-minded friends toward purchasing, or not purchasing, the book I just read. That's the whole point! It's not about karma, it's not about stroking the author's ego, it's not about making an author upset - it's about sharing your views and opinions with people who are interested in the same books as you.

Write negative reviews politely and respectfully? Okay. However, when it comes to a book that glorifies abusive relationships, SEXUAL ABUSE, stalking, presenting teenage angst as being true love, and rotten behaviour as being romantic, then no one is going to give that book a respectful review for obvious reasons. That's why books like Hush, hush, Twilight, Fallen and others get such 'scathing reviews'. Because readers who notice these issues actually have a serious problem with these books. And anyone defending this blog, read the book, and then wonder why we who didn't like it are so critical of it. If it was just bad writing and bad plot structure and bad characters, then it wouldn't have received even half as much hate. It would have just been 'Yeah, it wasn't that good.' But when it also has the things mentioned above, people will undoubtedly go 'What the fuck is this bullshit???'
And even the reviews that are written so respectfully and even weigh out cons against the pros get shot down by either the author or by their fans. As it was mentioned before, a user on Goodreads got flamed by the author of the very book she was reviewing. Another user, who wrote a polite critical review, and who writes nothing but polite critical reviews, got flamed by someone close to the author. Unfortunately the comments are now gone because said person close to the author has deleted them all.
And negative reviews should be done carefully? And I suppose good reviews are out of the question. You can write a good review, praising the book with nothing to back up your argument to the point where you look like a love-sick obsessed little weirdo, but you have to be walking around eggshells when writing critical reviews.
Nobody writes negative reviews to belittle a book or an author. People write negative reviews to express to other readers what bothered them about the book and why they didn't like it. Just like people write positive reviews to express what they did like about the book. And there's no need to cry about negative reviews. Have you ever heard of constructive criticism, Fitzpatrick? Negative reviews can help you out so much more than positive reviews, because with negative reviews you come face to face with mistakes you've made and even solutions on how to fix them and grow as an author. It's a bitch to see a bad review on something you worked hard on, but SUCK IT UP. Use it to grow and get better. Of course that wont happen if you dismiss it altogether.


Well put indeed.
Marta: I understand wanting to react to criticism but, as Ilona Andrews pointed out in a blog post someone else linked already, authors don't get to be people first- they have to also be business entities and lashing out (even subtly) or criticizing criticism itself is unprofessional.
Anyhow, I totally agree with you that blurbing is frustrating. And thank you for your wonderful rational contributins to the discussion. :D

This exchange started because Becca was asked for a blurb by someone who had trashed her book. Again, what was the thinking there by the author and editor?
-Mel, thanks for clarifying. I was responding to the request for a blurb from someone who clearly didn't admire her work. That may have been the editor acting on her own, because sometimes they do.
This has been a most interesting diversion.

So Ms. Fitzpatrick read early reviews about her book and she frequently visited Goodreads and Amazon. And then she classify the reviews as:
1. Glowing review
2. Mediocre review
3. Scathing review
So she read this scathing review of a reviewer maybe in Goodreads or in Amazon. But what is scathing? How did she considered the review scathing? The term was really vague, it could have been a negative review that has valid points or maybe just a negative review saying all evil towards the author without posting any points on why the book was not good.

LOL; I have trouble believing that's the first time anyone's called you rational. You manage to bring up some good points without being insanely defensive of Fitzpatrick's post; I don't have to agree with everything you say to agree with that.


LOL; I have trouble believing that's the first time anyone's c..."
yeah that's also confusing and Ms. Fitzpatrick says that
"Interestingly enough, this once-aspiring author didn't limit her somewhat rantish reviews to HUSH, HUSH. She'd made quite a habit of belittling authors' books along the way, and I suppose it comes to no surprise that, as far as I know, she was never able to find an author to blurb her book."
It was also confusing...uhhhm so this aspiring author also have negative reviews on other authors and she also go to these authors to blurb her book. Confusing story... I might say I need to read her reviews first, maybe she rants about these books because she found something disturbing about them, idk maybe these are YA books? I read a lot of rants and reviews about how disturbing some of the YA books nowadays.


Who knows, maybe that author removed their review. Too bad their wasn't any big scandal surrounding it. Or maybe Fitzpatrick made the whole thing up. You'd think there would be a huge story surrounding a debut author that pissed so many people off they couldn't get a blurb done.


I really like this particular review.
Uhhhm I still have that really weird feeling of wanting to rip my hair out whenever I saw my 4 star glowing review of Hush Hush. Can't believe I fall for it.


I was thinking that if the author/reviewer spoke out against the book so "strongly" the first time, you'd think she would have something to say here, if she existed on Goodreads at all.

You don't think that's petty? I think it is, very.
Its always good advice to be nice to people, but that shouldn't extend as far as 'drop the books you don't love' i.e. not writing negative reviews in case you piss off authors (like you) who will exact some petty revenge by refusing to write a blurb and then blogging about them (leaving it to others to look up the 1-star reviews by GR authors).
I do enjoy a good, scathing review sometimes but I never enjoy authors trying to silence those who write them.
If you want your book and your work treated as a legitimate work of fiction, you need to be able to accept negative reactions to your work from readers and other authors. If you can't separate yourself from your book and conflate criticism of your work with criticism of your person, you won't make it very long in the business. You'll either drop dead of a stress-induced heart attack or go out in a blaze of Deborah MacGillivray-like misconduct.
Serious authors ignore scathing reviews. Petty ones retaliate.