More on Review Wars and Self-Reviews

[Steerpike]

A glitch in Amazon.ca pulled the curtain back for a short time.

Some different perspectives by authors mentioned in this NY Times article. One author says that doing these sorts of self-reviews is essential to survival in the new landscape. What do you all think of that comment?

Amazon Glitch Unmasks War Of Reviewers - New York Times

 

[Christopher Wright]

It drives me nuts that authors do this. I don't see how it's "essential to survival," but tactically I can see how it might give you an edge. I mean, the reason why people lie is because they see a benefit to lying. By pretending to be someone who isn't you, you get an opportunity to craft a review that specifically targets the kind of reader you're looking for. And I can see the tactical value of that. I just think it sucks.

 

[Philip Overby]

I think something that we have to accept as writers is that people are going to trash our writing. Hopefully, potential readers will see past that and see the good reviews. Sometimes a negative review can be helpful to you even.

 

[J.P. Reedman]

I know an author (also editor at the indie publisher that may be publishing my novel) and she had some controversial gay stuff in her books. She got a lot of one star reviews on Amazon, and complained, as the all the bad reviews were about the theme rather than the story. The news-story was picked up by the gay press and went round the world. So, lots of new sales for her! Bad reviews are still better than no reviews, I would say...

 

[Devor]

Despite the aphorism, it's not always true that bad attention is better than no attention. It depends on the content. One review can kill a book if it's well written and says the right things.

 

[Steerpike]

The scenario JPReedman mentions is fairly specific. I agree with Devor, and I think most authors would find that a bunch of bad reviews do not boost sales.

 

[The Dark One]

I've occasionally hassled friends to review my books but they never write what I want them to write...bastards. I've never been remotely tempted to review my own though, because I suspect the outing, if it happened, could be crippling for an emerging writer.

Mind you, there's no reason why you can't do a review of your own work IN YOUR OWN NAME. Talk about your work by all means...just don't tell everyone it's brilliant. I recently arranged for a writer friend to interview me about my latest book and put it up on vimeo with links to my website. It's a great way of getting your message across and maybe inspiring a little bit of interest.

For those who might be interested in such things: http://www.adriandeans.com/#!interview

 

[Mindfire]

What if you wrote an honest self-review? Without hiding behind anonymity? Readers might be impressed by your gall and decide to give the work a closer look.

 

[Devor]

What if you wrote an honest self-review? Without hiding behind anonymity? Readers might be impressed by your gall and decide to give the work a closer look.

Then you've got the problem of people who don't believe it's really you . . .

 

[Mindfire]

Then you've got the problem of people who don't believe it's really you . . .

lol figures. xD

I suppose you could convince the unbelievers by giving out spoilers. ...of books that haven't come out yet.

 

[Benjamin Clayborne]

I don't think it's remotely plausible for the average author to impartially review their own book, or that anyone reading such an attempt would consider it to be impartial.

Perhaps something in retrospect might work (e.g. the author's thoughts on an older work of his/hers), but when the author's goal is to sell books, not only would it appear to be a conflict of interest, it would actually be a conflict of interest.

 

[Mindfire]

I don't think it's remotely plausible for the average author to impartially review their own book, or that anyone reading such an attempt would consider it to be impartial.

Perhaps something in retrospect might work (e.g. the author's thoughts on an older work of his/hers), but when the author's goal is to sell books, not only would it appear to be a conflict of interest, it would actually be a conflict of interest.

Well, it wouldnt be an impartial review so much as a marketing gimmick. Really the only difference between an internet advertisement and a self-review is that you don't have to pay for the self-review. And who wouldn't take advantage of free advertising?

 

[The Dark One]

I don't think it's remotely plausible for the average author to impartially review their own book, or that anyone reading such an attempt would consider it to be impartial.

Perhaps something in retrospect might work (e.g. the author's thoughts on an older work of his/hers), but when the author's goal is to sell books, not only would it appear to be a conflict of interest, it would actually be a conflict of interest.

How on earth would this be a conflict of interest? Whose interest is being compromised?

Authors talk about their own works all the time, with always the subtext of wanting to generate interest and sell more books. What difference does it make if the author inspires the discussion or someone else does?

 

[Benjamin Clayborne]

How on earth would this be a conflict of interest? Whose interest is being compromised?

Authors talk about their own works all the time, with always the subtext of wanting to generate interest and sell more books. What difference does it make if the author inspires the discussion or someone else does?

You're right, it wouldn't be a conflict of interest, exactly; it just would have no value as a review. It would be nothing more than advertising, no matter what it contained. Anyone with a financial interest in a product who provides information about that product is automatically irrelevant as an impartial source.

It certainly would be possible for an author's review self-promotion to actually be accurate and fair, but it's not something anyone's going to expect.