Whether you're receiving feedback on a draft, or getting reviews of a finished book, negative feedback can be tough to hear. Even if you know you need it, even if it's meant to be constructive, it can range from a little hard to downright painful.
One of my favorite methods for dealing with it is realizing it happens to everyone. No matter how famous or brilliant you are, there will still be haters. Go look up your favorite book on Amazon or Goodreads. Check out the one-star reviews. They all have them. Here are a few examples:
One of my favorite methods for dealing with it is realizing it happens to everyone. No matter how famous or brilliant you are, there will still be haters. Go look up your favorite book on Amazon or Goodreads. Check out the one-star reviews. They all have them. Here are a few examples:
One-star review of The Golden Compass:
"I was terribly disappointed in this book and find it hard to understand the positive reviews. Have those readers never read well-written fantasy? The characters were one dimensional and unlikeable, the plot was full of holes, and the author's anger and discontentment was evident. I don't know what audience Pullman had in mind. Certainly this is not a book for children or middle schoolers-too dark and caustic-and it's too poorly written for thinking young adults. I forced myself to finish the book, all the while thinking it would get better. Nope. Unlike those who believe this mess of a book is a classic, I can only hope it falls into well-deserved obscurity-and soon."
Dude, this is like, my favorite series of all time. Kinda hurts me to hear someone talk like this.
"I was terribly disappointed in this book and find it hard to understand the positive reviews. Have those readers never read well-written fantasy? The characters were one dimensional and unlikeable, the plot was full of holes, and the author's anger and discontentment was evident. I don't know what audience Pullman had in mind. Certainly this is not a book for children or middle schoolers-too dark and caustic-and it's too poorly written for thinking young adults. I forced myself to finish the book, all the while thinking it would get better. Nope. Unlike those who believe this mess of a book is a classic, I can only hope it falls into well-deserved obscurity-and soon."
Dude, this is like, my favorite series of all time. Kinda hurts me to hear someone talk like this.
One-star reviews of Harry Potter:
"Pathetic. Really pathetic.
Harry Potter is more of a Mary-Sue than Eragon. More than Nancy Drew. More than the worst of fanfiction I've seen.
He's rich, popular and famous for absolutely nothing of his own doing. He destroys the power of the big bad guy before he's a year old. He has the whole angsty past down pat. He instantly becomes the best at flying without ever having done it before, wasting all the older and more experienced flyers. And get this - he fries bad guys when they touch his skin because the power of his mother's love is so amazing that it protects him.
Don't even get me started on the plot. Epic failure. 'Nuff said.
Harry wasn't any excuse for a hero. He did nothing, he just sat around and things happened to him. End of story. His fame was inherited, his fortune was inherited, he lived with his relations and allowed them to bully him, and couldn't even manage to read his own mail. His wonderful skills were not worked at and studied for years but picked up instantly, and he bet the bad guys by electrocuting them with his infamous zapper skin.
I could go on for hours. The thing that really gets to me is that this is the great literature of our age? What hope is there for any decent writers if all kids want to read is this utter garbage? What hope is there for the world if kids are growing up thinking this is good literature?"
And another:
"To sum it up: story was pretty much stolen together from different sources, characters are cardboard cut-outs, uninspiring and unlikeable with a few exceptions. (Snape has some dept.) The main character is a whiny kid, the bad guy is laughable.
The language Rowling uses is poor at best, full of repeated lines, clichés etc. The dialogues are unrealistic and annoyingly stupid at times. The story itself is full of plotholes and characters make moves that make no sense even in the senseless universe these books conjur up.
Just bad literature basically. I can't imagine why this is so popular. But then again, so are Twilight and 50 Shades..."
Really surprising to see such a popular series get this kind of hate, but this just proves it happens to everyone.
"Pathetic. Really pathetic.
Harry Potter is more of a Mary-Sue than Eragon. More than Nancy Drew. More than the worst of fanfiction I've seen.
He's rich, popular and famous for absolutely nothing of his own doing. He destroys the power of the big bad guy before he's a year old. He has the whole angsty past down pat. He instantly becomes the best at flying without ever having done it before, wasting all the older and more experienced flyers. And get this - he fries bad guys when they touch his skin because the power of his mother's love is so amazing that it protects him.
Don't even get me started on the plot. Epic failure. 'Nuff said.
Harry wasn't any excuse for a hero. He did nothing, he just sat around and things happened to him. End of story. His fame was inherited, his fortune was inherited, he lived with his relations and allowed them to bully him, and couldn't even manage to read his own mail. His wonderful skills were not worked at and studied for years but picked up instantly, and he bet the bad guys by electrocuting them with his infamous zapper skin.
I could go on for hours. The thing that really gets to me is that this is the great literature of our age? What hope is there for any decent writers if all kids want to read is this utter garbage? What hope is there for the world if kids are growing up thinking this is good literature?"
And another:
"To sum it up: story was pretty much stolen together from different sources, characters are cardboard cut-outs, uninspiring and unlikeable with a few exceptions. (Snape has some dept.) The main character is a whiny kid, the bad guy is laughable.
The language Rowling uses is poor at best, full of repeated lines, clichés etc. The dialogues are unrealistic and annoyingly stupid at times. The story itself is full of plotholes and characters make moves that make no sense even in the senseless universe these books conjur up.
Just bad literature basically. I can't imagine why this is so popular. But then again, so are Twilight and 50 Shades..."
Really surprising to see such a popular series get this kind of hate, but this just proves it happens to everyone.
One star review of Miss Peregrines Home for Peculiar Children:
"This book was so terrible, I couldn't even get two chapters into it. It was the worst book I've attempted to read in years. Now obviously I didn't finish, so I can't fairly assess the story itself, but it wasn't making much of an impression on me. The writing was atrocious. Words spelled incorrectly, liberal improper verb conjugation, basic formatting errors and a choppy, childlike style made reading "Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children" akin to scraping nails on a chalkboard. I don't know who is giving it such high reviews, people who haven't been exposed to truly excellent literature? I hate to sound like a snob, but I was really disappointed by this book. I wish someone had put more effort into this book, because it feels like a serious case of wasted potential."
Wait, you didn't even finish it? Come on.
"This book was so terrible, I couldn't even get two chapters into it. It was the worst book I've attempted to read in years. Now obviously I didn't finish, so I can't fairly assess the story itself, but it wasn't making much of an impression on me. The writing was atrocious. Words spelled incorrectly, liberal improper verb conjugation, basic formatting errors and a choppy, childlike style made reading "Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children" akin to scraping nails on a chalkboard. I don't know who is giving it such high reviews, people who haven't been exposed to truly excellent literature? I hate to sound like a snob, but I was really disappointed by this book. I wish someone had put more effort into this book, because it feels like a serious case of wasted potential."
Wait, you didn't even finish it? Come on.
For all of those examples, I tried to find reviews that gave concrete reasons why they didn't like the book beyond "it wasn't for me." There are multiple kinds of "negative" feedback. I'll certainly be writing more on this topic later, because it is important to listen to what our audience has to say. We need to learn when to shake off criticism and when to take it in. Some quick examples:
Fairly constructive:
"I found the main character to be mostly likable, but there's more opportunity to develop her, and I wanted more of her relationship with so and so. There are also some errors, and I didn't have the clearest image of the city they lived in--it was confusing sometimes about how big it really was, sometimes it seemed huge, but most people seemed to just know each other. But I really liked the plot, and there was a lot of excitement and suspense, etc..."
If you get a review like this: Listen. Someone is trying to help you.
Personal Preferences:
"This was too controversial"
"This really isn't my genre"
"I don't like creepy stuff"
"I'm too old for this"
"I liked everything else but this one teeny tiny aspect is a pet peeve in my personal life so it completely ruined the book for ME."
If you get a review like this: Don't take personal preferences personally. Someone is just being weird.
Straight-up trolls:
"Terrible"
"Awful, want my money back"
"Boring, repetative, badly written"
"This is a disaster"
"Yuck. Coudn't finish."
If you get a review like this: It says much more about them than you. Someone is just being mean.
Always remember this:
RSS Feed
