Malle Vallik has a thought-provoking post up at Romancing the Blog entitled Five Tips on an Easy-to-Use Social Media Tool: Commenting.
To summarize, her 5 tips are thus:
- Respond to people who comment on your blog - I try to do this
- Authors should thank all reviewers who review their books, even if review not positive - Umm…I disagree, but see below
- Comment on several blogs per day - I try to visit several blogs per day but I only comment if I feel have something to say, or if I have the time
- Don’t use commenting as an opportunity to self-promote - I definitely agree on this point
- Think before publishing comment - Very good advice
The point which stuck out in my mind was the second one. I don’t think authors should feel obligated to thank reviewers for reviewing their books, particularly when said reviews were unsolicited.
Ultimately, reviews are written with fellow readers in mind, not authors. I have no problem with an author commenting on something I write, but I certainly don’t expect them to do so. I’ve also rarely seen a truly classy response to a negative review, so that’s another consideration for an author thinking about weighing in. While they have a right to respond to a negative review if they wish, it’s very hard to do so in such a way that sheds them in a positive light. In the case where the reviewer has made glaring mistakes about the content of the book, or falsely accused them of inaccuracies, I think an author is entitled to draw attention to those errors.
What do you think? Do you agree with Malle that responding to all reviews is good author etiquette?
{ 22 comments }
Hmmmm… was gonna answer all here, but this would make a very easy post @ my blog.
But to answer your question-when somebody emails me a link to a review, I will try to go and say thanks, good or bad. But I’m not googling my name to find reviews, so it’s not possible to respond to ALL reviews.
@Shiloh Walker Good idea! I’ll look forward to reading that post.
I would imagine that it’s near impossible for authors to find all the reviews of their books.
“Authors should thank all reviewers who review their books, even if review not positive.”
I certainly do not agree with that! Authors shouldn’t feel obliged to thank reviewers, especially those who didn’t enjoy their books. It’s not fair on authors and reviewers. When authors want to thank, it should be because they want to, not because they *should*.
I think what bothers some authors is, when is the right time to leave a note of thanks? IMO, it’s best to do it after forty-eight hours or when a discussion among readers dies down.
I used to feel I ought to thank a blogger in comments, straight away, for taking the time to write a review [whether good or bad]. But then after exchanging emails with a very wise blogger of my acquaintance, it dawned on me that popping up quickly like that inhibited discussion about the book. So now I either thank privately for the reviewer’s time [whether good review or bad] or wait, as Maili suggests, for discussion to draw naturally to a close and then thank in comments.
I like to thank if I can, because there’s a big difference between just reading a book and sitting down to write a review. Reviews take time and creativity. But I do understand that reviews certainly aren’t written to make authors feel good or bad. They’re a service by readers for readers to help in book-buying choices. Very important when there are so many books out there to choose from.
All very good rules to follow.
Also just because you are posting a comment on a blog that may have minimal traffic or followers, keep that in mind what you type and publish can still reach many.
Great post!
@Maili I like your forty-eight hours idea, especially in the case of a non-glowing review.
@Portia Da Costa Thanks for your thoughts from an author’s perspective.
@katiebabs Thanks, KB!
A while back Pearl wrote herself a critical review of Kate Douglas’ no. 1 book of the Wolf Tales series. She really had very little she enjoyed but still Kate Douglas gave a graceful response that made me respect the author.
I think it is ridicules to expect from authors to respond to every review of them out there. If they do, that’s fine, but not as a rule and definitely not something reviewers should expect from an author.
@Leontine Yes, that’s right! Thanks so much for reminding me. Here’s the link for anyone who’s interested: http://pearl72.blogspot.com/2009/07/tbr-challenge-2009-wolf-tales-kate.html
I just wrote a few long articles for a client on blog commenting and was thinking about author comments when I was writing. I think most authors should try to incorporate blog commenting and blog reading into their PR campaign for a book launch. In out modern society this is one of the only ways we as authors have to communicate with our readers.
well that is just my 2 cents though…
I think it all depends. If I feel that a comment would make the blog author uncomfortable, I’ll always leave it alone. That can be either because the review has been negative or it just doesn’t feel appropriate. I have Google alerts (for e-piracy reasons, but it sends me links to reviews, too) and so I know when a review is out there … but unless someone contacts me, or knows that I’m a regular reader of their blog, it feels kind of Big Brother-ish to just pop in and say, “Hey! Thanks!” For some readers it doesn’t matter whether an author reads the reviews, but I imagine that for others, they don’t want to write a review with the sense that the author is looking over their shoulder. Of course everything on the internet is out there, and of course they know the author might come across it, but I don’t want to shove Author Is Watching You in their faces.
If someone e-mails me, I usually thank them there. I also (usually — ha! I broke that rule right here) wait before acknowledging a review in the comments, or don’t at all, because I don’t want to stifle discussion.
And then there are other blogs where it won’t matter if I comment or not, because I’m just *there* all the time. I make comments on so many other posts, it’d be weird if I didn’t comment on the review of my own books.
So, no — I guess I don’t agree. Thanking a reviewer is nice, but I know they don’t do it for me, and it feels sometimes presumptuous to seek out reviews and force my author presence in a post that is about a book.
Just have to add: I also feel uncomfortable saying, “Thank you for the review.” Thank you for reading? Yes. I’m glad you enjoyed it? Yes. I’m sorry you didn’t love it? Yes.
But readers aren’t my promo machines, and thanking them for reviews might *mean* that I’m thanking them for reading the book, but it just sounds wrong, like I’m forcing them into a role where a review serves the author rather than the reader.
From Ms. DeCosta: “I used to feel I ought to thank a blogger in comments, straight away, for taking the time to write a review [whether good or bad]. But then after exchanging emails with a very wise blogger of my acquaintance, it dawned on me that popping up quickly like that inhibited discussion about the book. So now I either thank privately for the reviewer’s time [whether good review or bad] or wait, as Maili suggests, for discussion to draw naturally to a close and then thank in comments.”
Author’s comments to reviews of their books, imo, good, bad or indifferent, inhibit honest and free comments from readers. Reviews are for readers, not authors. If authors feel they “must” jump in, private, behind the scenes, makes sense … or maybe waiting for the “heat” to dial back. I LOVE authors comments on threads that are neutral — Carla Kelly, just for example, is commenting at AAR on accuracy in historical and how important is that to the reader, to the author? But she’s not commenting on a review of her own book. Which I very much appreciate.
Great post … thanks for continuing the convo!
Great post! I think authors responding to online reviews can definitely build a relationship between the author and the blogger, and also create positive PR. But at the same time, I can see the point about an author’s comments inhibiting blog discussion. I guess it depends on the blog and the review.
@Kayla Dawson Blog commenting is definitely a smart thing for authors to do, as long as it’s not shameless self-promotion. Also, most authors are readers and it therefore makes sense that they would want to participate in book discussions.
@Meljean I was thrilled to receive your comment the other day! I think the stifling discussion element is more relevant in the case of a negative review whereby commenters might feel reluctant to continue criticizing a book once it’s clear to them that the author is following the thread.
I agree with your point that it would seem unnatural for you not to comment on a review of one of your books on a blog where you are a regular participant in discussions. I think it’s really up to the author to do whatever she feels comfortable with. I’d hate to think authors felt obliged to thank a reviewer out of a sense of etiquette if they really didn’t want to do so.
@Janet W I think author comments can inhibit discussion among readers, but it depends very much on how it’s done. I’d say it’s more likely to do so in the case of a non-glowing review. I also take notice when an author regularly engages in general discussions or only pops up when one of her books is the focus of the conversation. Obviously, authors are under time constraints and may not have the time or the inclination to blog hop. I still find their input interesting in general discussions as they look at things from another perspective.
Yes, and the author.
Again, I’m late in commenting, but all this got me thinking about one of the oddest aspects of blogging: mingling with the great & famous. My husband blogs daily about the New York Times crossword puzzle. We have reason to believe that the crossword puzzle editor for the Times, Will Shortz (modestly famous in that circle), reads the blog, although he has never commented. But for all I know, any of the many celebrities who do the NYT puzzle daily (see “Wordplay” the documentary on the subject) checks the blog. Weird, hunh?
In a similar but different context, I used to read & comment on one of the post-”Julie & Julia” blogs about cooking all the recipes in a cookbook, in this case the Gourmet Cookbook edited by Ruth Reichl. Teena (the blogger, also a mathematics professor) posted a poor grade for a recipe that just hadn’t worked for her (she trained at a culinary institute, btw, so she’s not your average domestic goddess). Well, the blog had just been featured in a Wall Street Journal article, so Ruth Reichl happened to be lurking. She posted a curt defense of the recipe (which wasn’t hers originally, so in large part she’d just leaped in to defend the original chef and his recipe!), and then all heck broke loose. Teena, the blogger, was immediately starstruck because, after all, this was Ruth Reichl!! I, for my sins, was pissed off because nowhere in Ms. Reichl’s post was there any acknowledgment of Teena’s years of effort in cooking over 1,000 recipes — and generating some sales of the book. (Hey, I bought mine because of Teena’s blog!) I think Reichl would have served herself (and her chef-friend) better by thinking before she posted.
In the romance universe, there is less altitude between the average commenter and the great & famous. Heck, I’ve commented on a post where Linda Howard had previously commented — how cool is that? Some bloggers are more famous than a lot of authors, and anyone anonymous today could be published, award-winning, and well-known tomorrow. I wonder if that fact doesn’t confuse us sometimes.
If a review of an author’s book pops up on a blog she frequents, then she needs to think of herself as the author of the book, not as a regular commenter. A gracious comment, acknowledging the review itself and any substantive bits that merit it, is probably okay. The idea that one waits 48 hours is a good one — that reduces any possibility of an unintended dampening of other commenters’ enthusiasm and freely expressed opinions.
But I’d like to turn this around and remind all commenters to have some empathy for the author, just on this point. The review has to be of the book itself; the reviewer can’t worry about hurting the author’s feelings. But if an author pipes up in a graceless or hasty way, let’s have some compassion for that person. Because just as fame & fortune could be around the corner for any of us, so could the brickbats of literary criticism… And PR and marketing is increasingly falling on the authors’ shoulders — and the pay for that is even crappier than their royalties!
Let’s also acknowledge the WWND factor: I see fewer and fewer really huge writers commenting, especially on reviews of their books. Why are new authors being encouraged to comment/hang out/be “authentic” (and by the way, isn’t the opposite of the word authentic, fake?)? Imo, author blogs, author group blogs, author blog tours (like the great Lisa Kleypas visit to The Good, The Bad and the Unread blog or Mary Balogh sharing thoughts and answering questions on the Writer’s vision this weekend for a Canadian Prairie women writers blog — those are all great things. And the author is visited by people who want to hang out with her and ask her questions. Or people like (and I’m not going to name names) but authors who live online comfortably — why should they change? I don’t mean them at all.
But answering/commenting on all reviews, favourable or not? I just can’t see it. It doesn’t make me stand up and take notice. Comment on whatever general stuff, interesting stuff, research avenues, great new stuff from Candice Hern (for example), but don’t interject yourself (the author, the BFF, the defender) into a reader review. Of course, just my opinion, but the best way to be authentic is to genuinely want to join a conversation.
I do like the 48 hour rule but ……. well …… interesting blog!
@Magdalen Your husband has a crossword blog? Cool! Would you mind posting the link?
As you say, the vast majority of authors don’t have PR people to advise them. Bearing that in mind, I have a certain amount of sympathy for authors who behave badly or lash out online, depending on the situation.
@Janet W The more authors participate in online promotion, the more they have to do it. It’s evolved from an innovative way to get free publicity to an absolute necessity.
I think it’s tough for authors who want to participate in general reader discussions as their words will always be judged differently to those of a regular reader.
Sure, Sarah — it’s http://www.crosswordmanblog.com
Ross used to be the editor for the Times of London’s toughest cryptic crossword, called The Listener and published on Saturdays. He moved here to marry me
and started solving American style crosswords, most notably the NY Times daily puzzle. The blog is about his efforts to understand American clues and answers — sports, culture, automobiles, food: you name it, it’s not what he grew up with.
I post twice a week. Will Shortz does an on-air puzzle and challenge on NPR every Sunday morning. I post the week’s challenge after the radio broadcast, and then the answer on Thursday after the deadline. I also include a new puzzle based on what the on-air contestant got to do. I’ve recently started to include pictures and some chatty filler just because otherwise my posts looked anemic and colorless next to Ross’s!
Magdalen, thought you’d enjoy this — I stripped out the identifying characteristics (hopefully) — this is what I got back from my brother when I sent him a link to your blog. Btw, the movie about crosswords (can’t remember title without coffee) is FANTASTIC! Shows people you “think” you know in such a different light!!
“I don’t know it. Looks interesting, though I’m not a total xword puzzle maniac….(I don’t do the NYT puzzle until Friday/Sat/Sun, for example).
Atlantic just printed its last cryptic puzzle. I am still doing Harper’s (and working backwards through their archive). I was in London last week and was thinking of having a crack at the Times cryptic. They are legendary for being obscure. I do think you have to get used to each puzzle creator’s “sensibility”, which can be frustrating.
I still think the most elegant puzzles were by Cox and Rathvon in the Atlantic. Maltby is OK but his puzzle outlines aren’t even constructed with “typical crossword symmetry” which is aesthetically offensive to me. (Hmm…maybe I am a maniac.)
Rgds!”
@Magdalen Thanks so much for the link. What a great idea for a blog! It’s perfect timing as I’m trying to teach myself how to solve cryptic crosswords. I do a simplex one daily but I’ve never mastered the cryptic.
@Janet (& Janet’s brother) — Thanks for checking out Ross’s blog. (I don’t think of it as “our” blog, even though I do post there weekly; I have several blogs of my very own, all dying from insufficient postage.)
Frankly, if your brother is doing Fri/Sat/Sun in the Times, he’s good. I would recommend he do Thursdays NYT puzzles as well — they often have tricky grids (rebuses, secondary patterns, etc.) and so while the cluing isn’t as hard as Fri/Sat, they can be somewhat challenging. (I have on the rare occasion finished one before Ross.) And he should seriously consider coming to Brooklyn in February for the ACPT. He’d do well!
We like Cox & Rathvon’s acrostics in the Times. I’m afraid American cryptics don’t please Ross much; it may just be a matter of taste. We still do the Listener (the puzzle he used to edit) but as soon as we’ve won the Solver Silver Salver (its real name) for solvers who have been all-correct the longest, he may opt to taper back on the Listener. (Ross was all correct for so long in the 80s & 90s, they retired him and made him editor. In a sense, he’s been all-correct for over 20 years!)
I personally have always struggled with the blocked-grid cryptics in the daily papers in the UK. I think the Telegraph is supposed to be somewhat easier. We know the people who construct the dailies in the Times of London; the daily puzzles in the Guardian have more setters and more variation.
Your brother can contact us through the blog, or Ross’s website for his software: http://www.crosswordman.com And he should seriously think about competing in the ACPT — it’s a lot of fun, if only to see the guy who dresses up in crosswordy costumes; last year he was a toilet.
{ 2 trackbacks }