Review ramblings

[ksmith]

So there are review kerfuffles in various places. It all seems very Six Degrees of Separation, with the maximum separation being about 2. If you don't know the people involved, you know friends of theirs.

As a writer, I am told repeatedly that I am supposed to Take The High Road and not respond to reviews. I understand this. I don't believe I've ever responded directly to a review, though I have discussed them/muttered darkly to friends. For the most part I didn't know the reviewers, and never encountered them online. That allowed for a distance that made the whole thing easier to take.

It becomes more difficult when friends and writers and reviewers and the magazines carrying the reviews are all a mouse click away, with the discussions starting almost immediately the things are posted, if not before, with folks weighing in from every corner. We spend so much of our time--too much, probably--sitting together in this great virtual con bar buying one another drinks and shouting jokes across the room that when something profession-oriented like a review crops up in the midst of it all, it can bring you up short. Hey I thought we were all having fun--well, yes, but some of us have jobs to do, too.

And someone like me is advised to Take The High Road.

I'm all for the High Road in theory, although I confess that there have been times when I wanted to hide in the ditch along the side of the High Road and sneak up behind the reviewer as they walked past and bury an axe in their head. No point in that. I know that--not an idiot, thanks, at least not about that. If I want a lecture, I'll pay tuition and choose the class myself, so don't bother.

The return of some distance. I think that would be a good thing.

Comments

[naomikritzer]

I don't visualize it as "taking the high road." I think of it as holding the attitude that negative reviews are below my notice.

In Scott's case, though -- I mean, it's being discussed in detail on several blogs he reads regularly, I think. I don't know if I could stand not to get involved in the conversation. And he's totally right: tastes vary, and a reviewer who starts off by mocking or slamming those whose tastes differ is being an asshole. Not to the writer, but to the other readers.

[kristine-smith.livejournal.com]

But I think that's where my feeling about distance comes in. Because it's become that much harder to abstract oneself from reviews and discussions of same and I, personally, would prefer to pretend it all didn't exist for the most part.

In a nice bit of good karma, I found a fan email in my mailbox when I signed on to check things out before turning in. The best kind of review, imho. But I'm the one wrestling with the damn pages, and I'll take all the props I can get.

This icon is for crummy reviews and crummier people.

[battle-of-one.livejournal.com]

I find that thinking a hardy "Eff you too" goes a long way to forgetting the bad taste in your mouth after reading one of those. :/

And then when you get the fanmail the next day from a kid who honestly loves the work and paid to read it...that tends to make up for the sour people.

Re: This icon is for crummy reviews and crummier people.

[kristine-smith.livejournal.com]

*icon love*

I have Aeryn-with-a-gun. I also have Homer-with-a-chainsaw. I will save them for future use.

[torrilin.livejournal.com]

I'm glad the only person who really *cares* about what I say about books is a herefox who always disagrees with me. I'd hate to have a popular enough journal that there's a chance the author could come across me discussing a work that I disliked. Because I'm ok with disliking things, but I'm not ok with saying I dislike something in a way that hurts the author.

I'd make a terrible reviewer.

[jennifer-dunne.livejournal.com]

Yes, I've long practiced that there are only two appropriate replies to a review:

1. Thank you for taking the time to review my work. (only if they personally send the review to my attention)

2. Thank you for taking the time to review my work. I appreciate your efforts, but wanted to point out that is a spoiler, and may ruin some of the enjoyment of the book for readers. Would it be possible for you to remove or reword that? Thanks again.

I used to do reviews for SF Romance, and as a reviewer, I was happier believing the authors never saw the reviews. :-) In my mind, I was talking to the readers. If I thought about the authors, I had to worry about their feelings. I tried to never say anything bad (anything mean or cruel -- saying something didn't work for me isn't BAD, and if I can support it, it's helpful for readers to know). But I was always conscious that I might be telling a proud parent they had an ugly baby. Even if it's true, no one wants to hear it.

[jennifer-dunne.livejournal.com]

grrr... forgot that the less-than and greater-than sign are interpreted as code....

that should read:

I appreciate your efforts, but wanted to point out that {{whatever}} is a spoiler...

[barbarienne.livejournal.com]

The kerfluffle isn't over the review per se, in the sense that no one is saying the reviewer hasn't a right to her opinion.

The kerfluffle (as I see it) is that she said something which some people took as hyperbole-for-the-sake-of-drama and some people took literally. Taken literally, the statement was quite rude, and the literalists are calling for everything from better editorial standards in SH's reviews to the reviewer's head on a platter.

But yes, this being teh intarweb, and specifically a bunch of SF/F writing geeks, everyone has to wave their pedantry.

The author of the work in question has been quite reasonable about it. Because again, the kerfluffle isn't over whether or not the reviewer liked the book, but statements she made in the process of reviewing it. The people who got in a kerfluffle are other reviewers.

Silver lining.........

[anuttermutters.livejournal.com]

Due to all of this I learnt how to spell 'Cojones'.

[(Anonymous)]

The kerfluffle isn't over the review per se, in the sense that no one is saying the reviewer hasn't a right to her opinion.

In the midst of it all, the comment that writers are silly to respond to reviews did keep cropping up. I chose to respond to that because it bugged me. As I said, it's one thing when there's some distance involved, when the writer can close a magazine or go to a different site and get away from it. But when the reviewer provides a link to said review in their blog and there's a great deal of overlap between f-lists, where the flip does a writer go? Because given the proximity of the review and the chidings that one should sit back and take it, occasionally one's reaction might be to let fly and give the reviewer somthing to take. I could be completely misinterpreting, but it strikes me that there's a neener neener undercurrent to it all, and that irks me.

I agree that the writer in question showed admirable restraint.

As for the other matter...lock 'em all in a room and last one standing. And I'm going to stop there.

[(Anonymous)]

I think that for the most part, writers are accepting of the fact that their work may be disliked.

I couldn't be a reviewer, either.

[kristine-smith.livejournal.com]

This is me, btw.

LJ logged me out again...

[kristine-smith.livejournal.com]

This is me, too. A stranger in my own blog.

Re: Silver lining.........

[kristine-smith.livejournal.com]

But can you say it...?

A Flaw...........

[anuttermutters.livejournal.com]

Oh Balls! ;)

Re: This icon is for crummy reviews and crummier people.

[battle-of-one.livejournal.com]

Jared has some great photoshoots, I couldn't resist iconing.

Guns and chainsaws are also effective. :D