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?"
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2002-07-25 03:36 am (UTC)Someone said on HPfGU on Tuesday that if JKR had Hermione and Draco (even a redeemend draco!) get together in the books, he'd have a bookburning party.
: goggles
I just don't understand that mindset. I've heard it in other ways too - if Harry and Ginny don't get together, I know at least one person has sworn off reading the books ever again because that would be too cruel to Ginny.
Ginny. Does. Not. Exist.
She is a fictional character. There is no Ginny to actually care if she gets together with Harry who, btw, is also nonexistent although we may wish otherwise.
Now, while I can state, for the record, that if JKR includes any graphic Dumbledore/Hagrid scenes I will probably skip them, I cannot imagine suddenly disliking these wonderfully written books, no matter who falls in love, or who doesn't.
(no subject)
Date: 2002-07-25 07:09 am (UTC)Madness.
Although I may be forced to burn them if I can see past my bleeding eyes reading graphic Hagrid/Dumbledore slash! (I may even expand that to read: Hagrid / anyone slash!)