http://blog.oup.com/2006/07/authors_dont_ow/ Academic insights for the thinking world. Thu, 23 May 2013 12:47:31 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 http://blog.oup.com/2006/07/authors_dont_ow/#comment-257 Richard G. Williams, Jr. Thu, 21 Dec 2006 04:17:32 +0000 http://216.110.190.15/2006/07/authors_dont_own_their_books/#comment-257 I think most serious readers, especially those who read history, realize all reviewers (like writers) bring a certain perspective with them--despite very vocal claims to the contrary. Also, bad reviews can actually help sales. I recently had a CW blogger criticize my book, (even though he admits he never read it!) and within a few hours of his post, my Amazon ranking spiked. While I can't be sure his comments were the cause for the increased sales, I have good reason to believe they were. Besides, in your case you can take some solace in the fact that most readers would consider an anonymous review as written by a coward and who really cares what a coward thinks? I think most serious readers, especially those who read history, realize all reviewers (like writers) bring a certain perspective with them–despite very vocal claims to the contrary. Also, bad reviews can actually help sales. I recently had a CW blogger criticize my book, (even though he admits he never read it!) and within a few hours of his post, my Amazon ranking spiked. While I can’t be sure his comments were the cause for the increased sales, I have good reason to believe they were. Besides, in your case you can take some solace in the fact that most readers would consider an anonymous review as written by a coward and who really cares what a coward thinks?

]]> http://blog.oup.com/2006/07/authors_dont_ow/#comment-256 Art Bergeron Wed, 20 Dec 2006 13:29:28 +0000 http://216.110.190.15/2006/07/authors_dont_own_their_books/#comment-256 Sounds somewhat like a person with an ax to grind. Too bad PW allows anonymous reviews. That frequently emboldens people to say things they would not otherwise. I have had more unfavorable or bad reviews of my work than I like, but I have learned to live with it. In several cases, the person was reviewing not my work but the work that person wished they had written or the work they wish someone else had written. Sounds somewhat like a person with an ax to grind. Too bad PW allows anonymous reviews. That frequently emboldens people to say things they would not otherwise. I have had more unfavorable or bad reviews of my work than I like, but I have learned to live with it. In several cases, the person was reviewing not my work but the work that person wished they had written or the work they wish someone else had written.

]]> http://blog.oup.com/2006/07/authors_dont_ow/#comment-255 Bert Krages Wed, 12 Jul 2006 16:07:02 +0000 http://216.110.190.15/2006/07/authors_dont_own_their_books/#comment-255 I remember reading the review in PW when it was first published. I did not perceive it as a bad review. In fact, it made the book sound interesting and I hope to read Gettysburg Requium sometime in the not-too-distant future. A couple of my books have been reviewed much more unfairly. I am in agreement that anonymous negative reviewers tend to be a miserable lot. I remember reading the review in PW when it was first published. I did not perceive it as a bad review. In fact, it made the book sound interesting and I hope to read Gettysburg Requium sometime in the not-too-distant future. A couple of my books have been reviewed much more unfairly. I am in agreement that anonymous negative reviewers tend to be a miserable lot.

]]> http://blog.oup.com/2006/07/authors_dont_ow/#comment-254 Sylvia Forester Fri, 07 Jul 2006 19:15:53 +0000 http://216.110.190.15/2006/07/authors_dont_own_their_books/#comment-254 Take heart--your book will still be read (by good readers) long after that review has been recycled into kitty litter. Take heart–your book will still be read (by good readers) long after that review has been recycled into kitty litter.

]]>