Critics & other such monsters / the Author's Big Mistake

Hi ATP,

Thanks for making this its own thread-- good idea!

Here's a good article about the ABM: http://archive.salon.com/books/feature/2001/03/02/authors/print.html

(To me, the last line sums it up well: "But at a certain point a writer has to realize," he says, "that you put your work out there for other people. Expecting to control their responses to it is a willful refusal to be in the world of grown-ups.")

and another one:
http://www.nytimes.com/books/01/06/17/bookend/bookend.html?_r=1&oref=login

The reason it's such a big mistake-- for fiction and nonfiction writers alike-- is that it pretty much ALWAYS comes across as immature and egotistical. You can't force people to like your book; there's a very limited amount of slack an author can get if he/she wants to respond to real inaccuracies in a review (i.e., the reviewer claimed the book was written by a doctor and you're not a doctor, the reviewer claimed the book takes place in the 50s and it actually takes place in the 20s, etc.). But the writer has no business arguing with a critic's opinion of a book, insulting the reviewers' intellect, or making threats.

It turns readers off, and is a big PR mistake (especially if word spreads that the writer is an angry loon) if the writer ever hopes to get reviews in the future.

Because she comes across as ....deleted by Nice-O-Meter......

JennaGlatzer said:

immature and egotistical.

Click to expand...

Oh yes, and that too!

I must admit, I was rather naive when it came to this Big Mistake, so I am glad I found this thread.

Some of this stuff I had figured out on my own earlier, but other portions I never really thought about. I knew it was considered unprofessional to respond to a review, but I never was sure why.

So thank you kindly for putting this thread up. It has been an excellent resource for me, and I hope it is to other writers, as well.


Now, if you will excuse me, I am not fully awake yet, and I need some coffee. (So what else is new?)

It takes grace to accept people's opinions as nothing more than their opinions. To move forward in silence, even if the words are hurtful.

Anne Rice is obviously bereft of grace.

What would possess a person to blow up at someone that doesn't like there work?

I'm sorry if I'm being naive. I just don't understand why a writer doesn't understand that publishing something is like sending an animal off into the wild. It takes on a life of its own.

Sure it always hurts to get a bad review. But to attack back? I agree Jenna that last line of that article really sums it up. People need to grow up.

10000

A new author, unused to critiques and who has not yet detached her ego from her writing, might blow up at somebody who doesn't like her work. She would interpret it as a criticism of herself.

smiley10000 said:

What would possess a person to blow up at someone that doesn't like there work?

I'm sorry if I'm being naive. I just don't understand why a writer doesn't understand that publishing something is like sending an animal off into the wild. It takes on a life of its own.

Sure it always hurts to get a bad review. But to attack back? I agree Jenna that last line of that article really sums it up. People need to grow up.

10000

Click to expand...

But Anne Rice is no rookie, she just ojbects to others not viewing her work as she and those who love her do. She also seems more than a bit angry about writing it in the first place, to thank the Lord she is finished with a series that has made her untold amounts of money. Been around too many people too grateful to be in her mere presence for too long. Needs to come up for air.

Bad reviews are AWFUL. But they're part of the gig. As an author you have to accept that other people have the right to comment on your work, sometimes adversely. You don't have to like it, but you do have to accept it. As the old phrase has it, if you can't stand the heat ...

I read that piece by Anne Rice and was very surprised. Not only was she disagreeing with those people, but she was positively insulting to them. It doesn't reflect well on her at all.

Sometimes a dignified silence is the best response.

I've always responded to people who didn't like my work with a shrug.

My ex-girlfriend did some writing, and she would pass it my way. One day I took some material back to her and she said "What do you think?" I started telling what was good, what needed work, pointing here and there and she stopped me mid-sentence and said "I don't want you to critique it, I just want you tell me what you think."

I have yet to wrap my head around that statement.

A little on down the line, I was taking a creative writing class and suggested that she might pick it up next semester. She said something to the effect of she didn't want to discuss her work with others. One day, she actually did let me critique her work and every suggestion I made she answered with "That's just a stylistic difference."

Guess which one of us has actually had some degree of success as a writer and who hasn't?

If you're not willing to accept critiques, don't write.

I see it as this: We writers aren't perfect. Those who claim to be are just fooling themselves. We all have things we can improve on. I listen to all critiques because I know in the end that it will make me a better writer. Isn't that the point of this whole writing game?

There's a big difference between a constructive critique and a review that would bring smiles to the Producers. But it doesn't matter - the proper response to any and all notice of your work is a thank you. Even if you don't like what was said. Someone took the time to read it and think about it and actually get back to you - or the world! - with their thoughts.

That's a pretty big deal, deserving of your gratitude as a writer.

Now - learn from what was said or written *about your work* - and keep in mind, *you* are not our work. They didn't say you stink, they said your writing stinks. (Or maybe they said something more specific and helpful) So no matter what was said, try to learn from it and make it better next time.

A good review is really a boost. But a stinker can help you.

Critiques are good. I just got some very helpful ones in SYW. The thing I always remember is that every time I see a critique I'm seeing what someone else saw in my work. It gives me a yardstick to work from.

One person flagged something as authorial intrusion. I was actually using a very close 3rd limited POV and it was internal monologue. It was a good critique, because even though I don't agree with what the person said, I now know that they didn't get what I meant. So now I need to be aware that not everyone sees that line the way I meant it.

Critiques let you see your writing as other do.

What none of the above has mentioned is that sometimes reviewers are naive, unprofessional, or just meanspirited. I've had reviews by people who obviously haven't read the book all the way through. I've had reviews in major newspapers written by children (15 - 16 year olds). I'm sure it was an excellent exercise for them, but they simply don't have the intellectual resources and experience at their disposal that a professional would. As much as they might enjoy the books, they are unlikely to identify literary or cultural references, for example.
I've written to a few reviewers. One who basically gave a plot outline - including the twists, and the outcome. In fact, this reviewer finished the review with the final line in the book, which I was hoping people would get to by themselves! I already knew the plot, and now everyone else does too. Not helpful.
I read a review of my book with six others which had been shortlisted for an award. The reviewer basically said that they were all crap. The reviewer was completely without respect for any of the authors. The tone of the review was blase, world-weary and, frankly, rude. So I wrote to her and said that all of these authors had spent years of their life putting these novels together and that she could put some exertion into her critique. If she didnt like them, fine, but she could use more objective and professional language in her evaluation. She wrote me an apology. She said she didn't expect that I would see her review.
Perhaps if all reviewers wrote reviews with the expectation that the author would read it, and then we might get more attentive and focussed critique.

kazrahtenango said:

I read a review of my book with six others which had been shortlisted for an award. The reviewer basically said that they were all crap. The reviewer was completely without respect for any of the authors. The tone of the review was blase, world-weary and, frankly, rude. So I wrote to her and said that all of these authors had spent years of their life putting these novels together and that she could put some exertion into her critique. If she didnt like them, fine, but she could use more objective and professional language in her evaluation. She wrote me an apology. She said she didn't expect that I would see her review.
Perhaps if all reviewers wrote reviews with the expectation that the author would read it, and then we might get more attentive and focussed critique.

Click to expand...

Frankly, and with the highest of respect, it does not matter how unprofessional the reviewer is. As writers it is our job to maintain the highest form of professionalism on our own part. It is not our job to make sure other people (i.e. Reviewers) are professional in their jobs. So far, I have read several career authors give good reasons why writers need to be thankful that they got a review at all. People are not required to say nice things about your book; if they don't like your book, they are under no obligation to say anything with the exception of their honest opinions of your work.

Even if someone tells me my book was the worst they've ever read, I would--and have--thanked them or at least tried to thank them, for their review, regardless of the unprofessionalism they showed to me. If you want to get people to act like professionals, you have to act like one first.

One main reason writers are encouraged never to respond in like manner to a mean-spirited review, is that the writer's response could be seen as intimidating. I made that mistake once; I will never make that mistake again. People do not like reading the unprofessional responses some authors give to reviews, and such responses could eventually lead to no one wishing to review the said author's book.

No, as writers, it is our job to write, and to let others be the judges of our work. It is not our place to be the judges of our own work. Let the reviewers do their job, and if they're mean-spirited, consider the source. Then, either learn from the reviewer what you could do to improve the work, or at least learn to be professional in your responses. But in any case, asking a reviewer for an apology because you did not like their review is just plain unprofessional.

I mean, how would you feel if someone asked you to apologize for writing your book in the first place? Would you feel an obligation to? I know I wouldn't, and no reviewer should have to feel an obligation to apologize for giving their honest opinions of someone else's work, either. Let them be the reviewers they want to be; they'll learn soon enough how to handle their jobs. They don't need our help as writers to figure out how to review a book.

kazrahtenango said:

I've had reviews in major newspapers written by children (15 - 16 year olds). I'm sure it was an excellent exercise for them, but they simply don't have the intellectual resources and experience at their disposal that a professional would.

Click to expand...

Major newspapers in Australia have 15-y.o. reviewers? Could you elaborate?

The thing to remember is: She's Anne Rice. Which means she can pretty much do what she wants, and get away with it. She can always count on her millions of loyal fans to back her--for newbie writers, NOT recommended.

In all fairness, such rhetoric is part of Anne Rice's personae. Her fans expect it of her. Through the years, she's proven herself to be one of the most opionated and verbose writers out there, often taking out full-time ads in "The New York Post" and other publications when she disagrees with something or has a political statement to make. Who can forget her infamous tirade against Tom Cruise when he was signed to play Lestat in "Interview With the Vampire" (for which she later apologized), or her public outcry over Copeland's in New Orleans being built on a historic site, not to mention her whole criticism of the Bush administration in the aftermath of Katrina. She's the ultimate diva of the literary world. I'm not saying it's any excuse for lashing out at critics; only that it's in perfect keeping with her character and what her fans have come to expect.

I look at it this way: If everyone liked the same kind of book, there'd only be one type of book in the library. (or no libraries/bookstores at all!)

And, because it applies and is really funny, I'll post this again.

YouTube - Black Books - Bernard's Letter

Enjoy!

JennaGlatzer said:

(To me, the last line sums it up well: "But at a certain point a writer has to realize," he says, "that you put your work out there for other people. Expecting to control their responses to it is a willful refusal to be in the world of grown-ups.")

Click to expand...

That's the way I see it.

Vincent Gallo, the insane filmmaker who quite literally pimps himself out on his website (there is an old Office Party thread on this) made a film called Brown Bunny. Rogert Ebert saw the original cut at Cannes and called it the worst film he had ever seen. (While I understand that the director's cut is quite good, that isn't really the point.) Gallo called Ebert, "a fat pig with the physique of a slave trader."

Ebert's response: "Yes, I am fat, but I can lose weight. No matter what Vincent Gallo does, he will always be the director of Brown Bunny."

I loved that, because it really illustrated how STUPID it it to insult someone's physical appearance, just because they hated your movie. If you're not mature enough to accept that some people might hate something you wrote, you really have no business releasing it. Keep it for yourself, if that's the way you feel. Because inevidably, someone WILL hate it. You don't have to like it, or them. But you have to let them hate it.

Plus: the reviewer always gets the last word.

I remember hearing once about the poet May Sarton responding to a negative review. The reviewer later made a comment along the lines of her being a published writer who'd put her work in the market, not a shy woodland creature timidly drinking from a mountain stream and brutally hunted down by reviewers.
I've been trying to find a citation for this, but no luck so far. Although I did find a quote from Sarton that she'd twice been made ill by bad reviews.
-Barbara

Remember too that the critics and the readers always have the last word.

If there's a printed review, and you are so ... misguided ... as to send a blistering letter to the magazine, and the editor thinks that your remarks are sufficiently entertaining to print, the reviewer will get a follow-up immediately after your piece, in italics, where he tells you what he really thinks, making you look like even more of a fool.

Those who had never seen, or had forgotten about, the original bad review, will go look it up.

And the readers! They get the final vote. When they're in the bookshop and are considering which book to carry to the cash register, it isn't a very clever plan to have them know that you think they're idiots.

It just isn't.