So, I am in the regular Review Group now, and I am having the same problem as before. You can see this by looking at some of the reviews for the Baroness of Surli on Goodreads. Now, if you have been following me, you should know I have a book review matrix that I believe helps me give unbiased reviews. I adopted this when I started reviewing indie books and working for Reader's Favorite. (I tend to be harder on traditionally published or vanity press books--depending on the vanity press.)
I also happen to like almost any genre. I do not care for memoirs, self-help, business books, horror that is supernatural or gore, erotica, and a few others. I will, however, read almost everything. (Erotica is the reason I have a clause in my freelancing contract that says I have the right to stop working on a project and refund any deposited funds without giving you anything if I deem the project to go against my ethics. Too many people told me they were doing "urban fiction" or "romance" and then tried to get me to work on their smut. Every sex scene I edited out they put back in with all my other edits when I finished. I wanted to throw up. Just as it is wrong to feed a Muslim pork and tell him its beef or vice versa for a Hindu, it is wrong to use a person to complete a project that as a whole is unethical to them.)
Anyway, since the Genre Specific Group is indefinitely closed, I started doing these general groups again. I decided any review is better than none. And, as before, most of the reviews say the same thing: "I don't really like reading this genre of book." Okay, okay--I get it, I created my serial novels as my own way of competing with some of those writers who put out thousands of "works" in their lifetime. My mashup genres combining historical novels in a sci-fi setting is a new thing and not going to appeal to everyone. That is why I am publishing them in serial for the first half, so people can see if they like the style before purchasing it.
However, one review got to me because it was point on--and it wasn't even a bad review. She said the book was filled with typos? (The blog for the books is filled with typos--I put out my first draft so I can publish a chapter every day, but I do proofread it before publishing.) She gave one example where I used "to" instead of "too" and suggested I get an editor. (For the record, I used "too" correctly 20 times and "to" correctly "1012" times. I did misuse "to" about 8 times which are now fixed--but usually I misused it by creating a split infinitive.) I am thankful she pointed my typos out. I just wish she would have done it privately because I really do not think it is completely filled with them. But these are the unforgiving rules of the group--if you have published a book with any typos they can be called out. Since even traditional publishers usually have a few typos (many typos now), this is a real possibility. Since some people are not aware that things like serial commas may or may not be a typo depending on the style guide you use, this can also create problems. (To instead of too is always a typo. Split infinitives are also always a typo unless you have a single character who always uses them in dialogue. I am not saying this review in particular was wrong.)
She went on to say that I wasn't really creating a new world or new characters, but that was okay because some people do that. This, I hope she is wrong about. She did not read the original novel, to the best of my knowledge, so her comment is justified from her point of view.
The Baroness, in my book, is trained in military arts and kicks butt--she even takes down the male lead while pregnant and saves his life when she is not. I promise that did not happen in the historical novel it is based upon. The original character mostly faints and screams and gets taken advantage of or almost taken advantage of by several men. My male lead is tortured by what he does, but his actions, in my opinion, are not nearly as bad as the actions of the male lead in the original. The original was not a character I had any feelings for and I certainly wouldn't have married the jerk, I can at least understand the male character I created. In the original, the Dad tries to shoot the Baroness, and then when they make up, he kisses her on the lips "like a lover" while she is sitting on his lap--yeah, that's not a translation issue and I was grossed out, which is why it isn't even remotely a part of my book or his character.
I felt the reviewer, like some of the others who have reviewed me, was belittling me for recreating a once popular but little read public domain book--this is my interpretation and feeling about the review, so hopefully I am not correct. Reviews can hurt some times--and most of it can be what our own minds make of them.
I could have written my book without citing the original because it is in public domain (and it is doubtful many people today have already read it), but I am not like that. I believe the original authors deserve credit. Since these are mashups, I deliberately keep some of the original text in tact, but I also believe I have changed my books enough to pass the 70% copyright test.
You cannot copyright ideas because ideas don't tell the story. Since college, I noticed my talent is to capture all the main ideas of a plot in a novel way, like for example, John the Baptist's beheading or Jael's driving a stake through Sisera's head. I have my own ideas, too, but I equally like recreating things my way. Saying these books are invalid because of that would be the same as someone saying, Gordon Ramsay is just remaking Beef Wellington so there isn't anything special about it. I mean he is using the same beef anyone else can use!
In the meantime, I am back to the Review Group. It is always tough to get a less than 5-star review. Authors should take those and learn from them if they can (like fixing typos), but as an author you also need to recognize when the reviewers negative opinion is not the end of the world. In the end, it is one person's opinion. If this one wouldn't have told me to get an editor on a book that has been through two beta readers and that I have been through twice myself after writing it and then rewriting it, and if I wouldn't be a degreed, professional editor, that probably wouldn't have hurt so much. But I have always said that you need to have someone else edit your own work regardless of your qualifications. This is still true and the review is proof of that. That said, the only reason she could have found so many typos when four other previous reviewers did not, would be that she was not interested in the story. I'm sorry for that, but it is unfortunately the nature of the General Review Group.
No comments:
Post a Comment