I loved that song by Tina Turner back in the day. Better Be Good To Me
It reminded me about something.
It reminded me about professionalism.
It reinforced that respect has its place and is a necessary component in every aspect of our lives.
It made me remember that T.V. has a strong influence on our opinions and it's not always a positive outcome.
I see it in sitcoms, Reality T.V. and children's cartoons. It's rubbing off on society as a whole. Sure, it has its place and some instances, it's needed and to the point. But if we aren't careful, it could become a habit, a way of interacting that spills over into aspects of our lives we don't intend it to. And that absolutely includes writing a review.
What am I referring to? It goes by many names because it's considered a gray area. Snark. I.E.: Sarcasm. Causticity. Derision. Disparagement. Scorn. Contempt. Disrespect. Sneering.
Let me put it like this, and it's a quote from a respected author regarding a scathing review that appeared on Amazon.
"...have this Simon Cowell mentality that you have to be cruel in order to get your point across as to how much you hate the book or the performance or in this case, the romance genre in general."
In a nut shell - it comes across as a lack of respect.
Some review sites channel their inner Simon Cowell. They don't call him Judge Dread for nothing. He might be entertaining on television, but his style does not translate well to writing reviews for romance books. Some people need to be reminded of that. Despite and in spite of the review blogs that are out there that cater to that mind set, it's not what everyone looks for.
My advice? Before you review for a site, check with the site owners or, if they have it, the list of criteria or FAQs that might provide information about the tone or style of their reviews and what they look for.
Read some of their published reviews and get a feel for what they typically accept. And that includes whether they care to edit their reviews or leave them as they are. If they leave them as submitted, that means the onus is on the reviewer to edit and present a coherent review. If the review site cares, that is.
If your writing is cutting edge with clever quips and snark and they love that type of writing, then you've found a home.
By the same token, if they are more about information, fairness, respect and articulate coverage of what works and objective comments on what doesn't without resorting to flaming prose, and that's what you prefer to share, then that's the review site to join.
Long and Short Reviews' readers don't get snark at all. They don't get the flamboyant and/or the exaggerated. Nor the mean, the cutting or the brutal type of opinions that can turn off reader and author alike.
Usually readers look for solid, well written, professional and trustworthy reviews. They want someone who can articulate without resorting to flashy verbiage or the current fad lexicon of the moment, certainly they don't want a review that makes them cringe from the harshness of the comments.
And that's where the title, Be Good To Me, comes in.
Respect yourself as a reviewer.
Respect the author's work.
Please don't make any criticism personal by making disparaging comments that allude to a negative reflection of the author. The author is not being reviewed, the book is. The story is. The technique is. The dialogue is. The plot is.
Please don't confuse enthusiasm with outlandish vocabulary: gonna, wanna, yo', bitchin', any profanity, slang spelling and slang vernacular.
Please treat the literary work, short or long, with respect.
Especially short stories.
Don't get angry because you felt it wasn't long enough. If it's a short story, it's a short story. It focuses on ONE aspect, ONE development thread and if that is not enough? Don't read short stories.
Know your personal expectations and choose books accordingly.
It's not a fault if the book is short.
It's wrong to use that reason to lower a book's rating.
Do you know what that is like?
It's like ordering one scoop of ice cream and getting upset because it didn't fill you up like two scoops.
One scoop of ice cream is like a short story. Remember that.
I tried to find an example of snark that insults not only the author but the book. I tried to find something that incorporated the don'ts - like swearing, while also providing what those other review blogs have, entertaining snark. I stumbled upon this video regarding a series that I actually enjoy. I overlook a lot of stuff that drives many readers wonky. I don't know what it is, but I have enjoyed every book in the series for what it gives me in that book alone.
Obviously, this particular Vlog has made video snarking an artform.
If a reviewer was to put in writing for LASR what is in this clip: synopsis, a bit of spoiler, profanity and yes, snark, it would never see the light of day. SNARK THEATER for one of the Anita Blake books.
I think it makes the point.
Showing posts with label no snark. Show all posts
Showing posts with label no snark. Show all posts
Saturday, August 24, 2013
Tuesday, July 3, 2012
"Revisit Me" Screams Number Three
Hello, again, fellow reviewers!
Welcome, fellow word grazers!
It's been awhile, hasn't it? I've covered many aspects of reviewing so topics are fewer to come by. Sometimes what is old is new again and this post proves it. I heard it through the editing grapevine that ratings aren't equaling the review. The ripple effect from that practice is not pretty and it affects the reviewer's credibility, not to mention causes untold confusion for the author as well as readers of your review.
The rating of three (3) isn't a bad thing. If you need a refresher about a three (3) rating click HERE -- remember the Rapunzel-effect?. I know some of you do. I even covered a three (3) rating in more depth HERE - personally, I think the 'Missing Link' is even more helpful. Three(3) is a popular subject, can you tell?
The flip side of rating a book a three (3), is not writing the review to justify it. In fact, what is being written is glowing, gushing and all perfectly positive. If you're that enthusiastic about the book, why in the world are you rating it a three (3)? To paraphrase Mr. Spock, "That does not compute." Certainly, it's not logical.
For a book to earn a three (3) rating, it has to have faults. Has to. Not maybe. Has to. And how to address them was covered in The Rapunzel Effect - so go check out that link if you haven't already.
A reviewer does a great disservice to the book and all readers of their review when there is tons of gushing and positive opinions without sharing what dragged it down from a perfect rating of five (5) or Best Book to a three (3). There has to be a reason. It's the responsibility of a reviewer to express that; share what didn't work and what could have made it better in a concise but respectful manner. Remember, no snark - it's never constructive nor truly informative. Remember, I covered No Snark when I went 'fishing'. Need a refresher? Click HERE
I'm not sure why a reviewer would hesitate to share their opinion of what didn't work for them. I don't think they'd hold back if they were talking to their friends face to face about it. I hardly think they'd recommend a book to their friends by waxing poetic about how great it was and then mislead them by not warning them of the book's pitfalls. Friendship means taking the good with the not-so-good. The relationship that a reviewer has with her/his audience is just like a friendship. Some readers follow a reviewer because they feel that they can trust the opinion of the writer. Why would you want to let them down? What are you afraid of? Are you aware that authors respect a well worded critique and find the information of what didn't work, helpful? They do. Well, most do.
If a reviewer stated that the hero's dialogue came across sounding like a stubborn, childish cur instead of a man you could respect and swoon over, then they'd know to pay more attention to the male POV and how he's depicted. Perhaps they need to do more research on how men talk amongst themselves to gain more insight. And that insight may very well benefit the next hero, and reviewers will truly have reason to be enthusiastic. Maybe there was a ton of confusing head hopping in a book and the reviewer shared that it was overdone and threw them out of the story. That might challenge the author to rein in his/her characters and the next book will be sharp and on target.
The bottom line? Write a review that matches the rating. Give details ( NOT SPOILERS) about what was missing, or what didn't work. Something. Don't just say the book 'feels' like a three (3). That means nothing. Please do not submit a review that has "Happy, Happy, Joy! Joy!" (nod to Ren & Stimpy) all over it and then slap on a three (3) rating, or even a four (4). When you do that, your credibility is on the line.
Please make your reviews match and/or justify your rating.
Welcome, fellow word grazers!
It's been awhile, hasn't it? I've covered many aspects of reviewing so topics are fewer to come by. Sometimes what is old is new again and this post proves it. I heard it through the editing grapevine that ratings aren't equaling the review. The ripple effect from that practice is not pretty and it affects the reviewer's credibility, not to mention causes untold confusion for the author as well as readers of your review.
The rating of three (3) isn't a bad thing. If you need a refresher about a three (3) rating click HERE -- remember the Rapunzel-effect?. I know some of you do. I even covered a three (3) rating in more depth HERE - personally, I think the 'Missing Link' is even more helpful. Three(3) is a popular subject, can you tell?
The flip side of rating a book a three (3), is not writing the review to justify it. In fact, what is being written is glowing, gushing and all perfectly positive. If you're that enthusiastic about the book, why in the world are you rating it a three (3)? To paraphrase Mr. Spock, "That does not compute." Certainly, it's not logical.
For a book to earn a three (3) rating, it has to have faults. Has to. Not maybe. Has to. And how to address them was covered in The Rapunzel Effect - so go check out that link if you haven't already.
A reviewer does a great disservice to the book and all readers of their review when there is tons of gushing and positive opinions without sharing what dragged it down from a perfect rating of five (5) or Best Book to a three (3). There has to be a reason. It's the responsibility of a reviewer to express that; share what didn't work and what could have made it better in a concise but respectful manner. Remember, no snark - it's never constructive nor truly informative. Remember, I covered No Snark when I went 'fishing'. Need a refresher? Click HERE
I'm not sure why a reviewer would hesitate to share their opinion of what didn't work for them. I don't think they'd hold back if they were talking to their friends face to face about it. I hardly think they'd recommend a book to their friends by waxing poetic about how great it was and then mislead them by not warning them of the book's pitfalls. Friendship means taking the good with the not-so-good. The relationship that a reviewer has with her/his audience is just like a friendship. Some readers follow a reviewer because they feel that they can trust the opinion of the writer. Why would you want to let them down? What are you afraid of? Are you aware that authors respect a well worded critique and find the information of what didn't work, helpful? They do. Well, most do.
If a reviewer stated that the hero's dialogue came across sounding like a stubborn, childish cur instead of a man you could respect and swoon over, then they'd know to pay more attention to the male POV and how he's depicted. Perhaps they need to do more research on how men talk amongst themselves to gain more insight. And that insight may very well benefit the next hero, and reviewers will truly have reason to be enthusiastic. Maybe there was a ton of confusing head hopping in a book and the reviewer shared that it was overdone and threw them out of the story. That might challenge the author to rein in his/her characters and the next book will be sharp and on target.
The bottom line? Write a review that matches the rating. Give details ( NOT SPOILERS) about what was missing, or what didn't work. Something. Don't just say the book 'feels' like a three (3). That means nothing. Please do not submit a review that has "Happy, Happy, Joy! Joy!" (nod to Ren & Stimpy) all over it and then slap on a three (3) rating, or even a four (4). When you do that, your credibility is on the line.
Please make your reviews match and/or justify your rating.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)