![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Answering Critics
21/12/09 09:34Elsewhere--not just on Making Light, but on four or five of the listserves I'm on--there has been a swell of comments about the tutelary example of an author who flew to the defense of her book after a reader on Amazon panned it. Much of the tone of the commentary has been, I'm afraid (and I piled on as hard as anyone else) distinctly schadenfreudean, partly because it was such a train wreck, and the author made such a mess of herself, stooping like a hawk to prey, insisting that the conversation be about the critiquer's inability to take criticism, scolding commenters wholesale as "minions" of the first reviewer, complaining that her editor made her do anything that anyone didn't like, and ultimately playing the "I've called in the FBI" card. There's a peculiar, horrid kind of fascination in watching such a mess, and seeing the inevitable arrival of commenters who delight in throwing kerosene on the conflagration just to watch the pretty shower of sparks. But a friend of mine pointed out in e-mail this morning that this writer is a woman, a colleague and a writer, and there's something unseemly about piling on in this way.
Conventional wisdom says: talking back to your critics is not a good idea. Which is almost right. I'd say that correcting a gross mis-statement--in tones level and matter-of-fact--is okay. "Mr. Faddlesworth errs in saying my book is set in Verona in 1740; in fact, the setting is Ulan Bator in 1950." Which might go a long way to make other readers question the validity of Mr. Faddlesworth's other comments. And I would also say that it is possible (if not really tricky) to respond to an ad hominem review, one of those where the critic says mean things about me, or infers things about me in the review. On the other hand, I mostly don't, because...why? I had a reviewer on Amazon say "Madeleine Robins is clearly a weak author. She tries very hard not to use words that a twelve year old wouldn't understand and succeeds - by a margin." While I might be a "weak author," I don't remember having made any effort to dumb down my vocabulary on that particular project (my Daredevil novel for Byron Preiss) and I will admit that I had a moment of "Why I oughta..." But I didn't. Partly because I have absolutely no taste for the sort of scrum described above, but as much because not everyone is going to love my children or my books, and I have to just deal with it.
Unless you're very very smart--and humor helps--answering a negative review with anything but straight facts (see above) is a zero sum game. "I'm sorry my book disappointed you; perhaps you'd prefer this one or that one" is not a bad tack to take. But unless you want to become part of the lore of Great Literary Feuds or Fannish Wars or something of the sort, think three times before answering a review. Stay focused on the review itself. And choose your words veeeerrrrry carefully.
I do feel a little guilty for piling on the writer above. A train wreck isn't achieved for my edification or amusement, and there are real lives entangled in all that twisted wreckage. But I am human, and I'm afraid I gawk.
Conventional wisdom says: talking back to your critics is not a good idea. Which is almost right. I'd say that correcting a gross mis-statement--in tones level and matter-of-fact--is okay. "Mr. Faddlesworth errs in saying my book is set in Verona in 1740; in fact, the setting is Ulan Bator in 1950." Which might go a long way to make other readers question the validity of Mr. Faddlesworth's other comments. And I would also say that it is possible (if not really tricky) to respond to an ad hominem review, one of those where the critic says mean things about me, or infers things about me in the review. On the other hand, I mostly don't, because...why? I had a reviewer on Amazon say "Madeleine Robins is clearly a weak author. She tries very hard not to use words that a twelve year old wouldn't understand and succeeds - by a margin." While I might be a "weak author," I don't remember having made any effort to dumb down my vocabulary on that particular project (my Daredevil novel for Byron Preiss) and I will admit that I had a moment of "Why I oughta..." But I didn't. Partly because I have absolutely no taste for the sort of scrum described above, but as much because not everyone is going to love my children or my books, and I have to just deal with it.
Unless you're very very smart--and humor helps--answering a negative review with anything but straight facts (see above) is a zero sum game. "I'm sorry my book disappointed you; perhaps you'd prefer this one or that one" is not a bad tack to take. But unless you want to become part of the lore of Great Literary Feuds or Fannish Wars or something of the sort, think three times before answering a review. Stay focused on the review itself. And choose your words veeeerrrrry carefully.
I do feel a little guilty for piling on the writer above. A train wreck isn't achieved for my edification or amusement, and there are real lives entangled in all that twisted wreckage. But I am human, and I'm afraid I gawk.