message 101:
by
Petra X
(new)
Mar 01, 2011 11:33AM

reply
|
flag

Lol. Do you think it would be more healthy if she will comment and defend her post?


Do you understand what you did when you posted "Be Nice"? Let me tell you: You buried yourself and your career forever.
Do you even know the definition of "taking the high road"? I guess not. If you did, you wouldn't have posted your opinion of other people's thoughts about your work even if they didn't like it. Someone said some bad things about your book. So what? You wrote the book not them, you loved your work and you are proud of it. Why should some stranger's opinion of it matter? Why would you humiliate yourself by responding to it? Take the high road!
But you did! Yeah, right! You took the first chance to take revenge on the author of the review. You, almighty Ms Fitzpatrick, were asked to read a manuscript by this person and turned it down because of fear it would actually be good, or even worse it would be better than your books. Then what? You'll have to admit the truth. Even more, you'll have to say some nice words about the manuscript. Your big name might end up on the cover of this person's book. Get real! You wrote two! books and not that good to be honest. Who cares about your praise? If I were this person, I would rather not publish my book than have your name on it. What is worst, you posted this story on the net hoping that others will support you and admire you for what you did. Look at me, I am so noble. I took the higher road! If you say so... In truth, you hit to a new kind of low. Congratulations!
To conclude, I'll give you a piece of advice as well. If you want to save what is left of your little career, you'd better apologize to this person for involving him or her in you pathetic attempt to draw attention. And BE NICE! because you never know, tomorrow you might end up in a similar situation. I assume you wouldn't want other people to treat you like you treated this aspiring author.
PEACE

Do you understand what you did when you posted "Be Nice"? Let me tell you: You buried yourself and your career forever.
Do you even know the definition of "taking the..."
Well said.

Do you understand what you did when you posted "Be Nice"? Let me tell you: You buried yourself and your career forever.
Do you even know the definition of "taking the..."
You are... epic.

Do you understand what you did when you posted "Be Nice"? Let me tell you: You buried yourself and your career forever.
Do you even know the definition of "taking the..."
Agree, posting this blog it seems she's even proud of what she have done. Reading reviews, consider negative reviews scathing, stalking the reviewer of the said review and having the ultimate revenge of not having read or ignored the aspiring author's work because of this aspiring author hates her work in the first place.
And then not only that but she also advice aspiring authors to only review the books you love or in case if you'll write a negative review, be nice by just saying this was not for me because of this and that.
Why? Why on earth should you do this? Because there's always the possibility of having this scenario repeated again. You won't have the opportunity to be publish because a certain author might already held grudge on you by criticizing his/her work. They won't give you a chance, you have already burned the bridge, and that's your fault for posting your opinion about their work.
I don't know but this post just shouts WRONG and ATROCIOUS IMO.

I'm sorry for her, she thought she was a good enough writer to be extremely vicious and disguise it under the banner of 'good advice' and it all went belly-up. We all have thoughts of revenge (even if they never even get uttered) and we all have made terrible errors in judgement, she did it publicly.

It's like real-world girls should be as boring as some weak boy-dependent YA heroines.


In defense of Ms. Fitzpatrick, she never said not to write a negative review. In fact, she suggested a way to write a critical review that still respected the efforts of the author: "But I think a bit of courtesy in saying, 'This wasn't for me, and here's why,” says volumes about you as a reviewer and a person.'"
Readers have been skeptical that someone who had publicly been nasty about her work then asked for a blurb. I'm not. Stuff like that happens and leaves you scratching your head, thinking, "Well, this is certainly WTFish!"
I think Ms. Fitzpatrick is advising aspiring authors to consider their relationships in the publishing world. It is not vindictive or petty NOT to blurb. No one is owed a blurb by any other writer. Blurbing means taking several hours to read a book, several back and forth emails about a quote, blah, blah, blah. It's working for free as a favor to a stranger.
If you hate the book, you're in a pickle, trying to figure out if there's anything nice to say or if you should not offer a quote, thereby angering the author.
And the funny thing is that there is no evidence that author blurbs actually help book sales at the reader level. The blurbs do encourage book buyers (the people who order books for a bookstore) to stock a book, but an excellent cover is much more effective with book buyers and customers.
Oh, I'm having a Leave-Britney-alone! moment, so I better stop.

If it was just blank-check career advice she'd suggest book reviewing anonymously from the get go.
There are authors who offer this advice on negative reviews of their own books. 'Keep it to yourself if you want a career, be nice if you want a career.' Well, that might sound like advice if those authors didn't post it on reviews of their own books. Fitzpatrick's advice might have felt more wholesome if she didn't so obviously benefit from it.
I think Stephen King said something along the lines of 'if you want to be a writer the last thing you should worry about is polite society.' I don't agree with personal attacks on authors; I also don't agree with authors who shovel shit and request you not say anything with subtle menace.

Lucy, I've been looking for a title for my next book. Now I have it, Subtle Menace!
I know there's a back-story to these interactions on GoodReads because you have a very lively community.
I'm curious. I have my Goodreads profile set to be as private as I can make it; I assumed that meant that nobody but my approved friends could see my reviews/ratings. I, therefore, put absolutely no censor on my sometimes only one sentence explanations for my ratings. Not too long ago, an author "liked" my review of her book. It completely freaked me out. How did she have access to my review when my account is private? Do Goodreads "authors" have special access or is it not possible to have a completely private account? I know, off topic. I'm just wondering. I could care less if "Pittacus Lore" reads that I thought "his" crapass book was crappy, but for authors I do respect, I wouldn't want them to read my half-assed, meant-for-close-friends-only remarks.

I know I should have been a wiser user, but I'm appalled. When I first started using Goodreads, I, in no way, thought of anyone other than my friends being able to see my books/ratings/reviews. I would never have written some of the things I've written (and, really, none of it is that bad, but I'm not the type to want to have my completely subjective negative opinion about someone's hard work available to her/him). I suppose if an author wants to seek out negative, amateurish, half-baked comments on people's Goodreads ratings, that is her/his prerogative. I just wish Goodreads gave us the option to have our ratings/reviews be private. I guess I'll have to find a different way to privately discuss books with my long-distance friends.


I'm not ordering the book for my bookshop though! But then again I'd never heard of her before this.

And I don't see malice or threats in this. She also said to be humble. Do we jump all over that? It's just advice for life in general--be nice, especially on the internet. Reviewers are people, authors are people, and it's easy to cross the line here and attack her. Looking back at her other blog posts, she seems like a nice person, whether or not you like her fiction.
It's totally cool to not like a book, to even hate a book and list every reason why and send that out to the world. But if you want to be a part of the publishing business, you are reviewing your peers, and yes. I think that changes things. You don't have to kiss butt (and that's transparent), but just think before you speak. Don't personally attack authors. Back up your loving or hating with informed details.
Sorry, but Be Nice makes sense to me.


And for goodness´s sake, this all feels like "you got to be nice to us or you can not sit with us at lunch". Everybody backpatting and loving each other´s outfits, fine - but usually an environment where criticism is not tolerated can became quite stale. If somebody writing something really awesome can not get published or marketed because of her opinions of other people´s books, then surely that is a loss for the genre.
Being nice is well, nice. But always being guided by being as nice at every possible choice is a life path which might turn to mediocrity. And being the nicest person in the world does not mean one can *write*.
Reviews are not always reviews, opinions are just fine with me, and they are very rarely (IMO) directed to the authors. I can not see how a review can turn an already published book better. Just let it go.
Reviews are there (IMO) to engender discussion or help readers chose what they want to read next. Readers, their attention and their budget are finite quantities ( to a limit) so books (and authors) are in competition with each other for reader attention. No book is right for everybody (really) and usually there is a right reader for every book (maybe). If nothing "not nice" ever got said about any books how could readers like me hope to filter out what would actually work for them?

No one was talking about personally attacking authors, not the blog, nor any of the comments I've read (most).
If your book is good enough it will get published. It's the manuscript not reviews that is important. What is most important is that it looks like it will sell and make money. Publishers don't look at the reviews you've written about other people's books. As far as blurbs go, ask your editor who would have the most weight that she could get.
If you can't interest a publisher and you are paying for it yourself, what are other authors whose books (but not themselves) you've been negative about going to do? Get mega petty and say oh don't buy this book because this author wrote horrible things about mine on Goodreads or elsewhere and who are they going to say it to and where are they going to write it? Would anyone take that kind of thing seriously? I don't see this as realistic scenario. Just as Fitzpatrick's little attempt at revenge here has got her a lot of flack, how much more would a more pointed attack with names attached attract?

I laughed my butt off so hard.

I can see that clique-ish and petty behaviour can occur in any medium. And maybe this is prejudiced of me, but OMG does it look like to me that YA fiction writing is susceptible to it.
But I do not think being not nice (and people can be petty enough to define not nice in very unusual terms) is going to affect a really awesome from being recognized. And an all-nice medium has got to be saturating. So, do not ever say anything negative about a book. But then a petty paranoid author can think you are being "not nice" if you are not effusive enough in recommending her (Sadly the gender just suggested itself) newest book. Or if you do not mention it, OMG a snub, an intentional snub. So everybody is nice, they are all pals together and everybody promotes and loves everybody´s books. By which time, promoting and saying one loves a particular book will mean nothing.
I was checking my profile and found this quotes which I think applies
"- "They speak very well of you".
- "They speak very well of everybody."
- "That so bad?"
- "Yes. It means you can´t trust them."

The issue is - we're writing non-professional reviews for the books we read. Get over it and stop shitting on us. You don't have to like us but making thinly-veiled blogposts about how we're not going to get published and shouldn't write negative reviews if we want a career isn't really a good idea. Also: blow me.
I'm in no way banking on being BFFs with Cassandra Clare, so at least I'm not being unrealistic with my expectations.
And the authors are jumping on the bandwagon by making us out to be tinfoil hat people with "YA Mafia" conspiracy theories. Do I think they're all conspiring against me? Well, let's just say that I would be QUIVERING in my boots if Ms. Fitzpatrick were /sarcasm. That was never really the point of the uproar! So why make it the point?
I would prefer a blogpost along the lines of Ms. Ilona's which was something along the lines of: Let them write what they want to write and go back to your ego den, bitches.

I laughed my butt off so hard."
I hate that they're patronizing us. But I guess I never liked Scalzi anyway, starting from his post on teen writers.

of course there is no YA Mafia. Still it seems some people wish it existed and that they had that power to bligh a person´s career because of a perceived slight in the past.



Even this original blog entry seems a bit well, strong for lack of a better word. Even realizing that Ms Fitzpatrick probably was not thinking her blog feed with her references to goodreads was geting posted to goodreads.

What bothers me is they're very up in arms about how we're hurting their feelings when it comes to negative reviews about relationship abuse fantasies written for teenage girls, but a group of authors don't feel any secondary concerns about encouraging people to censor their thoughts and opinions.
They should be the biggest proponents of discussing topics like this and in the end most of them are still going 'oh well it's just logic that you're damaging potential connections.' As if we're too slow on the uptake to put two and two together. I'm concerned some of these authors are a little slow on the uptake at this point.
They think only aspiring authors are offended by the message, but I'm not one and I still find the implications of what they're saying totally horrifying.
Cillian wrote: "Everything would be so much easier if they'd followed one simple formula:
Reader reads book-->reader hates book-->reader writes bad review-->writer reads review-->writer swallows his/hers pride, sh..."
Completely agree.
Reader reads book-->reader hates book-->reader writes bad review-->writer reads review-->writer swallows his/hers pride, sh..."
Completely agree.
I feel like they are insulting our intelligence and making it seem like we are "overreacting" as a way to dissmiss our concerns. It's annoying me.


Did you join this website just to bestow us with this little nugget of knowledge?

*Sigh* As you said, this isn't a game its business.
Funny how an author with no books just joined today to make exactly the same point as Fitzpatrick. At least she wrote under her name, I wonder why you didn't?


What's your book about? Is it a paranormal romance? Or urban fantasy?


My WIP is about a band geek who's hopelessly in-love with a girl that will never love him back. It's kind of like a realistic version of the 500 Days of Summer without the manic-pixie element. I've written three novels before, all of them sucked. You know what they say, it takes one million words to get the crap out of your system. Good luck with getting signed.



Anyone here who has looked at my one-star reviews knows I approach books that wasted my precious money (of which I have little) and time (of which I have even less) with humor and a rant mentality. I would never, ever drop a book I don't like and forget about it forever and refuse to review it because 'life is too short'.
Why not? Because I am an author, and to be perfectly honest, I revel in bad books. I revel in what they teach me about what to avoid, what to strengthen, chop, shape and improve on. How would I ever detect the problems with my writing if I only read books that were wonderful, enjoyable fluff? How would I ever identify mistakes that I have made myself?
I am not a kind reviewer to books I feel project the wrong messages to impressionable young people. I refuse to condone rape culture and myth butchery and endless pages that throb with the kind of dreadful purple prose that makes me want to gouge out my eyes with a fish hook. No. I refuse. Flat out. I refuse to roll over and accept having my time wasted by some smart author lording her contract over my head while she warns me not to cross her. That is rudeness, Becks.