Reviewers--can't live with 'em, can't live without 'em. Having had raves and pans over the course of 15 years and 17 books, I know one thing: it's all a crap shoot and sometimes has nothing to do with the quality of the book. It's all about the luck of the draw: who reads your book and when.

I've spent about a decade reviewing in print and on the radio and having gone over to the Dark Side, I discovered the obvious: reviewers are human, they make mistakes, they miss things, they can be in bad moods. Sometimes I have to start a book twice before I'm in the mood--but what if I'd been under a tighter deadline? And what if you've just reviewed something amazing, and something ordinary comes along, it may seem weaker than it really is. The reverse is also true: a so-so book can seem better if everything you've read before it is dreadful. No book reaches your desk in isolation, it's all intertextual.

Reviews are supposed to sell books, but honestly, I've had bad reviews of my books be misread or ignored by fans, and good reviews appear in places no one notices, and have seen author friends with starred Kirkus or PW reviews not profit by them one iota. Maybe it builds good buzz for you inside the publishing house, but you can't even count on that.

I have written nine reference books and over 120 paid (!) articles.

Five of the books were published by large outside publishers and four self-published. These books are VERY expensive. (Price was between $150 to $1200 a copy).

Of the five published by outside publishers, four never earned their advance back. The fifth has turned into a virtual gold mine generating substantial royalties every year.

Of the four I self published, two sold less than 100 copies, one sold about 150 copies, and the fourth is another gold mine.

Why two books sold well and other seven died is beyond me.

All I know for sure is that each of the books was published with the intent of making money.

My advice: go out for a nice dinner and then start working on your next book (But don't give up your day job).

SJ

I'm a musician, not a writer, but I've definitely experienced less-than-glowing reviews.

In one case, I complained to the publisher (a website) about the review, and a new one (still not glowing, but better) was put in its place. I was a little hesitant to complain--I didn't want to seem thin-skinned, but it's strange to read about the poor technical quality of one's recording in a review riddled with grammatical errors.

If it's just a matter of taste, or the person not understanding the work, it's probably better to just let it stand, though.

I remember a letter written to Down Beat magazine many years ago by the guitarist Joe Pass. He was writing about a negative review of a recent release of his, and he said that on reflection, the recording in fact did not live up to his standards, and he agreed with the negative review.

The trick is to weed out the garbage and find the information that can be helpful for future works, in both positive and negative reviews.

I don't think I've ever given anyone solace or advice via song lyrics, but here I go.

From "Everybody's Free (to Wear Sunscreen)":

Don’t waste your time on jealousy. Sometimes you’re ahead, sometimes you’re behind - the race is long, and in the end, it’s only with

yourself. Remember the compliments you receive, forget the insults; if you succeed in doing this, tell me how.

In addition to that, perhaps you'll appreciate hearing that I am personally inspired by your story.

I've just wasted two years trying to write - trying to move in various other creative directions - and failing. Instead I've accomplished little or nothing after using all of this time and energy.

I'm not dejected about this - every day is a new day and I'm looking forward to what the future brings.

You, however, have written and published an entire book! Goddamn - that really says something about you.

In the world of frustrated creative people, the guy who actually accomplishes something is king!

Consider "The DaVinci Code" and "The Corrections." Does any reader exist who thinks both are great?

I don't know the answer-- I imagine not. I also imagine you'll find lots of clever wags who'll tell you they both suck. (I have read neither.)

Surely "Mr Laser" is better off having actually written and published one novel, then all the bitter passive-aggressive types who have been meaning to write "Novel X", bitch and moan, but haven't ever done so.

Who is more pathetic- the aspiring rodeo rider who will ride the bucking bronc, someday, or the fellow who actually saddled up, even if just once, and was promptly thrown off?

to paraphrase ole what's his name--

"tis better to have saddled up and fallen flat on your ass, then to never have saddled up at all."

I'm a writer who will probably fixate on her bad reviews if/when her novel is published. So giving you the advice not to is hypocritical.

Still, how many people do you know who read the bad book review in the publications you mentioned? It's not like your movie opened and got panned by the New York Times. In my experience the average book lover does not subscribe or read to either.

As an avid reader, I don't pay too much attention to book reviews, be they Amazon or in print. I do pay attention to the recommendations from people I know personally.

If bad reviews really doomed a book, there would be no "Bridges of Madison County" or a slew of other bestsellers.

You're not alone. Based on the success of an earlier work with a similar name, Greg Grogan was sure that his magnum opus, "The Old Maniac and the Sea," would be a runaway bestseller. Alas, the critics thought otherwise, and it was relegated to obscurity:

http://electricstorytime.blogspot.com/2006/09/old-maniac-and-sea.html