In the dark ages, long before the internet, individual opinions weren’t widespread. If you had thoughts about a movie, there was no way for a stranger across the country to hear them. For authors, they relied on designated journalists in national newspapers to both promote and review their novels. Although far from always positive, reviews were controlled and constrained.
With the dawn of the world wide web, suddenly everyone could share their thoughts 24/7. Sites began popping up specifically allowing people to create profiles and review any type of content they wanted. In 2007, the website Goodreads was created as a database of books. The site allows viewers to organize books they’ve read or want to read into various lists. Depending on your reading habits, Goodreads will recommend similar books, along with highlighting popular titles of the moment. Additionally, the site allows all users to review any book, which is a useful tool for readers to see public opinion and reception to books they are considering reading.
Authors have also become involved on the site, as both private or public users. This allows readers an easier way to search, along with discovering new books written by specific authors. I’ve seen authors highlight their favorite books of the moment on the site, along with garnering promotion for their works. Just like with Instagram, Goodreads is another regulated piece of an author’s social media.
Part of the site’s charm is its inclusion of countless books, including ones not traditionally published. Anyone can upload their work to the site, allowing it to be reviewed and added. While amazing, this widens the array of authors on the site, who often do not have public relations teams or managers.
I want to specify that this is not an attack on indie authors. One of the greatest features of Goodreads is how it broadens access to unique and diverse voices. I’ve found new books on the site from authors who eventually become traditionally published, a trend frequent on the site once they receive intense praise and popularity.
The only issue with having so many new and indie authors on a site built directly for the readers is that it creates an incentive to respond. In the publishing industry, everyone tells authors not to read the reviews, as it will likely affect them negatively. An overly harsh review could destroy the author’s confidence, while an intensely positive review could lead them to develop an ego. Whatever the reason, reading the reviews is never a good idea, especially as a new author.
On Goodreads, none of this caution applies. New and indie authors who don’t have teams of public relations advising them will consistently choose to read the reviews, even responding. Sometimes the responses are positive, thanking the reviewer for reading or giving praise. However, not all of these responses are thankful. Sometimes authors choose to respond to negative reviews. If they’re a new or indie author, they may not have faced much criticism, leading to this compulsive need to defend themselves and their work. I can understand this to some degree; watching your creative work be ripped apart is difficult. However, you have to let people be critical. Two years ago, an author attacked a reviewer for choosing to rate the novel four out of five stars, instead of a full five. Further, it led her to being completely dropped by her publisher as no company wants to retain incredibly controversial authors before they even debut. Through her decision to attack a reader, she killed her career before it even started. Although cases like hers are rare, they have been a steady part of the scandal culture on Goodreads.
Responding to a reviewer because they didn’t give it an incredibly high rating is childish. Even if the reader was completely hating and trashing the book, nothing should warrant a response from the author. People must be allowed to express their opinions on art, whether it be valid or overly negative for what seems to be no good reason. For authors to respond to these opinions is to invalidate their own positions. They should remain beyond reviews by the general public, instead working on their craft and next projects.
Goodreads was created as a site focused on readers, affording them the tools to categorize and review. It produced a culture of reading and writing reviews for the average person, with people able to see what their friends and the general public feel about certain titles. It was not created for authors to get feedback on their work or to harass someone for simply giving a negative review.
Think before you reply. Leave Goodreads to the readers.
Kate LaGatta
Kate LaGatta is a member of the Class of 2029 in the College of Arts and Sciences. She is a columnist for the Arts & Culture department and can be reached at klagatta@cornellsun.com.
Read More
