Here we go again folks!
Erastes Review ~ Paper Valentine
More unprofessional crapola brought to you by the Goodreads community…
Writer J.C. Raefael who seems to be publishing something sometime soon with eXtasy Books and has OH MY!… much in common with someone else as was mentioned to me Hmmm interesting… has decided to start attacking Erastes both on Goodreads and on her blog in the comment section about some stupid negative review of A.J. Llewellyn ~ Paper Valentine.
Surprise, this has been the week for stupid.
I am sorry my fellow reviewers out there, but I simply can’t think of a more professional and knowledgeable Gay Romance reviewer than Erastes. I may not always agree with her “slightly zealous” attitude regarding historical accuracy (No, no, not the face.) but I know damn well better than to question her abilities in providing a qualified and “never personal” review style that honestly puts me to shame.
Not that is so hard to do understand?
I so suck.
So I do not get this folks. What is going on here with the attack of the insane self promoting secondary ePublishing market writers? Is there some misguided “self help” writer attack group in session?
Getting ALL up in arms about the pointing out of such “personal attacks” as “Strawberries, cranberries and bilberries, all available in February.” or such “disgusting” and “insulting” tidbits as “Tower Bridge on this one, which is a quite nice cover, except the bridge wasn’t even begun until 1886, 46 years after this book takes place.”.
Attacks? Disgusting? Insulting?… PERSONAL?… Erastes?
Listen J.C. A.J. OOPS! whatever the hell fake writer name you are supposed to be… Obviously you need to share those drugs. (Note to self: Must write down my idea of an episode of Intervention with sock puppets.)
Hey, in my opinion she is being nicer in a negative book review than an episode of Mister Roger’s with whip cream and a brief painless history lesson on top. I am sure having suffered through several A.J. Llewellyn eBooks myself I personally could have found something far less educational and far more “insulting” to pick on in your terms of “insulting” if you know what I mean.
But that’s my opinion and it is about as professional as it is gonna get.
Tags: Wank
AM Riley wrote,
I honestly don’t read reviews written by authors of the same genre. I might read a recommendation by said author, but one has to wonder if there is an underlying agenda when a writer of historical m/m fiction reviews a historical m/m fiction by another writer. Its something a professional reviewer would try to avoid.
I read this one, though. Meh. It didn’t seem personal to me. Honestly, I think the entire idea of gay men having sex so easily in the 18th century, when men were still put to death for sodomy, is a little fantastical anyway… But I can understand someone who loves that time period becoming outraged when faced with so many glaring inconsistancies.
One of the benefits of a review, for writers, is to learn from it. I’ve been skewered a couple times. If the points were well made I tried to learn from them. There’s nothing to be gained by becoming outraged and I don’t think AJ’s fans are doing her a service if they create a ‘thing’ out of this.
Link | March 11th, 2011 at 7:58 pm
TeddyPig wrote,
Well yeah when most of that review could be possibly looked up in Wikipedia it sorta transcends anything I would consider personal. I was waiting for the footnoted hyperlinks section.
Link | March 11th, 2011 at 8:04 pm
AM Riley wrote,
sorry, meant 1800′s above… see, what do I know? : )
Link | March 11th, 2011 at 8:04 pm
AM Riley wrote,
“it sorta transcends anything I would call personal”
Exactly. Learn from it and move on…
Link | March 11th, 2011 at 8:05 pm
Kris wrote,
One could speculate that turning around and giving the author/reviewer a poor rating at goodreads for her historical book would be considered personal?
Or do I mean petty?
I always get those two mixed up.
Link | March 11th, 2011 at 8:07 pm
TeddyPig wrote,
No I want to be petty. Tom Petty to be exact.
Link | March 11th, 2011 at 8:09 pm
Chris wrote,
The whole thing is so convoluted… in such a blatant way.
“It doesn’t look good if I go nutso on a review of my book. Everyone’s real down on that for some reason. Ergo, I’ll have one of my other personalities do so! No one will ever figure it out.”
I have great respect for authors who get tough reviews and… do nothing. Nothing publicly, at least. Rend your clothes, tear your hair, gnash your teeth, bitch to your best friend… but do it privately. What I’ve taken away from this and other similar events is that I do not want to read anything by the involved author(s). Why put myself through the drama? Why support an author who treats readers/reviewers like that?
I really do like your idea of a sock puppet intervention, TP!
Link | March 11th, 2011 at 8:18 pm
Alaina wrote,
I’m so over authors whining about how they’re people too, and that means that their feelings and emotions are equally important (was anyone denying this part?) which means somehow that it’s important for them to be able to defend against criticism of their work because really, they just poured their heart and soul into their special baby and why don’t you recognize that? It’s that last part that I don’t follow. Yes, you’re a person with feelings. Yes, you have a right not to like it when people criticize your work. NO, THE WORLD DOES NOT REVOLVE AROUND YOU, and most people don’t care that your feelings got hurt because you’re incapable of dealing with the results of sending your special beautiful baby out into the real world where people aren’t going to coddle it and reward it just for existing.
Authors aren’t the only ones who have to deal with criticism from people who don’t know them and who don’t really care about what they’re feeling. Pretty much everyone else has to deal with that every day. Get over it!
I’m glad you keep posting these things, though. It helps me avoid authors who probably expect me to worship at the font of their brilliance and who will call for my head if I don’t!
Link | March 11th, 2011 at 8:56 pm
James Buchanan wrote,
Okay, I’m an author…
I’ve been reviewed with the “oh my god I love it.”
and then I’ve had the “oh my god, this book sucked donkey balls.”
You just walk away from both of them…put on your big boy pants and get a grip
Link | March 11th, 2011 at 10:06 pm
kel wrote,
Wow. Just. Wow.
These folks might think they are standing up for their favorite author, but the end result is that their behavior draws more folks to a negative review.
Link | March 11th, 2011 at 11:10 pm
TeddyPig wrote,
That’s the catch though it’s a really really small community. Things that might have slipped by or be incredibly hard to spot in other communities gets noticed.
Link | March 12th, 2011 at 5:23 am
KB/KT Grant wrote,
Can I tell you my favorite review on Amazon is where I got a 1 star review and was accused of being a male who writes bad lesbian romance? Can I use that as a blurb? So awesome.
It’s not just the MM epub world, also in the YA genre as well.
Why are authors so obsessed with bad reviews? Let it go and move on…
Link | March 12th, 2011 at 3:48 pm
TeddyPig wrote,
And they are still going on and on over on her blog.
What cracks me up is how the names change but they all keep insisting a reviewer has to say one NICE thing.
One nice thing one nice thing the voices in my head tell me you have to say one nice thing.
I seriously think there is a script or a cracked nut case involved and from what I am hearing there are some really looney vibes coming off this particular subject of review if you know what I mean.
Link | March 12th, 2011 at 3:58 pm
kel wrote,
Lordy, the crazies are out in full force. And they are all pulling out their “literary credentials.”
Link | March 12th, 2011 at 8:32 pm
Louise Van Hine wrote,
Teddy, you wrote:
That’s the catch though it’s a really really small community. Things that might have slipped by or be incredibly hard to spot in other communities gets noticed.
That’s the rub. It is a very small community. And there has traditionally been a lot of resistance to historical verisimilitude in historical romance, but I have never seen it quite so bad as this case. What was really seriously over the top was the “I sent the review to an important New York literary friend of mine…” , yeah sure.
Link | March 12th, 2011 at 10:57 pm
K. Z. Snow wrote,
“Can I tell you my favorite review on Amazon is where I . . . was accused of being a male who writes bad lesbian romance?”
You mean you’re not?
Bummer.
*fires up the bong*
Link | March 12th, 2011 at 11:32 pm
TeddyPig wrote,
Yeah I honestly do not see this as an argument over if historical accuracy is important in Romance.
We left that way behind a couple of name changes ago. Nah, to be this dedicated to crazy you have to be the author the review is about or you have to be a resource kept around to be of use for just such an occasion.
Don’t argue with me I know a man in New York City.
Link | March 13th, 2011 at 5:32 am
KB/KT Grant wrote,
K.Z.: I’ve been lying to you all. Yes, I’m a man. *grabs bong*
Link | March 13th, 2011 at 6:16 am
Louise Van Hine wrote,
Teddy, you wrote:
Yeah I honestly do not see this as an argument over if historical accuracy is important in Romance.
We left that way behind a couple of name changes ago. Nah, to be this dedicated to crazy you have to be the author the review is about or you have to be a resource kept around to be of use or just such an occasion.
Hm, well I have seen a lot of wank trotted out on the commitment to historical accuracy with defenses such as “Shakespeare did it!” – except that Shakespeare was deliberately using anachronism to tell his audience “this isn’t about the past you know” – which was utterly lost on the person invoking Shakespeare to defend anachronism. But you may be right, the cries of ‘assassination’ and ‘ ad hominem’ are just a little too strident to be fan loyalty to a brand name or author.
Link | March 13th, 2011 at 10:36 am
Elaine wrote,
Uh oh. A M Riley referred to A J Lewellyn as “her”: “...and I don’t think AJ’s fans are doing her a service if they create a ‘thing’ out of this.”
I made that mistake once and HE chewed me out so I’d apologize real quick, Ms Riley. I enjoyed AJ’s recent contemporary, Relentless Passion as well as Vagabond Heart but wouldn’t call myself a fan nor was I planning to buy Paper Valentine. Frankly, I can’t comprehend the vitriol and weird reaction Erastes’ review has churned up but then, I’m just a lowly reader, totally unconnected to authors or publishers yet my 3-star meh review of one of AJ’s books also drew an unexpectedly sharp response so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that someone as influential and respected (okay, amongst a tiny community) as Erastes should be subject to anything less.
Link | March 14th, 2011 at 3:13 am
Lee Rowan wrote,
“One nice thing?” Come on, people… I could name a couple of reviewers who have reputations of being unable to say any nice things, and half the time getting the facts wrong as well. If I get a bad review at Speak, I know the reviewer will explain what s/he disliked–and, more importantly, WHY. I may not agree, but at least I will understand what the particular reviewer objected to. And, as always, a review is a reader’s opinion of a book, intended for other readers — not as a promotional tool for the writer or publisher. In this case, the reviewer knows the subject and knows how to write.
The problem with authors reviewing in the genre is that there are damned few non-authors willing to do a critical review, and even fewer who seem to care about the historical issues. I owe Erastes a review for the Bosom Friends blog, the f/f one, but I’m leery of writing it (even though it’s mostly positive) because lord knows if someone’s going to take offense and I’m not sure the aggravation is worth it.
It isn’t easy to get reviewers for any site, and for one that does make a point of looking at the history as well as the hot stuff, it’s even more difficult, especially for one’s own books and those of friends. Erastes is a friend of mine, and she makes a point of trying to find objective reviewers for my work. I had a review awhile back on Speak Its Name — for Tangled Web, I think — in which the reviewer said some nice things but apparently didn’t have a clue that I was attempting an homage to the Heyer Regencies. Sigh, shrug, so it goes. The review for my last book was by someone who clearly got the point. Whew!
And it’s funny, but I don’t believe I have ever seen, from any of the folks complaining so bitterly, a review posted on SiN, or heard of them offering to WRITE a review. Not one. I guess it’s a lot easier to bitch about the job someone else has done than to attempt to do the job.
I’m not going to follow the squabble over at SiN, I’ve said my piece.. but it’s kind of sad that everyone is blaming Erastes for pointing out the errors instead of wondering why the editors didn’t catch them. If an editor doesn’t create the safety net of a critical eye, that’s not doing a writer any fiavors.
What it comes down to, IMO, is: would gay historical fiction be the identifiable genre it is today without the Speak Its Name review blog and that comprehensive list? I have to wonder.
Link | March 14th, 2011 at 6:51 pm
Kit Russell wrote,
Every critique group I’ve been in has had the “one nice thing” rule. It makes a lot of sense if you’re giving a critique aimed at helping a fellow writer improve; you want to give encouragement as well as advice. A critiquer’s primary audience is the writer, unlike a reviewer, whose primary audience is potential readers, but I suspect that’s where that particular meme came from.
Link | March 15th, 2011 at 2:04 am
TeddyPig wrote,
Well anyone with any understanding of the difference would know no one outside that little critique group is going by the same rules as whoever was running the group.
Personally I don’t want reviewers so concerned about following some insane set of rules that they cannot review a book any way they wish. Sometimes I read reviews because the reviewer is entertaining to me and sometimes I read a ton of reviews all at once to get an idea of how the book is coming across to various people and sometimes I follow a reviewer because they are technically capable of analyzing aspects of the specific genre the book is written in.
Reviewing is not a formal art to me and when people start whining about shit like rules or not understanding a specific style of story such as some of the Japanese derived fics I just do not buy into all of that crap.
The book has to work for the here and now and the reader reviewing it. If it does not then it fails for that reviewer and that is a valid situation that the reviewer has every right to point out.
A good reviewer will point out enough things that don’t work that if you are looking for a book like that it will clue you in and you as a reader will go buy the book anyway because those are the very things that turned the reviewer off and so are the very things you the reader want.
It’s all valid and it’s all good and it’s all part of the new
Teddy Pig Reviewing Rules of Reviewing Reviewers
That I am now designating as the only official way for anyone on the internet to officially review reviewing reviewers with.
There I have randomly selected myself as the head of all official reviewer rule makers and breakers.
Bring it on!
The little Teddy Pig break with reality is about as sane as anything found in the comment section in question.
Link | March 15th, 2011 at 6:15 am
Emilie wrote,
I want to see historical accuracy in the historical novels I read. I was a history major, after all. Erastes is very knowledgable, and her reviews come across to me as quite professional.
Link | March 15th, 2011 at 6:56 pm
Stumbling Over Chaos :: Another episode of linkity in which there are no explosions wrote,
[...] TeddyPig on last weekend’s author/review kerfuffle. Kris on another aspect of the same event – how many pseudonyms does an author need? [...]
Link | March 17th, 2011 at 11:43 pm
Tracy Rowan wrote,
Oh TeddyPig, you made me smile today.
Link | March 30th, 2011 at 12:32 pm
Dear Katiebabs: I Apologize For Being A Big Dick | The Naughty Bits wrote,
[...] From: Goodreads: More Wank Less Filling! [...]
Link | March 14th, 2012 at 11:38 am