@The Author Guy

-On reviews

As I said these bashings and insults are very rare. The only book that I came across that raises such vitriol is this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Ac...ictureback/dp/0449816192
https://www.goodreads.co...n-be-a-computer-engineer

Complete with death threats.

The most common form of negative review I come across are along these line:

-The characters are stupid/unlikable.
-The story is stupid.
-The book is boring.

Of course reviewers write it more colorfuly like these:

-[character name] is the biggest moron in the world./ I just wish [character name] would drop dead.
-I can't believe any of this shit./ The story has enough plot holes to sink Titanic.
-I start reading the book and I magically was able to tidy up my house./ It is an effective cure for insomia.

This is primarily the result of writing for other readers instead of the authors. They aren't targeting the writers, but they didn't do it in a manner that make it acceptable to the writers. They mostly do it in a way to entertain the other readers.

Others do try to be considerate but then aren't very good in properly writing it so that it would be more acceptable to the authors. Often they aren't really that helpful at all and just use plain speak like "this book is awful/boring""I don't like it""nothing special"

Sometimes, I think that the authors are just being too sensitive. As most readers aren't really that great with prose, they would not be able to write their reviews in a way that is 'acceptable' or 'constructive.' They write it plain and blunt which I think isn't 'considerate' enough for many authors. Words like "this is stupid" which is how people would actually speak is considered bashing for by many authors. It is also quite difficult to ascertain if a writing would insult or not. Something honest like "the writing is horrible" would be considerd an insult to many writers, but then there aren't many ways to say that without sounding a bore.

-on Author Interaction

You just spell it, its for the readers. Therefore, even if the writers is capable of of writing more... technically, academically and respectfully; they don't because other readers won't be able to understand them or be turned off. They have to resort to more simple and colorful writing that the common readers could enjoy and read.

You know how it is. When you write, you write for the audience. Since the author isn't part of the audience; the technical, the academic, and even the considerate is often sacrificed to reach the audience and make it more accessible to them. Reviewers often have to write more honestly and directly (The writing is horrible. The character is stupid) than something more constructive and considerate to the author (The sentences could have been writen to flow more smoothly. [character name] could have been more more observant and skillful in magic and use it to solve problems instead of relying on coincedenses and deus ex machina). The honest and direct (and often colorful) writing is more helpful to potential readers and buyers than the 'constructive critism' writen for the author. Potential consumers has no need for such detailed reply and those details won't actually help them make a decision.

Those other avenues for author interaction are more oriented to the readers who do like the work. They are the ones who liked to have more info or so about the book. Such avenue is the last thing an unsatisfied reader would go to. The (extremely) unsatisfied ones probably rant in a review and delete or throw the book to the trash and forget about it. The less enthused will probably just give two or three stars and it at that. As such, those things are biased (towards positive) and less of an honest look of the situation.

Also, well, we are not actually talking about author interaction per se, but we are talking about reviews and the nature of these reviews. Insisting that they be 'constructive critism' or author oriented is wasted because they aren't meant to be. These are for the readers, and as such, they can be rather blunt and unforgiving. What is there is actually more of an honest reaction than serious critique. The hatred and bashing are their real reactions to the book (and says a lot about the reviewer) rather than a critical evaluation you are looking for.

Still, that doesn't mean these bashings and rantings isn't witout substance. See that Barbie book I given before? That sure has raised a lot of ire from the population and made the news. These 'reviews' arguably might not be constructive or objective, but the grievances amid the hate is still valid.

Such hatred and bashing also could actually come from the people who like the work but somehow the makers decision antagonize them. A great example is EA and their game franchises, particularly the games Dragon Age 2, Mass Effect 3, and Dungeon Keeper Mobile. These francises have a huge fan base that have put a lot of effort and fortune for their beloved games. But then, EA makes creative decisions that doesn't go well with them, or I might say insult them, and such, a huge backlash of hate had threatened EA and tarnished their name (nominated for The Worst Company in America, twice). Hatred from the fans might actually be more scathing than from the casual readers.

And the company's response is quite vile. They actually disrespect their fanbase. Good job EA.

If authors really want constructive critism, then they actually have to directly ask the readers, or beta readers and the like. That way it would prime the reader to be constructive in his critique and enable a more clear interaction between them and the author.

And I do would love to be able to talk to the authors or makers. One that I would love to talk to is Shigeru Miyamoto! I would realy realy to meet him in person.

There are a lot of changes in the relationship between writers and readers nowdays. Self publication has become influencial now. Then there is also things like Wattpad that actually makes writer/reader interaction a central part of the platform. Then there is fan fiction (and fan art) that makes writing an integral part of fan culture. You will be surprised by the number of Harry Potter fan works are out there. Then there are also a lot of Twilight fan fiction out there. Ewwww!

@Tizzy

Awww! Tizzy is feeling left out.

Edited by user Thursday, February 26, 2015 12:08:10 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

As you are all pointing out, there are lines and gradations in all of this.

I don't mind attacks against characters or plots. It's more the personal attacks that I think are inappropriate. I haven't really gotten that many if any, I've just seen others attacked.

Actually two of my favorite 'negative' reviews are from amazon.uk for DoA: ITA

A-UK Reviews

The first two from Carl and Julie a couple days apart.

Both readers absolutely hated Rupert and want him dead.

I have no idea solid reason why--there are arguments but I have trouble agreeing with them--but I find it great they have so much passion that they want a character that I felt was pretty sympathetic killed.

So yes, negative review...but I really loved the reviews, because they were very personal, yet pretty objective for those readers and very specific about what they liked and didn't like.

Overall I think a lot of it is tone. These two came off as very earnest and sincere to me.

But on the for the reader thing: The more precised and detailed a review is, i.e. more constructive like, the more it informs other readers. Don't just say the whole thing was yuck. Tell us more specifically, was it pacing? character development? If the reviewer has other reviews, then the new reader can check those out and see how the reviewers taste matches their own.

As Modfoxii says, what one person hates, another might like so I think the better one explains ones criticism, for example with examples, the more useful it is to the other readers and the writer.

Hmm

That is a good point. They really need spoiler tags that can

Actually, one really needs qualified spoilers, sort of like they do for TV Ratings with the extra letters for what is being spoiled.

It is actually the same with movie reviews, at least for the more in depth ones. You can do it with a blurb, but a detailed review is going to have some spoilers.

OK, I am missing one main thing

TL;DRed?

What is that?

Great points on the characters.

Yes, Tom is passive and that's somewhat on purpose. He's completely out of his element, trying to adjust and crazy people just keep making assumptions about him based on his appearance and perceived power and acting on those incorrect assumptions. Tom is a reader, he's not used to being an actor, and he's 16 (almost 17) most teens in real life are rather passive, unless they are rebelling against something. As he gets his legs under him, gets his confidence he will grow to be more active, remember DoA is actually one very long book, broken up into three (or more) parts. To see character evolution, the "coming of age" you have to follow the whole narrative arc. If it's a coming of age story and the character "comes of age" in the first third of the book, what happens in the last two thirds?

I point out, here, but this starts showing up in the book, Tom has a number misconceptions about how things really work in Astlan. His idealism and "can't we just get along; good guys don't cheat" needs some tempering, it's a process of growing up to face reality.

Rupert does drive a lot of stuff, he's the one that has emotional connections to Jenn and the world, he's got the earnestness and drive of a preteen. Rupert is even more idealistic than Tom, but he's also been subject to a lot more cruelty and hardship. Those two factors are what drive him forward now that he feels he has Tom and Tizzy to back him.

As far as disobeying/disrespecting Jenn etc. Have you met a 10 to 12 year old recently? That's what they sort of do. They can be brats.

Of course thinking more on this passivity issue, the one thing I really hate about the modern teen female protagonist (e.g. Twig Light, etc) all the female characters seem to do is stand around and react to the actions of the male characters. Hate that. And of course, as you point out, that's what Tom's doing.

Ouch!

:)

It won't change in second edition because I want to keep the story the same, just clean up the errors and tighten the text, no rewriting of history.

One thing to keep in mind though on the proactive rescue of Jenn. Tom doesn't/didn't at that time particularly like Jenn. She was in the summoning circle and is directly responsible for killing his body and trapping him in the Abyss. And she was treating him with a lot of hostility. I have to put my Tom hat on and ask "Why should I be expected to go out and risk my butt for this woman who is responsible for screwing up my life?"

His goal was to get Rupert to safety, to take care of the one person not afraid of him. Everything else was a distraction to his drudgery. He also had no real interest in the squabbles of his accursed master and another accursed master who were pitting demons vs demons. However, he stuck around to get Rupert to safety and because it was more interesting that sitting in a cave.

The argument I would make is that, for most of book 1, he has no 'stake' in the game, other than this kid that he likes.

On the boat, he hung back because he was on the edge of popping into demon form at any minute, shape changing was new, and he was afraid of popping back to demon form and freaking everyone out.

But I think one thing I am trying to do is paint a different version of good guys vs bad guys. Not all heroes are perfect, not all villains are dastardly. Sometimes the protagonist doesn't do what the reader wants them to do, or what's in the best interest of the story. All characters should do what makes the most sense for them, not necessarily a story archetype.

In fantasy, we have too many perfect heroes and too many perfect anti-heroes (bad boy protagonists) but in real life, heroics and anti-heroics are often complex and situational. So I was going for something like that...but I may not have (or had 20+ years ago) the writing skill to achieve what I want technically.

Anyway this will eventually change..but I have to admit, for the first part of book ii, Tom will be up to his old "non"-tricks and relies pretty heavily on his 'crew' for what to do...but that will change...eventually...

Anyway, it's very good food for thought and stuff to work on. Thanks!

Thanks

It's meant to cater to Book Junkies.

When I started it, and much of the time I wrote it I was sort of burnt out on Fantasy/SF feeling that I'd read it all and I was just starting to see the same things over and over again. I mean, how many times can Terry Brooks rewrite Tolkein? Or so and so.

So I wrote it for myself and people like me. And that's who Tom is. He's a kid who's been reading a book a day or more of Fantasy and SF and so has a lot of preconceptions of what it would be like to be in a Fantasy World. My initial conceit was, "what happens when you put a fantasy reader/expert into a fantasy world? surely they can handle things better than Thomas Covenant or all these other average non-fantasy junkies thrust into these worlds?"

When I first started writing, this was a very select crowd of readers, but I've sort of been surprised how much this crowd has grown over the years and how many people that would have not been in the crowd are now at least conversant enough in the lingo and archetypes as to still be able to read it and get it.

Now, I just want you to keep:



In mind as you shoot arrows at my inaccurate bards.

Hmmm. So that is why there is so much mishmash of various fantasy stuff. There are a number of fantasy elements in the book, but Astlan.net list several more. I especially interested with the fantas characters. I'm looking forward for thier cameos.

Well, I was shooting your concept of what bards are. Many people give Bards too little credit thinking that they are just simple singers. Yours go over the top though. The job description is more than a Bard.

But then, Antefalken is a demon. Who says he just practice being a Bard? He might have practiced broader kinds of music and songs. Slow rock? Classical? Pop? Grunge? He is refered to as a bard but he could be actually more than one. That is actually more interesting than just a plain bard isn't it not?

@Madfox

Well, that is not the same reaction the fanatics have. This is especially true in RPG. Mass Effect has one disappointing ending.

O, I agree, the ending is extremely disappointing (the alternative ending making it slightly better). I just don't let it ruin my fun with the rest of the game, let alone my expactations for future products. DA3 is definitely a good game for example, so one has reason to belief they do listen to their fans ;)

I'd like to be a beta reader for Volume II