*They shouldn’t.

There was a kerfuffle last week around an author’s blog post about the ‘obligations’ of a reviewer to the author. (The author has withdrawn the post, so I am quoting purely as an example of the principle–let’s not do personalities.) Among other silliness, including the old ‘but I put my heart and soul into this book!’, was this suggestion:

If you aren’t convinced of our work, and you don’t feel it deserves a 4- or 5-Star review, please contact us in private and let us know why you are not the biggest fan of our book. When you find constructive criticisms we understand, but still have good words about our writing, we can decide together whether or not a quite positive 3-Star review can be published.

In the same week, and much more worryingly, I received an email from a book marketing company, who shall be known as Bob’s Literary Marketing and Donuts Ltd. (Feel free to do personalities here, but I’m not naming the company because they can do their own damn publicity.) Bob’s Literary Marketing and Donuts Ltd offered to find me ‘honest reviewers’ (who I could hand-pick and downvote if I wasn’t satisfied with the results) for a very reasonable monthly subscription. Their blurb included this statement:

Another advantage of this arrangement that leads to more and better reviews comes from the contact between author and reader. Readers often need help to understand certain aspects of a work in order to write a quality review. Through Bob’s Literary Marketing and Donuts Ltd, an author can respond directly to doubts or questions before the reader gives their final verdict!

I don’t know where this idea came from, that reviewers ought to contact authors to have their thoughts moderated, but it needs to go back there and die in a hole. It is bad, wrong and stupid on multiple levels, and here’s why.

Firstly, and we have been through this before: A review is the reader’s response to a book and the author has nothing to do with it. That’s it. The reader’s subjective response to the book, written for her own satisfaction and the information of other readers. The author does not get a say in the reviewer’s opinion. The reader doesn’t have to have her opinion approved or validated. The review is not for the author, it is of the book.

It makes zero difference that a book is the product of the author’s emotional commitment or whatever. I bet the person who designed your toaster put emotional commitment into their work, but you wouldn’t be expected to consider their feelings before two-starring the damn thing because it burned the crumpets. You are absolutely not obliged to ask them how they intended the inexplicable crumpet setting to work, then adjust your review for good intentions.

Secondly: this line, “Readers often need help to understand certain aspects of a work.” Well, now, as a general principle this is true: it’s very important for the author to have the opportunity to convey her meaning directly to the reader. With my book Think of England I needed to help the reader understand the social background, historical period and character motivations. Luckily I was able to do this using an ingenious medium we’ve developed. My explanation is 60,000 words long and can be found in all good e-tailers, titled Think of England.

How is this hard to grasp? The book is the author’s say in the matter! The point where ‘we decide together’ if the review is positive is the interaction of my book with your brain! A book stands on its own, or it falls. If the reader has to contact the author to ‘understand’ it, the book hasn’t done its job for her and she should review accordingly.

And if you didn’t like my book, what am I supposed to say that will make you think you did? My Charm of Magpies series runs to about 175K words including the freebies. If I can’t persuade you in 175K words of repeatedly rewritten, beta read, carefully edited text that Victorian settings are fun and a nervous five-footer makes a likeable hero, I doubt I can do it on Twitter.

Thirdly: … Okay, don’t get me wrong here, I love talking to readers. I enabled the question facility on Goodreads as soon as I could. I do frequent ‘ask me anything’ sessions in my Facebook chat group, usually while stuck on train platforms. It’s an amazing, fascinating and usually fun experience to hear how other people interact with my work. But do I want everyone who wasn’t impressed to come and tell me about it? There isn’t a no big enough.

I mean, really. The Magpie Lord alone has 77 one- or two-star ratings on Goodreads. I have five published novels and this time next year it will be ten. There will be a lot of people who don’t like my books out there, and I am but a whippersnapper. Catcher in the Rye has nearly 150,000 one- and two-stars. What if all those people felt obliged to contact the author and discuss if they could bring themselves to upgrade their rating to three stars? No wonder JD Salinger is a recluse.

Seriously, imagine facing your inbox.

Hi, KJ, didn’t think that much of this one… Sorry, I just thought it dragged… Why was the hero such a jerk?… Historicals don’t do it for me… Do you have to have so much gore?… I can’t get into the way you write… The flashbacks annoyed me… Look forward to your reply!

I couldn’t handle that. I support, absolutely, the right to review, but it comes with my right to choose whether to read reviews. I know that lots of people don’t like my books; I don’t need to have my nose rubbed in the fact. So no, please do not ‘contact me in private and let me know why you’re not the biggest fan of my book’. If I want to find out, I’ll visit Goodreads. But to be honest, I’ll probably just get on with trying to make my next book better.

***

Once again: The review is the reader’s response to the book, and the author has nothing to do with it. That principle is good for reviewers, who do an amazing amount for love of books, keep the publishing world afloat, and don’t need extra homework. It’s good for readers, who don’t want to be disappointed in a book with inflated reviews. And it’s good for authors, even if it doesn’t always feel that way, because professional detachment is a lot better for your mental state and reputation than an overwrought emotional response.

So if you see this idea of pre-review moderation as something reviewers ‘owe’ authors, please discourage it firmly. It is bad for literally everyone except Bob’s Literary Marketing and Donuts Ltd. And I don’t think we’re bothered about their well-being, are we?

____________________________

KJ Charles is dissatisfied with her toaster. Her next book is Jackdaw, coming from Samhain Publishing on 17 February. She can be found all too often on Twitter, blogs about writing and editing and stuff, and has a Facebook chat group for snippets and goodies.