Maintenance Monday
Authors Behaving Badly
Okay, let me clarify: I needed a catchy title, so I ganked this from the internets, as I've heard it used many a time by many an author. But it sums up some questions I want to pose in today's blog.
When I reviewed Feed for our October Book Club, I emailed the author with the link to the review, inviting her to comment if she'd like. And she responded back, saying she appreciated the review, but declined to comment. She posted a blog to explain why:
Having an author join a discussion of their own book often has the unintentional effect of both censoring and stilling the dialog. Which is not to say that people won't happily say "you suck" when they know I'll see it . . . but people who think that's fun aren't usually the sort of people who really want to do critical analysis, and people who really want to do critical analysis sometimes get uncomfortable critically analyzing someone who's standing right there. This goes double for readers who are also friends of mine. It's way harder to be harsh on a book, or critical of a plot point, when you're worried about hurting the feelings of a friend.
Plus, anything I say about what I meant--not how the text was interpreted--sort of sounds like holy writ. "No, no, you have that wrong . . . " is not something you want to hear from an author during a book discussion. Ever. It can be really easy for an author to come off as a condescending brat when they chime in on this sort of thing.
You can read the whole thing here.
This really struck a chord with me, about setting standards for yourself if you're an author. Different authors have different policies on reviews (some, like Sandra McDonald, don't read them at all!), and it's interesting to see those policies in practice and how said policies make the author look.
For example, one time, I wrote a negative review and later learned the author had linked to it in her blog. But the cool thing was this: she requested that her readers NOT go over to my blog to harass me. Rather, she wanted to discuss two points about my review that frustrated her, but she also wanted to talk about why negative reviews were good. Oh sure, some of the comments to HER post weren't very flattering about ME, but hey, it's her blog, and that's allowed. But I really respected her for the way she handled the situation. She didn't have to be fair or kind, but she WAS, and when I engaged her in the comments, she was more than understanding, and even offered to have a beer with me if I ever went to a certain Con that she frequents.
Stuff like that is GOLD when it comes to author behavior. Because even though I didn't care for her book, it made me more open to read said author's future work. And I don't know why I'm keeping her name a secret: the heroine of this little tale is author Sara Harvey. Go Sara Harvey!
But lately, I've been participating in an example of what I consider bad author behavior (which, let me admit, was "encouraged" by commenters like myself defending the reviewer) that has me scratching my head and raising some questions.
1) Should an author comment to reviews, especially negative ones?
A lot of people say NO. There's a really interesting post about that here.
My answer: it depends. Are they giving the reviewer the same respect given to them? Matching snark for snark, fairness for fairness, etc? Do they only comment to NEGATIVE reviews of their work and never to the good ones? Do they constantly defend their work and tell the reviewer how wrong they are?
I have no answer to this. In some cases, I think it's appropriate for an author to comment, even if it's to say, "Thanks for the review, even if you didn't like it!" In other cases, I think some authors are better off just not responding to reviews at all. I'm speaking generally here, by the way.
But I will say this definitively: if you're an author, make a policy and stick with it. If you decide on the no-comment policy, don't break from it to save your life. In your policy, don't only decide how you're going to handle reviews, but also decide how you're going to handle your fans who start bullying negative reviewers.
Which brings me to my next question:
2) Should authors comment on reviews of a different author's work?
This is one that really has me perplexed. It's a debate that I find coming up in different guises, and it all centers on the blurred and practically non-existent line between reader and writer, between author and fan. Thank you, internets! We all have opinions and blogs are a wonderful place to express them, even when said opinions aren't wanted or even kosher. But is there (or should there be) a line between a non-paid reviewer (aka, doesn't work for a print/online publication) and authors commenting on another author's work?
I'm speaking of this case. Where what appears to be a FRIEND of the author (who's a successful writer in his own right and has blurbed the author's book) is putting up quite a spirited defense of someone else's work.
Someone else's. Not his. That should be very clear.
Here's the thing: so many of us have multiple roles. Most authors start out as fans, as readers, and start writing because they're fans and readers. But that doesn't mean that fans and readers who aren't trying to break into the business or who aren't published fiction writers don't have a qualified opinion on something, whether or not they formalize it in a blog entry.
Having the weight of published author (especially depending on said author's track record) can greatly skew the discourse of a discussion. Because whether it's intended or not, there's the implied, "I'm an author, so I know what I'm talking about" mentality, and to quote Seanan McGuire (even though she wasn't referring to this type of situation), it can be really easy for an author to come off as a condescending brat when they chime in on this sort of thing.
That's how I felt about the case mentioned above. Right or wrong, there was the sense that because an author was saying something, that the author was more right than the rest of us, even though we had our own opinions. And actually, said author came out and stated as such in the slew of comments, which was both gratifying (I was right!!) and completely disheartening, because the author in question clearly did not respect the reviewer in question as a fellow reader.
Again, the author making the stink was NOT the author of the book getting the negative review.
And the whole scenario just made me wonder: should other published authors involve themselves in the discourse of published books in a hobbyist's book blog?
It really depends on how you carry yourself. I'm of the philosophy that if you're a published author, you should handle yourself very carefully on the internets, especially if it's not your home turf. Not everyone espouses that philosophy, and that's fine. But there's a difference between being loud, opinionated, snarky, and vocal in your own blog space (or web spaces you're paid to do so), and being loud and vocal and snarky in someone else's web space. I mean, I love John Scalzi's blog, but if he were commenting to my reviews of other authors and telling me I'm wrong? I think I'd start to feel a little uncomfortable, more so than an average, unpublished reader telling me the same thing. Because while it's not true, it feels like a published author's opinion is more right than mine because they make a living telling stories. Granted, I don't think that's the right feeling to carry around and I definitely fight against it (after all, I have my own reading/writing background to fall back against), but that's my first reaction.
But hell, let's just admit about stupidly sensitive I am: I feel uncomfortable reading published author's blogs who vehemently dislike the televisions shows and movies I adore! Which is why I tend to avoid said blogs, for the record. :)
But Seanan McGuire says something very fabulous in this entry, which applies to EVERYONE, whether you're a published author or not:
DON'T get nasty at people who post negative reviews. You are all people. You all have a right to the ball. That includes people who don't like my work. Please don't argue with negative reviewers on my behalf. It just makes everybody sad. If you really think someone's being unfair, why don't you post your own review, to present an alternate perspective?
I think this sums it up, especially if you're an author wanting to argue with negative reviews of your favorite authors' books. Because unless you present yourself as an equal in the discussion (i.e., not claiming your status as a published author) and explain that you've read the book and you disagree with the review and this is why, then you aren't contributing to the discussion, you're bullying others into drinking your Kool-Aid. I'm convinced it makes you look bad. And while I know not everyone agrees with that conclusion, I know I'm not alone in making that conclusion either.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'm always looking for reasons to avoid books that snag my attention, because I need to curb my spending and because more often than not, I'm disappointed anyway. When I see you acting like an entitled twit on someone else's blog (which, in my mind, is acting like an entitled twit in someone's HOME), you've given me all the reason I need to NOT EVER READ YOUR BOOKS EVER.
But maybe I'm overreacting. That's why I'm asking YOU, my readers. Should authors comment on reviews of their own work, and when? Should authors comment on reviews of other authors' works, and when? You tell me. :) I want to hear from EVERYONE now, and especially--ironies of all ironies--published authors (don't make me regret this request either).
Book Club Selections
November: The Hundred Thousand Kingdoms by N.K. Jemisin
December: Under Heaven by Guy Gavriel Kay
January: The Curse of Chalion by Lois McMaster Bujold
SIGN-UP: Want to participate in the 2011 Book Club and get participation points for it? Click here.
Book Sale: In order to buy new books, I have to sell old ones. Help me out? :) Details are here.
Follow me on Facebook, and find me on Paperback Swap!
FAVOR!! When I review a book you've read and reviewed yourself, would you kindly provide a link to your review in the comments of mine? I love seeing what others think, and sometimes I see those reviews when they're originally posted, but don't read them as I don't want to spoil myself on something I know I'll read in the future. The problem, then, is I often forget to go back and read the reviews I missed! So please, if you've reviewed something I'm reviewing, shoot a link my way. :)
Giveaways & Challenges
At Jawas Read, Too!, sign to win an ARC of Daisy Whitney's The Mockingbirds. For details, click here. Deadline: 11/29.
Sign up for Dreams & Speculation's 2011 Book Club: The Women of SF! I've already signed up and will be participating every month. The Women of SF is a great theme with a LOT of variety, so if you're interested in the slightest, go check out the details here.
But if you're worried about reading TOO much SF in 2011, why not balance it out with Jawas Read, Too!'s The Women of Fantasy book club? Another great theme with lots of variety, and Jawa has posted the details here. I know I look forward to participating, and I hope you do too!
Got a giveaway or reading challenge you'd like to promote? Please comment.
Upcoming Reviews: Bone Dance by Emma Bull, Darwin's Radio by Greg Bear, The Girl with No Hands by Angela Slatter, The Hundred Thousand Kingdoms by N.K. Jemison (end of month)
Currently Reading: The Mystery of Grace by Charles de Lint and The Broken Kingdoms by N.K. Jemisin
2010 Reading Total: 98 out of 100 (even if I hit 100, I doubt I'll up the goal to 125, because that's starting to get crazy).
2010 Comics Total: 363 out of 365. #364 will be tonight! (clearly, I'm going to read MORE than 365 comics this year, but I'm going to keep up an issue per day the best I can after I meet my goal!)
Okay, let me clarify: I needed a catchy title, so I ganked this from the internets, as I've heard it used many a time by many an author. But it sums up some questions I want to pose in today's blog.
When I reviewed Feed for our October Book Club, I emailed the author with the link to the review, inviting her to comment if she'd like. And she responded back, saying she appreciated the review, but declined to comment. She posted a blog to explain why:
Having an author join a discussion of their own book often has the unintentional effect of both censoring and stilling the dialog. Which is not to say that people won't happily say "you suck" when they know I'll see it . . . but people who think that's fun aren't usually the sort of people who really want to do critical analysis, and people who really want to do critical analysis sometimes get uncomfortable critically analyzing someone who's standing right there. This goes double for readers who are also friends of mine. It's way harder to be harsh on a book, or critical of a plot point, when you're worried about hurting the feelings of a friend.
Plus, anything I say about what I meant--not how the text was interpreted--sort of sounds like holy writ. "No, no, you have that wrong . . . " is not something you want to hear from an author during a book discussion. Ever. It can be really easy for an author to come off as a condescending brat when they chime in on this sort of thing.
You can read the whole thing here.
This really struck a chord with me, about setting standards for yourself if you're an author. Different authors have different policies on reviews (some, like Sandra McDonald, don't read them at all!), and it's interesting to see those policies in practice and how said policies make the author look.
For example, one time, I wrote a negative review and later learned the author had linked to it in her blog. But the cool thing was this: she requested that her readers NOT go over to my blog to harass me. Rather, she wanted to discuss two points about my review that frustrated her, but she also wanted to talk about why negative reviews were good. Oh sure, some of the comments to HER post weren't very flattering about ME, but hey, it's her blog, and that's allowed. But I really respected her for the way she handled the situation. She didn't have to be fair or kind, but she WAS, and when I engaged her in the comments, she was more than understanding, and even offered to have a beer with me if I ever went to a certain Con that she frequents.
Stuff like that is GOLD when it comes to author behavior. Because even though I didn't care for her book, it made me more open to read said author's future work. And I don't know why I'm keeping her name a secret: the heroine of this little tale is author Sara Harvey. Go Sara Harvey!
But lately, I've been participating in an example of what I consider bad author behavior (which, let me admit, was "encouraged" by commenters like myself defending the reviewer) that has me scratching my head and raising some questions.
1) Should an author comment to reviews, especially negative ones?
A lot of people say NO. There's a really interesting post about that here.
My answer: it depends. Are they giving the reviewer the same respect given to them? Matching snark for snark, fairness for fairness, etc? Do they only comment to NEGATIVE reviews of their work and never to the good ones? Do they constantly defend their work and tell the reviewer how wrong they are?
I have no answer to this. In some cases, I think it's appropriate for an author to comment, even if it's to say, "Thanks for the review, even if you didn't like it!" In other cases, I think some authors are better off just not responding to reviews at all. I'm speaking generally here, by the way.
But I will say this definitively: if you're an author, make a policy and stick with it. If you decide on the no-comment policy, don't break from it to save your life. In your policy, don't only decide how you're going to handle reviews, but also decide how you're going to handle your fans who start bullying negative reviewers.
Which brings me to my next question:
2) Should authors comment on reviews of a different author's work?
This is one that really has me perplexed. It's a debate that I find coming up in different guises, and it all centers on the blurred and practically non-existent line between reader and writer, between author and fan. Thank you, internets! We all have opinions and blogs are a wonderful place to express them, even when said opinions aren't wanted or even kosher. But is there (or should there be) a line between a non-paid reviewer (aka, doesn't work for a print/online publication) and authors commenting on another author's work?
I'm speaking of this case. Where what appears to be a FRIEND of the author (who's a successful writer in his own right and has blurbed the author's book) is putting up quite a spirited defense of someone else's work.
Someone else's. Not his. That should be very clear.
Here's the thing: so many of us have multiple roles. Most authors start out as fans, as readers, and start writing because they're fans and readers. But that doesn't mean that fans and readers who aren't trying to break into the business or who aren't published fiction writers don't have a qualified opinion on something, whether or not they formalize it in a blog entry.
Having the weight of published author (especially depending on said author's track record) can greatly skew the discourse of a discussion. Because whether it's intended or not, there's the implied, "I'm an author, so I know what I'm talking about" mentality, and to quote Seanan McGuire (even though she wasn't referring to this type of situation), it can be really easy for an author to come off as a condescending brat when they chime in on this sort of thing.
That's how I felt about the case mentioned above. Right or wrong, there was the sense that because an author was saying something, that the author was more right than the rest of us, even though we had our own opinions. And actually, said author came out and stated as such in the slew of comments, which was both gratifying (I was right!!) and completely disheartening, because the author in question clearly did not respect the reviewer in question as a fellow reader.
Again, the author making the stink was NOT the author of the book getting the negative review.
And the whole scenario just made me wonder: should other published authors involve themselves in the discourse of published books in a hobbyist's book blog?
It really depends on how you carry yourself. I'm of the philosophy that if you're a published author, you should handle yourself very carefully on the internets, especially if it's not your home turf. Not everyone espouses that philosophy, and that's fine. But there's a difference between being loud, opinionated, snarky, and vocal in your own blog space (or web spaces you're paid to do so), and being loud and vocal and snarky in someone else's web space. I mean, I love John Scalzi's blog, but if he were commenting to my reviews of other authors and telling me I'm wrong? I think I'd start to feel a little uncomfortable, more so than an average, unpublished reader telling me the same thing. Because while it's not true, it feels like a published author's opinion is more right than mine because they make a living telling stories. Granted, I don't think that's the right feeling to carry around and I definitely fight against it (after all, I have my own reading/writing background to fall back against), but that's my first reaction.
But hell, let's just admit about stupidly sensitive I am: I feel uncomfortable reading published author's blogs who vehemently dislike the televisions shows and movies I adore! Which is why I tend to avoid said blogs, for the record. :)
But Seanan McGuire says something very fabulous in this entry, which applies to EVERYONE, whether you're a published author or not:
DON'T get nasty at people who post negative reviews. You are all people. You all have a right to the ball. That includes people who don't like my work. Please don't argue with negative reviewers on my behalf. It just makes everybody sad. If you really think someone's being unfair, why don't you post your own review, to present an alternate perspective?
I think this sums it up, especially if you're an author wanting to argue with negative reviews of your favorite authors' books. Because unless you present yourself as an equal in the discussion (i.e., not claiming your status as a published author) and explain that you've read the book and you disagree with the review and this is why, then you aren't contributing to the discussion, you're bullying others into drinking your Kool-Aid. I'm convinced it makes you look bad. And while I know not everyone agrees with that conclusion, I know I'm not alone in making that conclusion either.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'm always looking for reasons to avoid books that snag my attention, because I need to curb my spending and because more often than not, I'm disappointed anyway. When I see you acting like an entitled twit on someone else's blog (which, in my mind, is acting like an entitled twit in someone's HOME), you've given me all the reason I need to NOT EVER READ YOUR BOOKS EVER.
But maybe I'm overreacting. That's why I'm asking YOU, my readers. Should authors comment on reviews of their own work, and when? Should authors comment on reviews of other authors' works, and when? You tell me. :) I want to hear from EVERYONE now, and especially--ironies of all ironies--published authors (don't make me regret this request either).
Book Club Selections
November: The Hundred Thousand Kingdoms by N.K. JemisinDecember: Under Heaven by Guy Gavriel Kay
January: The Curse of Chalion by Lois McMaster Bujold
SIGN-UP: Want to participate in the 2011 Book Club and get participation points for it? Click here.
Book Sale: In order to buy new books, I have to sell old ones. Help me out? :) Details are here.
Follow me on Facebook, and find me on Paperback Swap!
FAVOR!! When I review a book you've read and reviewed yourself, would you kindly provide a link to your review in the comments of mine? I love seeing what others think, and sometimes I see those reviews when they're originally posted, but don't read them as I don't want to spoil myself on something I know I'll read in the future. The problem, then, is I often forget to go back and read the reviews I missed! So please, if you've reviewed something I'm reviewing, shoot a link my way. :)
Giveaways & ChallengesAt Jawas Read, Too!, sign to win an ARC of Daisy Whitney's The Mockingbirds. For details, click here. Deadline: 11/29.
Sign up for Dreams & Speculation's 2011 Book Club: The Women of SF! I've already signed up and will be participating every month. The Women of SF is a great theme with a LOT of variety, so if you're interested in the slightest, go check out the details here.
But if you're worried about reading TOO much SF in 2011, why not balance it out with Jawas Read, Too!'s The Women of Fantasy book club? Another great theme with lots of variety, and Jawa has posted the details here. I know I look forward to participating, and I hope you do too!
Got a giveaway or reading challenge you'd like to promote? Please comment.Upcoming Reviews: Bone Dance by Emma Bull, Darwin's Radio by Greg Bear, The Girl with No Hands by Angela Slatter, The Hundred Thousand Kingdoms by N.K. Jemison (end of month)
Currently Reading: The Mystery of Grace by Charles de Lint and The Broken Kingdoms by N.K. Jemisin
2010 Reading Total: 98 out of 100 (even if I hit 100, I doubt I'll up the goal to 125, because that's starting to get crazy).
2010 Comics Total: 363 out of 365. #364 will be tonight! (clearly, I'm going to read MORE than 365 comics this year, but I'm going to keep up an issue per day the best I can after I meet my goal!)
I am so sad that it got so mean so fast, but wow. That whole thing is just... wow.
So, any conclusions and ideas on how published authors should handle themselves on other peoples' web spaces? :)
I'm a long-time reader of your reviews, keep up the good work.
I'm also a published author. A very recently-minted one, it's true, so take my opinion with a barrel of salt. But you asked, so here goes...
I'm an occasional commentator on review blogs. Why? Simply because I'm thrilled when someone takes the time to really engage with my work and respond to it. To me, talking to a reviewer is a great opportunity to have a conversation with an articulate and intelligent reader. I probably wouldn't get into a conversation with someone who absolutely hated and flamed the work (why would I put myself through that - it's not like arguing will change anything.) But I do like to exchange a polite 'thank you' and/or compare notes with others.
Today a reviewer sent me a piece of art, via my publisher, which he said reminded him of my work. I love that. It's an indication the story has come alive in someone's mind; and that's worth gold to a writer.
Best, Mary
I've been trying to execute a policy too where if I give a book a positive rating ("worth the cash" and above), I email the author and let them know. Not because I want them to respond per say to the review itself, but more often than not, authors hear people flaming their work so much that I think it's good for them to know there's positive reviews out there. The relationship between author and fan can be a very beautiful one (I've cultivated a few myself), but in one respect, a certain amount of humility on both sides is key. :)
That's a great point that's been in my head but I didn't mention here: commenting if you're already a regular commenter of the site. I think it's very unfair to make assumptions about a reviewer and his/her agenda based on ONE review when you haven't bothered to read said reviewers other reviews, you know?
Do I comment on other authors' books once they've been reviewed? If the reviewer enjoyed the book, and I did too, I'll comment with a part that I particularly liked—I want to share that enjoyment, even briefly. If the reviewer didn't enjoy the book, and I did, I might comment that I'm sorry she didn't like it. More likely, I won't say anything, unless she's made me reassess the book in such a fundamental way that I have to express that change.
*laughs*
It just occurs to me that two books I know you liked I reviewed as DNFs this year, and I always felt bad because I knew you read this blog and you'd see the review!
But I have to say, I like your policy. :)
That's a fair game plan. :)
Thankfully, the only two times a writer responded to one of my reviews it was a positive experience! Actually, both times it made me feel bad for what critical things I did say. . . which wasn't a whole lot, luckily, because the first instance it was only a two-line short story review and the second time I thought the book was brilliant.
I'm generally in favor of authors responding to reviews, so long as they are AT LEAST as civil as the reviewer was (meaning they can match snark with snark but will earn brownie points in my eyes if they don't -- unless their snark is funnier *g*) but if I were ever to get something published I suspect I'd be one of those authors that made a point of never, ever reading reviews. I'm almost positive I'd never respond to reviews even if I read them. . . because I'd be too afraid of falling into the trap of trying to defend *my* interpretation of my book when I'm already out on the internet somewhere talking about how the book has very little (well, I probably said "NO") objective meaning and exists totally in how the reader reads it. ;)
I think the thing that makes me so uncomfortable about the exchange you pointed to is what you said about home turf. It would be one thing if Erika had seen something Michael Grant glowingly wrote about the book and had felt the need to tear it apart ON HIS BLOG, but she was on HER blog, and he CAME TO HER in his misguided defense of his friend. And yes, he was relatively civil with his insinuations and false arguments, but the power dynamic was screwed up by him throwing around his weight as a published author with, what was it, 112 books under various pseudonyms? That difference in power DOES make a difference in what the right way to behave is. . . and he clearly knows it makes a difference or he wouldn't have been eager to point it out.
I'm all for the personal boycott of any author that behaves badly. . . I know I have a list of authors I never plan to buy again (which is not *quite* the same list as the list of authors I never plan to read again -- different types of behaviors piss me off different ways) because of things they've said/done that I find personally offensive. I wouldn't ever tell anyone else not to read them, but my time is valuable, if only to me, and in a capitalist system the one power all us lowly consumers have IS in not consuming the product. :)
On the issue of authors involved in discussions of their own books. . . as a reader, I say no, please! On GoodReads I'm in a group that's doing a read of a particular author's major series, and the author is a longtime member of the group, so they (the singular they, which I'm trying out in place of he/she) volunteered to lead the discussion.
Which means that as soon as it became clear to me that I did not like the book I swore off the discussion thread because it was all the author saying "Oh, my book is rad, look at what I did here!" and several of the group members saying "Oh my god, your book is even radder than you promised!" and I just didn't feel comfortable in that environment.
So yes, what Mira Grant said.
I think authors should also be circumspect about their comments about readers as well. There is an author who has had a book come out recently that has caused a storm of frustrated emails to the author because of the ending of the book. And the author has been less than delighted about the tone of some of emails. However its not the readers fault that a critical piece of information was not included in the book.
But you dont get to trash the readers/customers on the internet to relieve your frustration. To me its petty and unprofessional and if I was one of those readers who stumbled across that kind of response I think I would feel quite unhappy about it.
I still like the author as a writer, but as a person, the shine has gone off it somewhat for me as a result :(
And OMG what a Sh*t storm of a discussion on that poor womans blog - good on you for coming to her defense. Will not be reading any books by either of those two people!
And yes Mira Grant is a woman of much wisdom :) As are you for posting such a thought provoking discussion.
You bring up a great point though. Even on your own webspace, it's dangerous to crap on your readership for simply reacting to something you could've done better. In those cases, I bet the author in question KNOWS he/she should've done a better job and was hoping nobody would notice and is now frustrated that so many people are vocal about it.
At least, that's the mental gambit I'd go through when I'd submit a manuscript for critique and everybody would point out the things I hoped wasn't so obvious!
If you go in both feet,irrespective of the forum, the eville of Tahinterweb will suck all the empathy out of the comments, like the little electronic vampire that it is.
There is a relationship between writer and reader, we need each other. As a writer, you can't dictate a crib sheet you just have to (in my plebian/unpublished/what do I know, opinion) hope people who read your story vibe with you, get what you meant when you wrote it. As a reader you have to accept that what you think about a character is your creation, and may not chime with the author's intention. It's nice when it does, but bare that in mind when criticizing I think. Vitriolic fan bois and gurlz should never be encouraged.
The inturwebs are all about freedom of expression, sure, but I think there are healthier, more satisfying ways of dealing with frustration and anger than venting on someone's blog... whether it's over a bad review, a bad day, whatever.
On their own discussions is a little easier--I happen to agree with McGuire. I think it's bad form, although a kind of bad form that isn't usually intended as such. I suppose it does depend on whether you think authorial intent trumps or whether you believe in something more like death of the author. If the former, then authorial input is useful because it can clarify misconceptions, and I suppose in real terms that means an author doesn't have to sit on their hands when someone misread something and goes off on a rant that literally isn't supported by the *actual text*, as in the words are ACTUALLY NOT THERE to support it (I'm sure we've both seen this happen now and then.) On the other, sometimes an author puts things into their work they don't realize are there, and sometimes those things are more important than the things they *mean* to put in it, and you lose that when the author descends on high and goes "nope, that actually didn't mean anything."
My own opinion looks like this: when it comes to events in the world as the characters believe them to have occurred, and the actual actions and deliberate intent of the characters, the author is god. When it comes to symbolism, theme, and such? Less so.
I think negative reviews can be a big blessing of correcting the former--if a LOT of people walk away thinking something you literally intended to be incorrect, then you've got a problem and it needs to be addressed. So I can get reading them. but fighting about the latter?...I think people are complex enough creatures to put stuff in, I guess, without deliberately thinking about it.
There's also the fact that sometimes an author is very good but not your cup of tea. There are a number of authors I know of that I believe to be good writers. I just happen to not enjoy their particular flavor. And if I were to say so, I suppose I would be kind of hurt if they (or anyone) felt the need to attack me for it--because I'm NOT saying "You suck!" I'm saying, frankly, "I don't care for this myself."
That's where discussing the work of other people, I suppose, comes in. It ends up sounding a lot like "Friends of the author are coming to lay siege to your castle" and honestly, that's ALWAYS ANNOYING. It ISN'T annoying for someone to go "I do know, because I know the author, that what it was intended for Jim Bob to be thinking was..." But that can slide too easily into "You're wrong! Jim Bob isn't a stony, undynamic suck-machine!"
Best not to go there.
Using the example I link to, I have to ask: how does "freedom of speech" really apply to the internet and people's personal blogs? Maybe there's no difference, but one time I saw someone draw a link between censorship of the government/media versus an individual's censorship of comments in their individual blog.
The former obviously being against the first amendment, as your right to free speech is being repressed by people in power. The latter being not so much an example, because if a blogger bans you from commenting in his/her blog, you can still go elsewhere on the internet and spout whatever you'd like.
Then there's the additional slippery slope when you consider that the internet isn't tied to the constitutional rights of any particular country. So if I tried to claim freedom of speech on a blog that's hosted by someone in Brazil, does it even matter?
Thoughts? (And yes, you WOULD get this question since you're a lawyer and all).
But at the same time, I can see how an author, after becoming frustrated with people misreading their work time after time, would want to defend themselves somehow. So what's the right response here? I think that the situation you mentioned with Sara Harvey is a good one. From what you said, it appears that she responded maturely, which is a lot different than freaking out on amazon.com, or sending your friends after the reviewer (and by the way that situation over at Erika's blog is messed up! When I first glanced at it, there were only a couple comments. I had no idea it would explode into so much. What was WRONG with that guy?). I think that (for author's) commenting on negative reviews of your own work should be avoided as much as possible, but it you feel that you need to, the situation should be handled calmly and maturely. Freaking out and lecturing someone isn't going to endear anyone to your work.
1) If an author I respect recommends a book I end up disliking, specifically because it was badly written in any way, I end up losing a little respect for that author.
2) If they end up defending their friends, I don't like that either. Firstly, the friend can defend his/herself. Secondly, it feels like bias, because of the friendship, and I like thinking that people don't have a distorted view, for whatever reason. Maybe authors have an automatic readership online, but I largely enjoy reading bloggers who aren't published, who are just readers who blog about their opinions. I feel like there's a more open forum. You can critique without any sort of constraint, because there's no fear of the author getting offended on behalf of a friend.
3) You're absolutely right about authors having stronger weight. It's the you-make-a-living-doing-this vibe, probably, so you have more knowledge of the field, but frankly, it isn't true.
4) Oddly enough, I don't even like it when authors blurb for each other. It also feels like an insincere, buddy thing.
5) Re: defending themselves. I'm not sure what I think about this. If someone has completely misinterpreted their point, I think there will probably be a reader who will correct it without the author stepping in. The author getting involved just brings more information to a potential misinterpretation. Also, people can interpret books however they want. I don't think any author believes that everyone will like the book they write.
Also, I remember Neil Gaiman blogging once about when he retweeted something that - put a Twitter user down for insulting him, if I'm remembering right? And how he realized that it was cyber bullying, because he has a legion of fans who would act on their own to attack someone who was largely defenseless. There's that as well - people get touchy when something they really like is attacked. And creating that sort of backlash is not something an author wants to do.
But in the process of reading comments and links relating to this whole issue, I found a great post by fantasy author Kate Elliot discussing author intent: http://kateelliott.livejournal.com/1540
It touches on what you describe here quite nicely.
I've reached a point where I ignore author blurbs. I don't trust them, partially for the buddy thing, and partially because if an author I like blurbs a book I don't? It changes how I read the author I like.
Good story about Neil Gaiman. I'd not heard of the situation before, but good for him for realizing what a mistake that was.
Beyond the petty and into the practical level: why would I want to risk bringing that down on myself and my blog?
YES!
And you probably saw what author-friend-of-author said about that when I brought it up. :)
Technically, I'm a published author--realistically, I'm not. I've had stuff appear in a literary magazine, but to me, that doesn't count. So I don't know if my opinion matters as per the "published author" bit, but as I think everyone has a valid opinion about something, I'll give it a go.
I know if it was me, and I was a published author, I would want to review the work of other authors, because when I review I'm a reader first of all, a writer second--but I think I'd review anonymously, that is, I wouldn't point out that I was a well-known author myself. I'm afraid I'm guilty of saying something to the effect of, "I'm a writer, so I know these things," but I think what I actually said was something like, "I'm a writer myself, so I think I can see why the author did that."
I'm not trying to say my point-of-view is more valid than anyone else's when I say something like that--I'm trying to look at it from a different perspective, and understand why the writer might have made a certain decision about the plot, characters, what have you. I definitely value others' opinions, and I like hearing others' opinions, as long as their opinion is more than, "OMG THIS BOOK SUCKS!" They are perfectly within their right to have that opinion, although I'd prefer if they'd explain why "OMG THIS BOOK SUCKS!"
And I don't see a problem with published authors reviewing other published authors, though I feel your instinct to be anonymous is right on. Jo Walton was once accused of trying to hurt her competitions' sales, even though that was the LAST thing on her mind!
I also think Seanan is rather genius in the way she approaches things. I hope that if/when/okay, if I am published, I have the good sense to come back to this post and the post from which she linked it and heed the sensible advice.
While I'm not familiar with the incident you cite on Su's blog, I did visit the guy's blog and noticed that he's gay and proud of it. Which is great, but I had the same reaction as you: you'd think he'd have a little more empathy and be less quick be hateful in terms of name-calling and whatnot.
But what do I know?
The real reason it that those arguments could haunt me all day long, throwing a shadow over the rest of my life. I know this because for a year I was addicted to going to a neo-con website and arguing with them. There are some serious whackoes out there and they are both annoying and easily annoyed.
This discussion reminds me of a West Wing episode when Josh found a website of his fans and ended up fighting with them. CJ had to close the door on that one before it became a PR problem.