On reviewing...
Jul. 24th, 2002 10:59 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
heidiFascinating article in Salon today on the harshness of book reviews, which makes me think that:
(a) LiveJournals and concrit - and even flames - of fanfics aren't so far removed from the Real World;
(b) Sometimes, being caustic just because you can, doesn't mean you should; and
(c) It's very important to be able to take constructive criticism, especially if you can mentally separate it from the source (if you don't actually like or, say, share a ship with said source).
These were the two bits I found most interesting:
Charles McGrath observes that fellow novelists can be too easy on a colleague's work as often as -- if not more often than -- they are too harsh. "Some novelists have a guild mentality. They won't say anything bad about other writers who are in the guild, so what you get is bland and wishy-washy prose. But another issue is that reviewing and writing novels are two different skills. Just because you write a great novel doesn't mean you can write a good review."
Andrew Hultkrans, editor in chief of BookForum magazine, notes that "young novelists have a tendency to deliver timid, on-the-fence reviews. They're scared of karmic payback, or they're so empathetic to the difficulties of writing a novel they can't bring themselves to criticize other novelists."
McGrath later says something which I think should be food for thought around here - not just now, but 18 months ago. Or 10 months ago. He said, "People say the discourse about books in this country often seems to be lacking in urgency. I think that's true to some extent. When I first came to New York, people really argued about books. I saw relationships break up over books. I miss that."
I think I'm the antithesis of this. Apart from the fact that I did marry my husband for his library (no, not really!) why is it that people think that disagreement about one thing - not even one personal thing - can or should have an impact on interpersonal relationships? Why does someone's take on a book (say, for example, regarding SHIPs) prevent others from befriending that person, or listening to what he or she has to say?
I don't have anyone in particular in mind with the prior paragraph, but it's something I know has happened time and again in various corners of this fandom. And I'm curious as to why. But that might be because my mindset is still "Hey! You over there! Why don't you like us?" or at least "Why won't you talk to us about Something Completely Different?"
(a) LiveJournals and concrit - and even flames - of fanfics aren't so far removed from the Real World;
(b) Sometimes, being caustic just because you can, doesn't mean you should; and
(c) It's very important to be able to take constructive criticism, especially if you can mentally separate it from the source (if you don't actually like or, say, share a ship with said source).
These were the two bits I found most interesting:
Charles McGrath observes that fellow novelists can be too easy on a colleague's work as often as -- if not more often than -- they are too harsh. "Some novelists have a guild mentality. They won't say anything bad about other writers who are in the guild, so what you get is bland and wishy-washy prose. But another issue is that reviewing and writing novels are two different skills. Just because you write a great novel doesn't mean you can write a good review."
Andrew Hultkrans, editor in chief of BookForum magazine, notes that "young novelists have a tendency to deliver timid, on-the-fence reviews. They're scared of karmic payback, or they're so empathetic to the difficulties of writing a novel they can't bring themselves to criticize other novelists."
McGrath later says something which I think should be food for thought around here - not just now, but 18 months ago. Or 10 months ago. He said, "People say the discourse about books in this country often seems to be lacking in urgency. I think that's true to some extent. When I first came to New York, people really argued about books. I saw relationships break up over books. I miss that."
I think I'm the antithesis of this. Apart from the fact that I did marry my husband for his library (no, not really!) why is it that people think that disagreement about one thing - not even one personal thing - can or should have an impact on interpersonal relationships? Why does someone's take on a book (say, for example, regarding SHIPs) prevent others from befriending that person, or listening to what he or she has to say?
I don't have anyone in particular in mind with the prior paragraph, but it's something I know has happened time and again in various corners of this fandom. And I'm curious as to why. But that might be because my mindset is still "Hey! You over there! Why don't you like us?" or at least "Why won't you talk to us about Something Completely Different?"
(no subject)
Date: 2002-07-24 10:58 pm (UTC)But I don't care how they interpret it. I might try to persuade them to think differently, but it's not worth losing a relationship over.
Yours in fanfiction,
JK
(no subject)
Date: 2002-07-25 03:41 am (UTC)I read an LJ post about four months ago where someone mused that she wanted to write to a fic's author with some serious praise for the fic, but was nervous about doing that, because they sailed different ships, and she thought the author might think she was being insincere. It's one reason I like leaving anonymous reviews these days - and do so more than signed reviews for people I'm not already friends with - I feel like there's too much baggage associated with a review from me - either it'll be taken as Too Much or it'll be mistaken as insincere.