Top Cat's Alley: When You Get A Bad Review

For some of us that sorrowful day is still in the future, for some of us it's a traumatic memory. Some newer writers have even be heard to say they'd be grateful for any review, if only someone would write one, even if it was terrible. But make no mistake, it comes to us all, and if it hasn't happened to you yet, then you have it coming.

The whole vexed question of bad reviews is something I often see discussed in writers' groups. Why say anything if you can't say something nice, is one of the most frequent comments.

This is missing the point of reviews. Of course, many of us have been brought up to be 'nice', and of course if you're at a party and someone asks you what you thought of his biography of Thomas Crapper, you're going to be racking your brains for a compliment, even if you have to resort to the worn-out 'interesting'. But a review is not a social occasion. A review is feedback from your reading public, and if you're a publishing writer, it can be very, very valuable, and a critical review can often be more valuable than a complimentary one, because it will point you to areas where you are displeasing your readers.

Over the years, I have heard a number of well-known authors quoted as saying they never read their reviews. I used to believe it too, until I was publishing myself. Now I think it is mere posturing.

Mind you, that isn't necessarily bad. It's much better than starting one of those ghastly public bitchfights all over the social media. That not only makes you look like an amateur, it makes you look like a child. Therefore, I believe, for the safety of your image and reputation, the first rule of reviews ought to be that you do not respond. No matter what.

DO NOT RESPOND TO REVIEWS OR ACKNOWLEDGE THEM IN ANY WAY.

This may seem a little hardline, but I truly think it's for the best. If you get a real stinker, you can maintain your dignity much better if no one knows you've seen it.

Given that any response you make to the review is not going to be public, let's look at what you can usefully do. There are several questions you should be asking at this point.

Malicious or not?

I see a lot of writers speculating about whether a bad review has been prompted by malice. This is not helpful, because at the end of the day, it really doesn't matter if it has been or not, if the criticism is valid. Of course, if the criticism is not actually about the book but attacks you personally, the rules of most sites will allow you to report it and it will probably be removed sooner or later. But generally this will not be the case.

IS IT TRUE?

Of course, a reader's enjoyment of a book is purely subjective. If the reviewer just hated your plot, or didn't like your characters, or for any reason didn't enjoy the book without a specific and concrete stated reason, then truth or falsehood do not apply. If he says he didn't like it, then he didn't like it.

Often, however, specific statements will be made. Formatting errors, poor proofreading, bad grammar, defects of style - all of these, if clearly stated, warrant a second look. If, for example, a reviewer says your book has formatting errors, it's easy enough to check this, especially if it's a print edition. If it's an ebook, then you'll want to look at it on more than one device and varying the font size. If you find that the criticism has merit you can go ahead and fix it. That's a win for you; you will avoid annoying future readers. Similarly, if he says your grammar is all wrong, you can check that too, or get a good editor to do it. This kind of criticism should be viewed at as free quality-control advice.

If, after careful examination, you find that the criticism is not true - the formatting errors claimed do not exist, or whatever - then you can just move on and forget it. Yes, in such a case, it may have been prompted by malice, but so what? You're a published author, you're a public person to that extent. You need to be able to take this stuff in your stride. And yes, it's hard, damned hard, the first time it happens, but every job has its downside.

HAS MORE THAN ONE REVIEWER MADE THE SAME CRITICISM?

This is the second question you should be asking. If the answer is yes, especially if there have been a number, you have identified an area of your work that needs improvement. There are no two ways about this. If you published your work, you wanted people to buy it and read it, so at some point you need to consider your market, and if dozens of people are complaining about, for example, plot holes, wooden dialogue, stock characters and so on, or even something that isn't technically a flaw but seems to be displeasing a lot of your readers, this is something you need to look at. For example, if anyone in your book kicked a puppy, you're almost guaranteed to lose stars, no matter how beautifully you wrote about it.

IF THERE HAS BEEN MORE THAN ONE INSTANCE, HOW PREVALENT IS THE CRITICISM?

This question goes to the question of how drastic your response should be. If you have a hundred reviews and eighty-six of them make the same major criticism, I should recommend withdrawing the book from publication and either scrapping it or reworking it to fix the problem. It isn't usually so clear-cut, though, not least because as novice authors, we tend to pick these things up before there are so many reviews, because we are constantly checking on our reviews, whatever we may say in public. Nevertheless, if a majority of your reviews mention the same fairly severe criticism, you would be wise at least to consider revising the work.

At this point you have a judgement call to make: is fixing it going to be worth the time it will take, or should you suck it up and move on, hopefully avoiding the same blunder in future work? If it's an easy fix, or if you've only just published this book, it's probably a good idea to fix it and republish. If it's been around for some time and it's well in the past, unless that particular book is very important to you, it might be better just to write it off to experience and apply what you've learned to your new work. Either way, you should never, never, engage with the reviewer in any way. Trust me on this. If you do, you'll end up looking like a fool, a psychopath, or both.