WONDERFUL episode. And I follow AR Kaufer on Twitter. I remember the tweet she mentioned. I also remember telling her that the negative reviewer was wrong and she didn't owe them an apology. I remember how torn up she was, and felt AWFUL for her. Personally, I ignore such reviews when I look at them on other people's work. But when they happen to me, I seem to immediately feel like theirs are the ONLY valid reviews - and I ignore my own good ones. So, while my heart hurts and understands AR's point of view (and yours, Jody), I will still stand by my position that those types of reviews from readers fall into two categories:
1. Personal vendetta against the author by someone who is mean-spirited, jealous, or isn't a serious reader (I mean - c'mon, real readers just don't do that). Some people just can't be pleased. If someone takes such pains to be cruel, there's something missing in that reader that has nothing to do with the author or their work. Some folks like to impose their negative opinions because they're insecure and need to feel like they're an authority, or to otherwise prop themselves up by bringing others down a peg. Being negative or "know-it-all" feeds their dark souls, to be honest. Example: viral tweets filled with nasty, personally-directed replies to a general question posed by the OP without having given their own opinion.
2. The reader wasn't "your" reader. If you market your book as a romance and it's a mystery, two things happen. First, the romance reader expects romance and doesn't get what they thought they would, so they are disappointed. Second, the mystery reader who would have loved it never sees it because they're not a romance fan. Proper marketing, genre-wise, is as key to success as a well-written book with a great blurb and a great story. Sometimes, our books fall into the hands of readers who expect one thing, but get something totally different. So their review isn't personal. They just weren't "our" readers (which I've discussed with you before and AR mentions as well).
And Jody - audiobook readers are readers. Some can't read due to vision problems. Some absorb it better in an auditory manner. So stop it. (Said to be funny.)
Personally, I feel that people jumping on and claiming a book is "racist" or "homophobic" or any other declaration is both potentially subjective (depending on how sensitive the reader is) and unnecessary. Back to the old Archie Bunker argument. Some characters are drawn to highlight such things to make a point. Other characters are explicitly NOT the way some may say, but are accused of being that way due to personal bias or thin skin - perhaps even ignorance. I, myself, would never ever make such potentially career-killing comments about any book - no matter how bad *I* think such an offense is or even how bad it is objectively. I think in this day and age, such accusations are immediately accepted by a potential readers. That poses real problems. Any ill-tempered or trigger-happy reader can kill an author that quickly. I would never do it. Don't like the book? Move on. *If* such accusations are factually accurate, the writer won't have long-term readers anyway. Too many things like that are subjective. Plus, "phobic" means afraid of, not targeted cruelty or other nefarious things today's "phobic" is accepted to mean. I have a few characters that would fall into this category. Because in life, we encounter them. Making it unsafe for an author to "go there" is to mute their creative voice. I'm personally against such censorship (implied or threatened as it may be).
Just as in AR's example with Stephen King's IT, I know I've seen movies that depict the victimhood of homosexuals - the most vivid in my mind, the movie TORCH SONG TRILOGY from the '80s, starring Matthew Broderick and Harvey Fierstein. It broke my heart. It was horrible to homosexuals. But that was a slice of life type thing that was used brilliantly to shine a spotlight on the treatment of gay men - specifically, Harvey Fierstein's character, if I remember right. Maybe I have it reversed. Maybe it was Matthew's character. Anyway, that movie would be, by today's outrage and soap boxes, "unacceptable." Or what about 12 YEARS A SLAVE? Or other movies that depict to whatever extent and accuracy (or inaccuracy, frankly) the plight of any group of people with a history of abuse or mistreatment? Should those stories not be written? Should such authors be "cancelled?" Is it "glorifying" racism or sexism or anything else by merely writing it? I don't know. I think that a story is a story and shouldn't force the author to worry whether they "dare" tell it. It's censorship-lite. It's peer pressure. It's wrong. We're artists. And there is plenty of wrong-think on many sides. Art is where people should be able to express themselves freely, without censorship. Cream always rises to the top.
Also, some characters feel contrary to the author. That's what we do. We write about people. Those people (however fictitious) must have varied personalities and proclivities. Otherwise, there's no conflict, all characters look the same, and we struggle with nothing. How would a world with such books look?
Rape happens. Racism does exist. Gay-bashing is still a thing. Women are still mistreated. MEN are mistreated. Life happens. It's uncomfortable. My gosh - if I removed everything someone might find offensive in my books? I'd have nothing to write about.
On the topic of ARC readers. Wow. They're getting a free book. That's the payment. Otherwise, the person is potentially pressured (or perceived to be pressured) to leave a favorable review.
Anyway - I was very impressed with AR. I already liked her from Twitter. I like her that much more, now. I learned some things, felt validated in some things, felt sorry for myself for some things (you know me), and really, really enjoyed the episode. (You're probably tired of hearing that feedback with each show.) This was a lot. And worth every minute. Very engaging.
May I make one small suggestion? It's stupid, but I was wondering if it's possible to add a second or two to the beginning so there's a little "air" there - when I click the play button, I always have to hit the back 15 seconds button because it starts immediately, and most times cuts off the first word or two. Just a suggestion. No big deal.
I don't hear any intro music. I hear a cut-off portion of your opening. That one episode where you had intro music (I'd commented on that) was great. Just as there is an ending, it would be nice to maybe have an official (however long or short) opening bit of music. It helps because then, when you start talking, it's not cut off.
It's petty to even say anything, but I think you like to hear that sort of feedback. So, there ya go.
WONDERFUL episode. And I follow AR Kaufer on Twitter. I remember the tweet she mentioned. I also remember telling her that the negative reviewer was wrong and she didn't owe them an apology. I remember how torn up she was, and felt AWFUL for her. Personally, I ignore such reviews when I look at them on other people's work. But when they happen to me, I seem to immediately feel like theirs are the ONLY valid reviews - and I ignore my own good ones. So, while my heart hurts and understands AR's point of view (and yours, Jody), I will still stand by my position that those types of reviews from readers fall into two categories:
1. Personal vendetta against the author by someone who is mean-spirited, jealous, or isn't a serious reader (I mean - c'mon, real readers just don't do that). Some people just can't be pleased. If someone takes such pains to be cruel, there's something missing in that reader that has nothing to do with the author or their work. Some folks like to impose their negative opinions because they're insecure and need to feel like they're an authority, or to otherwise prop themselves up by bringing others down a peg. Being negative or "know-it-all" feeds their dark souls, to be honest. Example: viral tweets filled with nasty, personally-directed replies to a general question posed by the OP without having given their own opinion.
2. The reader wasn't "your" reader. If you market your book as a romance and it's a mystery, two things happen. First, the romance reader expects romance and doesn't get what they thought they would, so they are disappointed. Second, the mystery reader who would have loved it never sees it because they're not a romance fan. Proper marketing, genre-wise, is as key to success as a well-written book with a great blurb and a great story. Sometimes, our books fall into the hands of readers who expect one thing, but get something totally different. So their review isn't personal. They just weren't "our" readers (which I've discussed with you before and AR mentions as well).
And Jody - audiobook readers are readers. Some can't read due to vision problems. Some absorb it better in an auditory manner. So stop it. (Said to be funny.)
Personally, I feel that people jumping on and claiming a book is "racist" or "homophobic" or any other declaration is both potentially subjective (depending on how sensitive the reader is) and unnecessary. Back to the old Archie Bunker argument. Some characters are drawn to highlight such things to make a point. Other characters are explicitly NOT the way some may say, but are accused of being that way due to personal bias or thin skin - perhaps even ignorance. I, myself, would never ever make such potentially career-killing comments about any book - no matter how bad *I* think such an offense is or even how bad it is objectively. I think in this day and age, such accusations are immediately accepted by a potential readers. That poses real problems. Any ill-tempered or trigger-happy reader can kill an author that quickly. I would never do it. Don't like the book? Move on. *If* such accusations are factually accurate, the writer won't have long-term readers anyway. Too many things like that are subjective. Plus, "phobic" means afraid of, not targeted cruelty or other nefarious things today's "phobic" is accepted to mean. I have a few characters that would fall into this category. Because in life, we encounter them. Making it unsafe for an author to "go there" is to mute their creative voice. I'm personally against such censorship (implied or threatened as it may be).
Just as in AR's example with Stephen King's IT, I know I've seen movies that depict the victimhood of homosexuals - the most vivid in my mind, the movie TORCH SONG TRILOGY from the '80s, starring Matthew Broderick and Harvey Fierstein. It broke my heart. It was horrible to homosexuals. But that was a slice of life type thing that was used brilliantly to shine a spotlight on the treatment of gay men - specifically, Harvey Fierstein's character, if I remember right. Maybe I have it reversed. Maybe it was Matthew's character. Anyway, that movie would be, by today's outrage and soap boxes, "unacceptable." Or what about 12 YEARS A SLAVE? Or other movies that depict to whatever extent and accuracy (or inaccuracy, frankly) the plight of any group of people with a history of abuse or mistreatment? Should those stories not be written? Should such authors be "cancelled?" Is it "glorifying" racism or sexism or anything else by merely writing it? I don't know. I think that a story is a story and shouldn't force the author to worry whether they "dare" tell it. It's censorship-lite. It's peer pressure. It's wrong. We're artists. And there is plenty of wrong-think on many sides. Art is where people should be able to express themselves freely, without censorship. Cream always rises to the top.
Also, some characters feel contrary to the author. That's what we do. We write about people. Those people (however fictitious) must have varied personalities and proclivities. Otherwise, there's no conflict, all characters look the same, and we struggle with nothing. How would a world with such books look?
Rape happens. Racism does exist. Gay-bashing is still a thing. Women are still mistreated. MEN are mistreated. Life happens. It's uncomfortable. My gosh - if I removed everything someone might find offensive in my books? I'd have nothing to write about.
On the topic of ARC readers. Wow. They're getting a free book. That's the payment. Otherwise, the person is potentially pressured (or perceived to be pressured) to leave a favorable review.
Anyway - I was very impressed with AR. I already liked her from Twitter. I like her that much more, now. I learned some things, felt validated in some things, felt sorry for myself for some things (you know me), and really, really enjoyed the episode. (You're probably tired of hearing that feedback with each show.) This was a lot. And worth every minute. Very engaging.
May I make one small suggestion? It's stupid, but I was wondering if it's possible to add a second or two to the beginning so there's a little "air" there - when I click the play button, I always have to hit the back 15 seconds button because it starts immediately, and most times cuts off the first word or two. Just a suggestion. No big deal.
I am not tired of your comments. I love your comments. I wish more people would comment. The interaction really deepens the whole experience.
When you say air at the beginning, do you mean after the intro music or at the very beginning of the show?
I don't hear any intro music. I hear a cut-off portion of your opening. That one episode where you had intro music (I'd commented on that) was great. Just as there is an ending, it would be nice to maybe have an official (however long or short) opening bit of music. It helps because then, when you start talking, it's not cut off.
It's petty to even say anything, but I think you like to hear that sort of feedback. So, there ya go.
Let me clarify. You speak, then go into your regular intro, then the show starts.
It's BEFORE you first speak that is cut off. Your pre-intro intro.
Gotcha. I will do some experimenting. Thank you for the feedback.
Minor thing. Great show.
I can't imagine writing a million words of a story and sitting on it.
I get itchy with 3k Bedtime Stories and want to get them out as soon as I can.
100% agreed. I like moving fast!