Reviewer's Resources

Continuing the trend of good articles on SPR, there's this one from author John Lacombe about receiving reviews on his work, and how authors take reviews. I'm not sure how applicable it is to WebLit, but I thought that very fact made it useful to think about:

http://www.selfpublishingreview.com/2009/09/18/author-john-lacombes-resp...

This is important to think about if we want to build a reviewer class. Right now the WebLit community is small, and consists mostly of people who know each other. Attitudes towards reviewers have so far been expressed as those you'd give towards beta readers. Perhaps this is because I and most of my writer friends are serial [killers] authors. A lot of us are posting for the public to read what is essentially our novel's first draft. Would our opinions differ if we were posting more polished work or finished work? I don't really know what that feels like since I don't have a more polished work yet. So reviews have been, for me, a way to guage things to attend to when I do revisions.

By now I think we have a few non-serial, more literary writers. If not, by the time we get some, I'd like them all to also think about and answer this question: what do you see reviews doing for your work and future work?

And if we have reviewers here, is this helpful? Or should I get down from the pony?

[soapbox] I'm going to take this thread as an opportunity to voice my main gripe about amateur reviews. If there's anyone who engages in such activity reading, please take note. The gripe is: plenty of judgment, not enough description.

If a review says, "Beautifully well-written, with characters that leap off the page and stay with you, a gripping plot, stunning description, brilliant style and the sort of theme that leaves you first thinking deeply, and next, a changed person," that's great, except that I the reader am still left wondering... is it the kind of stuff I read? What the heck sort of book is it? What's it about? I don't even know the genre.

If you look at the work pro reviewers, you'll see that they always present a novel's genre, setting and premise, and give you a taste of the plot without spoilers. They might put the work in historical context, or talk about familiar works it reminds them of. They will not only judge it, but describe it, fairly thoroughly. A good reviewer can give you not only an idea whether a book has any merit, but a good sense of what the reading experience will be.

So don't forget to do that part of the job, newbie reviewers. You serve as a channel of access and connection between readers and writing, so you should be as clear and true a channel, making as accurate a representation of the works you're reviewing, as you can.

[/soapbox]

That post was beautifully well-written. I am now thinking deeply and am a changed person.

No, really, that was spot-on and something that I, as a total n00b reviewer, never even thought about. Thanks!

Karen, I totally agree! I've done reviews (just short ones on my blog, and not even for weblit), and that's something I always struggle with. Primarily, the problem is, where do you draw the line between "enough description" and "spoilers"? Any insight on that? That question goes to anyone!

I'd say anything 10-30% into the story is fine regarding spoilers, but it depends. As a reader I hate someone giving away a major twist that's led up to and is finally revealed in the later parts of the story. So it really depends on how many chapters are in the story. As a writer, I'd say the first 10 chapters of Peacock King would be fine to spoil, since they're very short chapters and don't comprise much of the meat of the story. Heck, when I'm summarizing PK I often spoil that early stuff. Like that skyscraper ad that's showing presently to our right - I give away that Lyric's the main protagonist even though the story starts out with Gerald in the lead. That's not a spoiler to me so much as an indicator of what the main point of tension is - little servant-boy versus grand emperor.

I've seen the backs of books give away major end-of-book plot reveals because I guess someone at the publisher thought it was necessary to hook readers with. I think that's going too far. I don't think you should give away anything that means you've defeated the point of someone reading the book. So basically it's okay to say that the kid can see ghosts and thus is seeing a psychologist for it and that's Bruce Willis- but not that Bruce Willis is, in fact, the ghost. You wait the whole movie for that reveal. (And it's such a classic reveal that I figured it was safe enough to say.)

FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF DAMMIT IRK

Well, you can describe a writer's style without spoilers, and you can describe a novel's setting and genre and tone without spoilers, and you can describe the personalities of characters without spoilers (though you have to be a bit careful in describing how the events of the book change them). So you've got the problem narrowed down just to how much plot to describe.

I think the easiest answer is this: every book sets up a problem, pretty near the beginning, so as to hook the reader. Maybe the problem is the sleeping evil sorcerer has awakened, maybe it's growing up a misfit, maybe it's surviving school, maybe it's y falls madly in love with x who doesn't seem to notice y's existence, maybe all of the above, whatever... so what you do is describe the problem or problems -- just not the solution.

If you want to say that there are terrific plot twists that lead to that solution, you can always say there are without saying what they are. There's nothing wrong with saying, "The plot took a turn that absolutely knocked my socks off at about half way through," and leaving it at that. There's also nothing wrong with saying "a predictable ending" since if the ending really is predictable, you're not giving anything away, anyway.

But basically if you describe the problem without describing the solution, you are describing the novel's premise, which is crucial but spoiler-free.

Great advice, Karen. Wow, next time I write a review (if I ever do... but I should, because I read all these cool blits) I'm going to refer to that post!

It's great there's a review site for self-publishers. Which, of course, almost all weblitters are.

But is there one like that for weblit? WFG isn't really a review site: it's a directory.

Anything like this out there for onnline stuff?

Web Fiction Guide is fiction-specific, so it won't work for all of WebLit. However, for fiction it's a go-to place, and the reviews and ratings are what makes the site more than a listing. The listings are, in fact, sorted and promoted by reviews and ratings.

I <3 WFG. 'Course, it doesn't hurt that I'm high in the rankings...*whistles*...

Yes, it's a cool site. Inspirational that they're doing it.
And you're right, it does have reviews. I guess I think of it primarily as as directory and second as a "peer review" site...after all most of the reviews are by "peers", no? Other people with stories up.

Thing is, that stuff is useless for citing as reviews. Which is what I was talking about.

However, I had forgotten that there are like "staff reviewers" there. And just realized that Miladysa is among them. And I'd say that a review in the left column is "citable".

But it's not a review structure like exist for books and like that self-pub site. So is there something like that for weblit yet?

Not sure I follow you here. It's not "'A Fascinating New Read' - Piers Anthony," but is that needed? Positive reviews on WFG hugely spike my viewership each time.

And I've seen WebLit people who, on their front pages, quote WFG reviews - so not sure what portion of the marketing thing (which confuses me) they're not good for citing.

~Lyn

Actually, Lyn, I first came to WFG as a result of seeing a "Web Fiction Guides says...." blurb on a serial.

And if you get a good one from the staff reviewers there, it's worth citing, I would say.

But "Joe Blymie says..." is pretty worthless. Among many reasons for my thinking that, you and I could just agree to exchange rave reviews, then cite them.

Actually, I recall reading about published fantasy authors who did just that - traded cover blurbs. It annoyed some to no end, because it meant the blurb really meant nothing.

While I would pee myself in happiness if some of the Grand Dames of WebLit happened to review my site - and would not only tell everyone, I'd be shouting it from rooftops! - I think several warm comments from readers would encourage other readers that it's worth reading.

Hrmm. There's a reason I write fic & not nonfic regularly - am I making sense?

~Lyn

Nah, you make sense. It's important for everyone to remember that in the WebLit circle a LOT of authors are ALSO readers, and so their reviews aren't just going to be the reacharound. They're going to be genuine reviews from interested readers who ALSO write.

I've got reviews and ratings by both readers and author-readers and such. Ratings and reviews really improve WFG rankings. WFG also has a 'trusted' rating system and such, to help endorse better rankers/reviewers.

A review-specific site would be more like E-fiction Book Club. It would be nice if there were more, but if people don't want it to be author-run then readers will just have to start that up themselves.

That's fine for that.

I was talking about the kind of reviews you cite on a page or query or book jacket.

And obviously comments from somebody who is well-known would be helpful on these directory sites. As are mere ratings.

Now I'm confused. I guess the question is - what's our equivalent of a book jacket?

Since the only way Addergoole will ever be print media is in a small art-press sort of way...

Lyn

Do we need a "splash page," so to speak? I'm going to use my cover as a big graphic on my front page, like a book jacket.

Book jacket's an odd analogy to apply to a website. In a bookstore, a book jacket entices you to pick up the book and maybe open it and consider purchasing it. On the internet, you're already on a website. Yes, you want people to stay on it, but the initial jump of visiting your website has already been accomplished - the book jacket is more comparable to an ad or a link endorsement on another site that points users to your site. One such endorsement can be a good review in a blog or on WFG.

When thinking for the web as a publishing medium, some of the time-tested methods of traditional publishing aren't always going to apply, or are going to apply in a different way than expected. They're good to learn from, yes, but the closest thing a website has to a book jacket, aside from the ads and endorsement links that got it to the site, is the site's layout and menu and general user interface. Is it friendly for a user to navigate and "thumb through"? Is it attractive and easy to read? Nobody's gonna stick around for bigwig reviewer quotes if the site's scarring their eyes or if the quotes are badly presented.

I'm also kinda against splash pages in general, though it depends on what you define as a splash page. If by splash page you mean the main page of a site, retaining the menus and interactivity of the site, but with a cover graphic, blurb, review quote and whatnot, and some intro text, then yes, you need a splash page. (Though MLM already has something like that, though any design can be improved at least a little.) If you mean a page with graphics and text but no interactivity besides "click here to enter site", then I wouldn't advise a splash page, as it's just another barrier between the user and the site, and another opportunity for them to decide to leave instead of going forward. Or, basically, if they've already decided to visit your site, let them go ahead and visit your site. <3

JA Kontrath (who I mentioned in the Seth Harwood thread) is a very adept user of quotes and cites on his webpages.

Here on his new, improved page, he clumps them up with each title in a pretty instinctive way.
http://www.jakonrath.com/

By the way, Konrath is an interesting example I often use when discussing writer websites. And very pertinent to this discussion.

Here is his original site http://jakonrath.com/index.html
First note the obvious difference-- K Mart Blue Light, Filling Station Flag flashabout and cuteness in the old one.
Versus a classier, "designed" look in the new one.

Easy to sneer at the early site, but I'd say it really worked for him. He was building a rep (for books whose main strength is their humorous tone) so he beat a big drum and flashed colored lights. Once established, and moving over into servicing an audience rather than building one, he showed a classier act.

But for now, click on "Depositions" on the old site to see a "separate page for recviews" approach. (Works better if you don't call it something cute/stupid like "Depositions")

This is obviously an easy approach for blog based fiction, only needs to ad a link and page.

I took the "new page" approach for all titles on my home page http://linrobinson.com Click "Titles" and notice links for reviews coming off each title.

On the other hand, if I had raves from King or Leonard or Oprah or something, I'd flash them up front.
Like John Scalzi does here http://www.scalzi.com/agent/

Interesting post Lin.

I have a few review quotes in my sidebar - not sure if they serve any purpose there or not.

We need to break this discussion off from "Reviewer's Resources"--we're on to a totally different topic now, and an important one. Move the discussion here.

Love,
Your Nazi On-Topic Moderator

Once established, and moving over into servicing an audience rather than building one, he showed a classier act.

There's something important there, the difference between grabbing and audience and keeping it, stoking it into being viral.

A poster on the selfpublishing forum used to say "Does your site look good or work good". And it can be different at different stages of a career.