Why Don't Writers Trust Their Own Talent?

We writers have an inherent self-esteem problem. The trad publishers have known this for the last forty years. They've preyed on writers and used gaslighting and threats to keep writers under their collective thumbs.

You'd think with the advent of Amazon's Kindle and other indie publishing routes writers would trust their own instincts. But nope. Writers as a collective don't trust their own skills to write a good story, but we don't.

Instead of relishing our freedom under the new paradigm, we recreate the same psychological obstacles that had been inflicted on us through trad publishing.

Writing by committee has transformed from the publishing house editor and your agent to beta readers and book doctors. The problem is the writers using this method feel they need outside validation in order to succeed in this industry.

Under a similar outside validation need are reviews. Writer beg for reviews. However, those reviews, both good and bad, affect the writers in the worse ways. If the reviews are overwhelmingly positive, the writer stops learning and experimenting. They fear changing their style, but that style becomes stale over time, and they lose readers. Or if the writer receives bad reviews. they often quit doing something they loved, even become suicidal due to the perceived rejection.

No one likes everything, and a story won't be liked by everyone. Invariably every writer gets bad reviews. However, many of these reviews have nothing to do with the writer's actual work. In fact, reviews are often weaponized for a multitude of reasons, including jealousy and hatred.

Seriously, my favorite bad review of my own claimed I wrote anti-white, feminazi propaganda. And this was for a superhero story.You've got to laugh at people who take things so passionately the opposite of a work's intent.

I believe a lot of this need for outside validation stems from a fear of failure But outside assessments have nothing to do with a writer's success or failure. In the long run, using other people to review your work, whether prior to or after publication, is no guarantee of success, money, validation or whatever need isn't being met in the writer's soul.

Write what's in your heart, what entertains you, and/or the story you haven't seen in your that tickles your fancy. Most of all, enjoy the process.

Why I Don't Read My Reviews

Seriously, I don't read them. Heck, I can't remember the last time I went on Goodreads. I grew up with a parent who had to be "realistic". No matter how good I did, it was never good enough. I could have done better. Or even worse, why did I embarrass her by doing so poorly?

You'd think I'd be over it. I even did therapy for a couple of years to get those phrases out of my head. However, no matter what a review says, I still hear that parent's voice saying those words, especially if it's critical. And it puts me in an emotional tailspin. Even if it's a good review, I hear, "Well, they're just being nice."

Unfortunately, DH gets a little too excited whenever I have a new release. He's the one refreshing the screen constantly, waiting with bated breath for that first review. And he's so excited, he HAS to tell me. No matter how many times I ask him not to.

He doesn't truly understand. And in a way, I'm glad he doesn't. The in-laws didn't lay a whole bunch of insecurity on him or undermine his accomplishments, growing up or as an adult. In a way, I'm a little jealous of him.

So, he had to report the first review on Amazon for Hero De Jure.

We ended up having a long discussion about what it does to me when he feels the need to report those reviews. To him, it was a good review. To me, not so much. And I hate the feelings a review trigger in me, good or bad. So I don't read them.

Deep down, a review shouldn't matter to me. It's a reader's view on something they consumed. They bring their own pasts and foibles and desires with them when they read a story, any story not just mine. I can't change them. Nor do I want to. Because then I'm just like my parent saying, "You're not doing it right."

Thoughts on Reviews

It's starting to happen. I'm getting reviews on my books by total strangers. I'd steeled myself against 1-star, "This sucks!" reviews. That stuff is a part of writing life.

Yes, I'm aware of the rule that I shouldn't contact the reviewer, no matter what their opinion is. And I know I  DEFINITELY should not do a Tom-Cruise-bat-shit-crazy-interview-with-Matt-Lauer type of response. I can honestly say I have not communicated with a reviewer that I didn't already know in person.

But I wasn't prepared for and what shocks me are the "I'm surprised how good this is" opinions. The "you haven't been properly vetted, so this can't be entertaining and/or grammatically correct, but it is" feedback. Or the latest "I'm a little pissed that I like an indie book."

Okay, I'm reading between the lines, but that last one is pretty much the gist of one review. The reviewer HAD to give it 4 stars because the story was shockingly decent.

Sometimes, readers' impressions of a writer's work throw the author on her keister. As long as I don't get the same reader that my friend, Colleen Thompson got. The one who marched up to Colleen at a book signing and told her that she hated Colleen's book. And the lady read it four times to make sure she hated it.

I'm sorry. My good writer manners would dissolve in the face of such excellent snark material.

Do Reviews Matter ? (Or How to Manipulate a Market)

Currently reading - Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter by Seth Grahame-Smith

One of the first things I was told by a published author when I joined RWA-Ignore your books' reviews. The bad ones only depress you, and the good ones give you a false sense of greatness. The real story lies in your books' sales numbers.

Normally, I don't read them myself. I rarely have the same tastes as the reviewer anyway.

But what happens when a bunch of people trash your book because they don't like the format? This happened to Michael Lewis on Amazon recently. His publisher opted not to produce a Kindle version of Lewis's THE BIG SHORT, and in retaliation, approximately eighty Kindle users (as of this writing) gave Lewis a one-star review.

What exactly do these people think they are accomplishing? If their methods hurt anyone, it's Lewis. Have any of these people e-mailed or written to the publisher, W.W. Norton Company? I doubt it. This is a perfect example of the wrong way to protest.

On the other hand, are these one-star, pro-Kindle reviews actually hurting Lewis? He's received 62 five-star reviews, many in retaliation for the one-star review.

I think the worst part of this is the biased reviews are against Amazon's own policy. Has the company removed them? No. The most likely explanation is their financial stake in Kindle.

After this and the Macmillan fiasco, Amazon's heavy-handed tactics may end up backfiring in the long run.