Personally, I spend all my days sitting at my computer clicking 'reload', then taking a sip of tea, then clicking 'reload' again, waiting for the next review. Sometimes I stop to shower and eat.

I do hope that's a joke, otherwise... *yikes*

Reviews are reader opinions for other readers. Reviews are NOT author feedback, how you find out about plot holes, inconsistencies or problems with your grammar. I see way too many authors who rush to publish and then expect reviews to either provide them with feedback or validation. If you want feedback about the book, that's why you have critique partners, beta readers and editors. If you want a cheer squad, that's why you have friends and family.

Personally I hit publish and leave the book to do its own thing. I've never read reviews, right from day 1 on that first book. But then I also sought appropriate feedback before I ever hit publish. I can't imagine wasting time obsessing over reviews and waiting for one to appear. I have other things to do, like writing the next book.

 

I don't read them because they're not for me, they're for readers. It would be quite easy to get into a tailspin over readers thoughts within reviews, which would be a complete waste of time. I have someone that reads them for me and tells me if there's a theme within the reviews that I need to address in future books. At the end of the day, my books are professionally edited, so I made them the best I could. Once they're published, they're done.

 

I can't imagine wasting time obsessing over reviews and waiting for one to appear. I have other things to do, like writing the next book.

Thanks for your reply, Alice. It's interesting to hear your viewpoint (and yes, it was a joke).

 

Reviews are for readers, not writers.  If writers want critiques of their work, they should obtain  them prior to publication.  Once a writer hits that  publish button, their work belongs to the world and nothing they do will make a damned difference.

 

My goal is to not read them, but as of right now, I still do.  I get very down when I see bad ones.  I can't help it.  But the bottom line is that it's just one person's opinion.  There are tons of books that I can't stand, but a lot of other people really like them.  It's just my opinion that those books stink.  If I left a negative review it would be really dumb for that author to take it to heart or make changes in it when so many others really enjoyed the book.  I can look at it objectively when it's someone else's book, but when I'm the one getting the negative review, it's crushing.  I really need to stop reading them.  Immediately. 

 

What everyone else said about reviews being for other readers, and not for the author. But also, in addition to that, there's a more practical aspect of avoiding reviews for me. It's too easy for me to get sucked down the rabbit hole with the wrong review, and there's no way to tell in advance what review is gonna stick with me, so I avoid them almost entirely so as not to affect my productivity. Some days I have a very thick skin. Other days, my skin is entirely too thin. I know this about myself, and I know that I need to be consistent with my writing above all else, so while I certainly am not immune to wanting the validation of a positive review or even the morbid curiosity of wanting to know what someone hated about my story, in the long run I know its better for my productivity, my peace of mind and quite frankly my bank account if I just avoid reviews entirely.

I get my constructive criticism from trusted beta readers and critique partners, and every once in awhile I take a couple weeks off from writing to recharge and keep from burning out. During those periods I'll take a brief look at my reviews to see if there are any big trends popping up in them in reference to something I hadn't been aware of or that my betas & editors hadn't brought to my attention. But I only do this when I've given myself the time, space and mental energy in advance to process whatever I come across in reviews in a timely fashion, and not have it derail my work schedule or work mindset.

 

I'll never understand this attitude on kboards of acting like obsessing over your reviews is a "weird" thing. Not only is it not weird, it's normal human behavior.

If some have outgrown it, that's fine and good. But every time a thread like this is made (usually by new authors) they get piled on with the reply of "I'm a writer, I have better things to do. Reviews are for readers." as though something is wrong with the poster for caring about their reviews.

OP, your obsession with reviews is perfectly normal.

That said, I've found once a book gets around 20 reviews, it becomes much easier to ignore them. Whatever pattern has developed by then, tends to continue to play out as time goes on.

Also, the more books you have, the more checking your reviews becomes a pain in the butt (especially if you are wide).

So this issue will resolve itself as time goes on. If it doesn't, then you've got a problem 

I think the whole process of obsessing over market reaction to becoming detached from your reviews is a process that all authors go through.

The authors saying they don't care about reviews I guarantee you did not start out that. And it's really annoying when they pretend like everyone should have their zen-like detachment from reviews; because it's absolutely normal to care, especially when you first start out. Healthy? Probably not. But normal, yes. 

 

The authors saying they don't care about reviews I guarantee you did not start out that.

And you'd be wrong.

As I said, many authors rush to publish and never seek feedback before hand and then expect to find it in reviews, hence their obsession over them. I spent years in the query trenches working with CPs, querying, getting feedback (and piles of rejections!) from agents and publishers before I ever decided to self publish. By the time I hit publish on that first book, I can assure you I was a new author with no interest in reader reviews - because I had already developed a level of objectivity and confidence in my work through the process I went through before publishing.

 

And you'd be wrong.

As I said, many authors rush to publish and never seek feedback before hand and then expect to find it in reviews, hence their obsession over them. I spent years in the query trenches working with CPs, querying, getting feedback (and piles of rejections!) from agents and publishers before I ever decided to self publish. By the time I hit publish on that first book, I can assure you I was a new author with no interest in reader reviews - because I had already developed a level of objectivity and confidence in my work through the process I went through before publishing.

Pretty much this.

When I publish, I've considered various opinions already, I've made a decision and the book is what it is. People will love it or hate it, but the book won't change.

Oh, I talk to readers about possible directions to take a series etc. all the time, but the reviews is not the place where I do this.

 

I never have time or the inclination to go hunting out or reading reviews.

 

I read my reviews. Always have. Don't read the Goodreads ones anymore, or the ones for non-US sites, or the reviews on the early books, but--you bet, on the recent books. I want to know what is and isn't resonating. Sure there are editors and alphas and betas, but when a couple hundred people weigh in, I learn a lot.

That book's done, of course. But reader reaction is one of the things I take on board. I'm writing to be read, and not just by an editor--by my target audience. If something isn't working, or if it is, if a bunch of people loved my characters or didn't understand some character (because that is the main critique I get at this point), I want to know. Sometimes I disregard what I get. But I always consider it and learn from it.

That's also one of the ways I judge what my editor tells me--I know what my readers want and appreciate. Very helpful knowledge.

If somebody hates my voice, then no. That, I can shrug off as inevitable and unhelpful.

I don't have a thick skin all the time. On the other hand, I'm open to learning and changing and growing. IMHO, that's a good thing. Works for me.

People are different. Do what works for you.

 

I read my reviews. More so in the start! As someone upthread said, after you get enough, it's hard to tell if one is new even! I do read reviews on new books, the first few at least! I write for readers, therefore I want to know their opinion! Yes, my books are edited beforehand, but it's not uncommon for a reader to notice something they missed (I've had kind readers email me about typos, which I always thank them for, some always get through!), but I also find it good to keep an overal idea of what readers think of the themes etc.

That said, I've found it's better not to watch them too closely, as a negative review (which is inevitable, no matter how good your book), does get me down and make it harder to just keep writing.

 

I read my reviews. Always have. Don't read the Goodreads ones anymore, or the ones for non-US sites, or the reviews on the early books, but--you bet, on the recent books. I want to know what is and isn't resonating. Sure there are editors and alphas and betas, but when a couple hundred people weigh in, I learn a lot.

That book's done, of course. But reader reaction is one of the things I take on board. I'm writing to be read, and not just by an editor--by my target audience. If something isn't working, or if it is, if a bunch of people loved my characters or didn't understand some character (because that is the main critique I get at this point), I want to know. Sometimes I disregard what I get. But I always consider it and learn from it.

That's also one of the ways I judge what my editor tells me--I know what my readers want and appreciate. Very helpful knowledge.

If somebody hates my voice, then no. That, I can shrug off as inevitable and unhelpful.

I don't have a thick skin all the time. On the other hand, I'm open to learning and changing and growing. IMHO, that's a good thing. Works for me.

I'm brand new to this, and don't have enough experience to respond to the question, or to know for sure what my answer might be, but this feels like excellent advice to me. Thanks for sharing it.

 

Mostly I just don't think about reading my reviews. I'm doing other things (sometimes even writing). If I'm looking at a page anyway, I may look at a recent review, but otherwise, I just don't bother. I used to and there's nothing wrong with it, if someone wants to, but I guess I can't be bothered.

 

I'll randomly read a few on Amazon's .com or .co.uk site. I never read the GR reviews. They're either picky, unrealistic or shrewd and distasteful.

 

I think of reviews as an early warning system for the next book in a series. If you're getting good reviews, that's great, but if the bad reviews (and even some of the good ones) point out something that wasn't right in the first book, you might want to reconsider making the same mistake in the next one. Unless your intention was to repeat said mistake.

It might not be the most reliable system, and not all reviews are worth reading, but readers will tell you what they love, hate, and think should be included next time. And if you don't have an author's page available with ready access to public opinion of your series, reviews are the next best thing. To say this should matter only to readers strikes me as a bit short-sighted; you're slamming the door on a potential resource for future ideas, which is very important if you write for the market. Ignore reviews at your own peril.

 

On recent releases, I do read them, but after a week or so, I just tend to skim the new ones that come in.  After that?  I'll maybe check them every six months or so.  During release week, I like to know what's working for the readers and what's not as I'm writing my next book.  I don't, however, read into one or two-star reviews simply because they usually aren't the type of reader I'm trying to attract, especially if they've never read my books before.  Reviews are nice to have, especially the good ones in the early days, but I don't obsess over them like I used to three or four years ago.

 

I don't read them because if there is anything even slightly critical, I panic and go into a shame spiral. Once I had to hold myself back from deleting and re-writing an entire book just because of one review which said a scene was "unrealistic". I almost stopped writing completely after seeing a couple of negative reviews. I had more positive than negative, but the positive ones didn't seem to matter once I saw a negative one. I just can't deal with reviews. Maybe one day I will be mature enough to have them not bother me, but that day is not here. It's not even close to being here.

Also, when I look at my progress as a writer, it seems to me that external feedback has little to do with the internal growth processes which drive my improvements. I think my improvements as a writer come from inner drives such as my wanting to experience a really gorgeous love story, or the desire to feel certain strong emotions or express certain difficult states of being. The skills of storytelling seem to develop as a result of these urges rather than being something I do purposefully. You could think of it as similar to the phenomenon of epigenetics. Things happen as a side effect, unintentionally, while pursuing a different goal. So I'm not sure reviews would help me to develop skills which I don't feel I have any conscious control over, anyway.

I would love to be able to read my reviews without it affecting me. Maybe it's a milestone to aim for. But I won't be reading any until I'm sure it's not going to cause me problems.

 

I read my four and five star reviews; they make me feel all warm and snuggly.  I don't read anything lower than that though. They tempt me to break the cardinal rule and reply!

 

I agree that reviews are for other readers, but I still read mine. I don't use beta readers (apart from my mother) and it's useful to see what people are liking, and to check whether I'm going in the right direction. I generally find the two, three and four stars are the best reviews for that sort of thing.

What I don't use them for is personal validation. If someone dislikes what I've written I don't see that as a comment on my worthiness as a writer or a human being. The only negative review that ever annoyed me was one that accused me of getting my facts wrong. On that day I said "grr" to myself several times, double-checked my research, then let it lie, since I was right and I had the smug satisfaction of knowing that the reviewer was publicly Wrong On The Internet.

 

I agree that reviews are for other readers, but I still read mine. I don't use beta readers (apart from my mother) and it's useful to see what people are liking, and to check whether I'm going in the right direction. I generally find the two, three and four stars are the best reviews for that sort of thing.

What I don't use them for is personal validation. If someone dislikes what I've written I don't see that as a comment on my worthiness as a writer or a human being. The only negative review that ever annoyed me was one that accused me of getting my facts wrong. On that day I said "grr" to myself several times, double-checked my research, then let it lie, since I was right and I had the smug satisfaction of knowing that the reviewer was publicly Wrong On The Internet.

I can well relate to that. I had a book set in the sixteenth century, Henry VIII, and had a one star review (the first for that book which was selling well) declaring that I had it all wrong because I mentioned Newgate Prison and 'you only have to google it' to see it wasn't built until 18 something or other. Actually it was built in 1180 and rebuilt in 18 something or other. It made me so angry, I just had to put her straight.

I had not long been publishing then; nowadays, I simply don't read them.

 

I read my reviews. They are for readers, sure, but it's a valuable dataset of free feedback, and it seems... odd... not to take some kind of interest in that. When I started self-publishing I'd already written several hundred freelance articles, appeared in several charity anthologies and small press magazines, won contests, etc, etc. I didn't need the validation of reading reviews saying that I'd published a functionally adequate short story collection, but I was interested to see, for example, if there were any clear trends within the reviews as to which stories people preferred.

You know what? Turns out there weren't. Of the ten short stories in my first collection, all but one has been touted as the personal favourite of one reviewer or another. And the one that's been overlooked was a flash tale which won a competition on its first outing, so I'm good with that. I don't regret checking, though.

And I get what Patty says above about how there are other better places to have conversations with readers about direction, etc, but when it's your first short story collection whacked out at $0.99 with a cover showing a pint of beer in a pub garden that the author took on his phone... you have rather fewer options

 

It's interesting to hear everyone's viewpoints on this, and for me, that's kind of the point. There are some very smart people out there and I learn from them when I'm smart enough to listen. If the feedback they're freely offering happens to be about my writing, it would seem odd to not pay attention.

That's just my opinion - feel free to not read it! 

 

I read my reviews. Always have. Don't read the Goodreads ones anymore, or the ones for non-US sites, or the reviews on the early books, but--you bet, on the recent books. I want to know what is and isn't resonating. Sure there are editors and alphas and betas, but when a couple hundred people weigh in, I learn a lot.

That book's done, of course. But reader reaction is one of the things I take on board. I'm writing to be read, and not just by an editor--by my target audience. If something isn't working, or if it is, if a bunch of people loved my characters or didn't understand some character (because that is the main critique I get at this point), I want to know. Sometimes I disregard what I get. But I always consider it and learn from it.

That's also one of the ways I judge what my editor tells me--I know what my readers want and appreciate. Very helpful knowledge.

If somebody hates my voice, then no. That, I can shrug off as inevitable and unhelpful.

I don't have a thick skin all the time. On the other hand, I'm open to learning and changing and growing. IMHO, that's a good thing. Works for me.

People are different. Do what works for you.

This. I'm not obsessive about it--I was when I was starting out though. lol Now I check every so often, more so with newer books and I pay attention to any common things that are mentioned--both positive and negative. It's free data that may be helpful.

 

I read all the reviews on my books. Of course, there are only three or four on most of my books, so it's really not all that time-consuming. 

Even if I get oodles of reviews on all my books from this point forward, I think I would probably still try to read them all. If a reader cares enough to leave a comment (good or bad) then I should care enough to read it. It seems awfully rude and kind of disrespectful to ignore it. I mean, that person probably had better things to do with their time, but they still took that extra minute to to jot something down -- even if that something is "It sucked and I hated it."