Professional
reviews (and when I say professional I mean books received for free which leads
to compensation in the form of exposure for a review site and/or the reviewer
who in many cases is also an author with books for sale) ought to aim for a
high level of objectivity. This is a difficult skill to acquire. Anyone who's
had their work critiqued by fellow writers will probably tell you there are
some talented writers whose critiques are primarily focused on pointing out how
your work fails in being the story they wanted to read instead of how it could
be improved in being the story you wanted to write. Truthfully I'm not sure how
well reviewers accomplish this, I simply am aware the skill is difficult to
acquire and how rare it is among critiquers, which leads me to guess there are
reviewers who fail to meet a high standard of objectivity in reviews. As an
author of femdom novels, which are generally less comfortably received, I am
highly selective about sending my books out for review. I prefer to rely on
generous readers who bought copies wanting the kind of book they knew they were
getting and their reviews, which have been not numerous but favorable. I'd
rather do that than send books out for review that would land in the laps of
reviewers who would never by choice read a femdom novel, and then be left to
hope in their ability to review objectively a book not to their specific taste.
I
stumbled onto another option when I found a reviewer who stated in his review
policy that he only reviewed books he felt comfortable rating three stars or
higher. His stated reason was that it was a conflict of interest to rate fellow
authors' books poorly when he had books of his own for sale. An admirable
position, but for me it was appealing because it would prevent a reviewer
reacting negatively to the nature of the relationship between my dominant
heroine and her submissive lover, the portrayal of which is uncomfortable for
some.
I
contacted him with free review copies of both Courting Her and Serving Her,
books recently released in tandem by my publisher, Pink Flamingo. He messaged
back with a two-and-a-half star review, which included some legitimate criticisms
but primarily was a judgment of the characters under the guise of a review.
Kimberly was described as selfish, a psychopath, and I was told that the
characters should switch, occasionally, or the relationship they engaged in was
a form of abuse. He cited from Serving Her, the follow up book to Courting Her,
a part where Kimberly observes the dynamic between a neighboring couple,
perceives the man as too dominant in that relationship, and upon leaving a
visit with them informs Alex she needs to spank him to feel better.
The
reviewer defined feminism for me as equality between the sexes. If Kimberly is
meant to be a feminist, it's news to her creator, the author. She's a fledgling
female supremacist. She perceives misogyny in the world around her, is
frustrated by it, and punishes her male submissive lover to alleviate that
frustration. Is that fair? I would say no, it's not. I would say that's a flaw
in her. Probably so would Alex. Rather than decry her for it, Alex enjoys supporting
her by helping her work through it, by enduring punishments. Men enjoy women
inventing less valid reasons for delivering punishment for enjoyment's sake.
Alex is not complaining when Kimberly contrives reasons to punish him.
Kimberly
has a chip on her shoulder. I know that. Alex knows that. I find her more
interesting because of that; Alex finds her more courageous because she emerged
with that weight from a misogynist influence to become the dominant woman he
loves and adores, flaws and all. Now this reviewer caught that but rather than
consider what that meant about their relationship, he went straight to assuming
writer error. A reviewer completely airballing on the core interplay between
two characters in a book and then reviewing it poorly is unfortunate for
everyone and exactly what a review policy of only reviewing books if
comfortable enough to review them three stars or higher would have avoided had
the reviewer adhered to his own stated policy.
The
books individually did well enough, were enjoyed by enough readers, that my
publisher, Pink Flamingo, packaged them together and made them available at a
better value, combined, as Ebooks and paperbacks. The two-star review remains
attached to it despite my reminders to the reviewer about our agreed upon
arrangement. That's unfortunate but is unlikely to affect sales. The people who
are comfortable with themselves reading these books, the people who are comfortable
with themselves writing them, are fully aware that there are people who are
uncomfortable with them reading (or writing) these books and don't particularly
care, would prefer those people not act sanctimonious. They're aware that books
like this might have a poor review or two that aren't a reflection of the
books' quality but a reflection of the reviewers' bias. So the books will still
sell the same. They might lose one, here or there, which is sad. Sad for the
reader who might have found a book to love and sad for the writer who might
have lost an opportunity to connect with that reader. Reviews are meant to
connect us. That doesn't mean they all have to be good reviews, that wouldn't
work either, but they ought to be objective and in this case the review wasn't.
Worse
there are people who aren't fully comfortable purchasing and reading books they
enjoy on these subjects and are potentially upset by a judgment on their
reading tastes disguised as a review. Slam my writing and I'll keep quiet.
Attack my characters for their lifestyle and I'll defend them with everything
in me. By defining feminism he clearly revealed his bias that books should
portray his idea of feminism. It's hard to be objective but reviewers have to
be held to a standard so that they strive to write and post reviews void of
these judgments. When negative reviews lack objectivity and are essentially
rants against a certain lifestyle choice characters have made they're far
closer to a form of censorship.
(If
you don't think this happens, some time read some of the one-star reviews of
Freedom by Jonathan Franzen, arguably among the great prose writers of the day.
Most of them are complaints about the ideology presented in the book. Now a
complaint that a novel is too loaded with ideology is perfectly valid. A
complaint about a specific ideology is useless to include in a review; it's a
reviewer getting up on his or her soap box and spouting an irrelevant opinion,
a clear bias.)
Start
the review with 'This is a type of relationship of which I don't approve but'
and then when you're done take out the 'This is a type of relationship of which
I don't approve but' and hit post, because no one cares about your approval.
I'm
not making this personal. The reviewer will be easy enough to find as long as
the review remains posted. If he wants his name out of it, he can remove the
review. By his own review policy, it never should have gone up. I doubt he
will. He ignored my last message and unfriended me. He seems to have
successfully rationalized violating his stated review policy, for these books,
how I couldn't tell you. The explanation he gave me defied logic, in my
opinion. I certainly won't miss his friendship. I would like for him to have
kept his word and acted like a professional.
In
one of our exchanges he mentioned that he could maybe edit the review and go to
three stars. So was it two stars or three? Apparently three with my consent and
two without it. Clearly this shows a lack of integrity in the review. It
occurred to me that giving the go ahead to the three-star review would probably
lead to good exposure. A dominant woman being described as "too
selfish" is a fairly typical comment from a world deeply influenced by
misogyny, and would have been unlikely to deter femdom readers. It wasn't about
the stars, for me. Stars mean little. It was the biased attack on the
characters that led me to thank him for the time he put into reading the books
but that I thought we should move forward. I didn't want my books to become an
opportunity for a reviewer to get on a pulpit and preach against a lifestyle
some people engage in and enjoy and many other people enjoy having portrayed in
the fiction they read.
I
don't expect writers to be on my side on this. It's deeply ingrained in us to
keep quiet about reviews, but in this specific case, a clearly stated review
policy was violated, essentially it was a breach of contract. I won't be kept
silent by an internet bully. My concern is if speaking out hurts sales and my
publishers, who invest time and money making my books available to readers in
hopes of turning a profit to keep their business running. I'd be tempted to
keep quiet for them, but I answer to a personal code of ethics above all. And
the posting of this review was an injustice.
The
books in question can be found here, for sale on Amazon, in paperback and Ebook
form:
http://amzn.com/1938897471
Both remain for sale individually, as well, in only Ebook form. At the Pink Flamingo site, both are available individually in paperback and as Ebooks.
