A friend and author posted on her blog about a wonderful new set of reviews for her upcoming novel sequel release. Excited for her, I linked to the various reviews to read through…and threw up a little in my mouth.
I’m happy that she’s getting exposure for her work. However, these reviews might’ve been written with pen, paper, and a blender for all the sense they made. Misspellings, contextually incorrect or incomplete sentences/thoughts/ideas, and a mish-mash of other things that had gone awry on the way to publishing these reviews made the reviews more harmful than helpful, in my opinion.
Is there truth in the idea that even bad press is press nonetheless?
I know that with the advent of the world wide web, anyone with the ability to type can post content. An author would likely be better served in soliciting reviews – well-written reviews – rather than relying on the unwashed masses to provide shoddy, unreliable content.
In this era of media overload, it can be troublesome to be heard above the clamor of everyone else. That someone took the time to submit a review to the world is a good thing, but if said review is poorly written with a meandering narrative and a vague conclusion, would it be better to do without that particular review, no less draw attention to it?
What sayest thou?