pointed me to a perceptive article on how to deal with negative reviews by Barry Carter
It got me thinking on negative reviews.
Do we really need them?
Sure, you can be funnier, wittier in a negative review.
But isn't writing one for that reason just exposing your need to draw attention to yourself?
Are they born of arrogance, of the drive to proselytize a certain view of what is fit to write or to read?
How do you feel when you are waiting for a film to start, and a person walks up to ask, "Is this seat saved?"
You say no, and they reply, "Are you?"
Then, they sit down to fill you in on how you should believe.
Negative book reviews hurt, but like demeaning words from a bully,
they say more about the speakers than the person who is the target.
Give a person a mask, and they will reveal themselves.
And in like manner, the internet is a safe place to be cruel.
Dan Brown has tons of fans.
In my opinion, he writes poorly on interesting concepts. But I am not the yardstick of the universe.
A recent study concludes that while well-known authors suffer from negative reviews by decreased sales of 15%,
“For books by relatively unknown (new) authors, however, negative publicity has the opposite effect, increasing sales by 45%.”
If you’re an unknown,
it’s better to have your book attacked than ignored.
Over time readers will forget the negative things said about you,
and will only remember your book’s name.
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
Oh, and you really should read about
the TRUE UFO INVASION
of L.A. in 1942!