Lurkers Support Me In EMAIL!
Sep. 21st, 2004 04:15 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
flummerySomewhere, recently, I had been reading about how a lot of professional authors were getting sort of irate about the Amazon reviews, and the fact that anyone could post, negative or positive, and apparently, these reviews really can have an impact on sales, these days.
I think, at the time, I sort of mulled that over, in a vague way, worrying that it could have impact on a relatively new writer, in detrimental ways, but how was it really different than word of mouth?
But, just yesterday,![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
elynross directed me to what appears to be a rebuttal review by Anne Rice of her latest book, Blood Canticle. I read it, and my jaw hit the table, and I had a whole lot of thoughts... one of which, initially, was that it had to be fake. And this is certainly still possible. But then I came across a link to an actual essay she'd written on her official website that... basically supported and repeated many of the same positions voiced in the rebuttal review. If that wasn't Anne Rice, someone was doing a pretty good job of channeling her.
The review can be found here, about halfway down the page.
The essay on her website can be found here.
She manages to hit upon, in these two essays, one hell of a lot of the very same arguments I see amateur (fan) writers using to justify themselves. Now, I'm not saying that writers should never explain what they were trying to achieve with their work, or stay silent when people are interested in having more information, but I am very much one of those people who go insane when a discussion of a story begins, only to have the author dive into the fray with all the reasons you didn't understand/shouldn't be criticizing her/are just plain mean! Goddamnit. The discussion is not for the author's benefit. It's not there to help the author become a better writer, or to encourage them, or boost their ego. It can do all those things, but that wasn't the point. It's there because people want to discuss what they read, or review what they read for other potential readers, or argue why a story worked, or didn't work for them. Just stay the hell out of it and let people have their discussion, unless they ask you a question directly.
Anne Rice hit every crap-ass argument I've ever seen thrown out on a list. In fact, her essays tell us that her very success has given her the leverage to engage in crappy writing all she wants, unfettered by the likes of cretinous editors, and other demons.
I just can't stop myself from commenting on her comments.
So, various sections, taken from the review, are quoted below, along with my reactions.
~~~~~
First off, let me say that this is addressed only to some of you, who have posted outrageously negative comments here, and not to all. You are interrogating this text from the wrong perspective. Indeed, you aren't even reading it. You are projecting your own limitations on it
We will leap past the "You're only stupid if you disagree with me" part of this text, and go to her statement that if you can't understand what she's saying, you're not reading the story correctly.
Somewhere along the line, I had a very good English/Writing teacher who spelled it out for us like this: "The message sent is the message received."
It doesn't matter what you meant to say. If you leave someone a note to meet you at McDonald's, and they head over to Burger King, you failed. You chose the wrong words. You used the words you chose poorly. No matter what you meant those words to say, or wanted them to say, they said something else, and you'd better suck it up, look at them, and discover what it was you did wrong so next time, you can get the message through. It's not the audience's job to read your mind, or know any other context than what is in front of them, right there, on the page.
Yes, there are sloppy readers, and people who skip over things. And then there are writers who just plain fail to get their point across, and those writers should stop accusing their audience of not paying attention. If your reader walks away from your communication with a message other than what you were trying to convey, more often than not, the fault lies with the writer.
Or, alternatively? Maybe we get it just fine, and still think it sucks. Stop expecting us to have a rapturous revelation if we squint at the words harder.
And this book is most certainly written -- every word of it -- by me. If and when I can't write a book on my own, you'll know about it. And no, I have no intention of allowing any editor ever to distort, cut, or otherwise mutilate sentences that I have edited and re-edited, and organized and polished myself. I fought a great battle to achieve a status where I did not have to put up with editors making demands on me, and I will never relinquish that status. For me, novel writing is a virtuoso performance. It is not a collaborative art.
The idea that your words are so perfect, that allowing an editor to comment, or make suggestions, or change them, would somehow besmirch the purity of your vision... it boggles me. You don't always have to take the advice, but you should consider the possibility that you're not as good as you think you are.
Back to the novel itself: the character who tells the tale is my Lestat. I was with him more closely than I have ever been in this novel; his voice was as powerful for me as I've ever heard it. I experienced break through after break through as I walked with him, moved with him, saw through his eyes. What I ask of Lestat, Lestat unfailingly gives.
Oh my god, it's the muses. The MUSES ARE SPEAKING THROUGH HER. I hate the muses. Who the fuck are these muses anyway? They never speak to *me*. Maybe these people with muses... shouldn't be quite so trusting of the voices they hear in their heads, you know?
Every word is in perfect place.
Bwahahahahahaha! Dude, there aren't even any *paragraph returns* in this damn review.
Now, if it doesn't appeal to you, fine. You don't enjoy it? Read somebody else. But your stupid arrogant assumptions about me and what I am doing are slander. And you have used this site as if it were a public urinal to publish falsehood and lies. I'll never challenge your democratic freedom to do so, and yes, I'm answering you, but for what it's worth, be assured of the utter contempt I feel for you, especially those of you who post anonymously (and perhaps repeatedly?) and how glad I am that this book is the last one in a series that has invited your hateful and ugly responses.
You won't have ME to pick on any more! I'm leaving, and taking my toys with me!
There are readers out there and plenty of them who cherish the individuality of each of the chronicles which you so flippantly condemn. They can and do talk circles around you. And I am warmed by their response. Their letters, the papers they write in school, our face to face exchanges on the road -- these things sustain me when I read the utter trash that you post.
Lurkers Support Me In Email.
I just about died when I saw this. How many times have I seen this stated to bolster an argument? It doesn't matter what you all say, I *know* I'm right, because of the untold support I have that none of you are privy to! There's no way you could be right, when other people disagree with you! And also, they outnumber you! (And you're STUPID!)
Good Grief.
(Tomorrow: Mercedes Lackey single handedly changes to term to: Myste Sue)
I think, at the time, I sort of mulled that over, in a vague way, worrying that it could have impact on a relatively new writer, in detrimental ways, but how was it really different than word of mouth?
But, just yesterday,
elynross directed me to what appears to be a rebuttal review by Anne Rice of her latest book, Blood Canticle. I read it, and my jaw hit the table, and I had a whole lot of thoughts... one of which, initially, was that it had to be fake. And this is certainly still possible. But then I came across a link to an actual essay she'd written on her official website that... basically supported and repeated many of the same positions voiced in the rebuttal review. If that wasn't Anne Rice, someone was doing a pretty good job of channeling her.The review can be found here, about halfway down the page.
The essay on her website can be found here.
She manages to hit upon, in these two essays, one hell of a lot of the very same arguments I see amateur (fan) writers using to justify themselves. Now, I'm not saying that writers should never explain what they were trying to achieve with their work, or stay silent when people are interested in having more information, but I am very much one of those people who go insane when a discussion of a story begins, only to have the author dive into the fray with all the reasons you didn't understand/shouldn't be criticizing her/are just plain mean! Goddamnit. The discussion is not for the author's benefit. It's not there to help the author become a better writer, or to encourage them, or boost their ego. It can do all those things, but that wasn't the point. It's there because people want to discuss what they read, or review what they read for other potential readers, or argue why a story worked, or didn't work for them. Just stay the hell out of it and let people have their discussion, unless they ask you a question directly.
Anne Rice hit every crap-ass argument I've ever seen thrown out on a list. In fact, her essays tell us that her very success has given her the leverage to engage in crappy writing all she wants, unfettered by the likes of cretinous editors, and other demons.
I just can't stop myself from commenting on her comments.
So, various sections, taken from the review, are quoted below, along with my reactions.
~~~~~
First off, let me say that this is addressed only to some of you, who have posted outrageously negative comments here, and not to all. You are interrogating this text from the wrong perspective. Indeed, you aren't even reading it. You are projecting your own limitations on it
We will leap past the "You're only stupid if you disagree with me" part of this text, and go to her statement that if you can't understand what she's saying, you're not reading the story correctly.
Somewhere along the line, I had a very good English/Writing teacher who spelled it out for us like this: "The message sent is the message received."
It doesn't matter what you meant to say. If you leave someone a note to meet you at McDonald's, and they head over to Burger King, you failed. You chose the wrong words. You used the words you chose poorly. No matter what you meant those words to say, or wanted them to say, they said something else, and you'd better suck it up, look at them, and discover what it was you did wrong so next time, you can get the message through. It's not the audience's job to read your mind, or know any other context than what is in front of them, right there, on the page.
Yes, there are sloppy readers, and people who skip over things. And then there are writers who just plain fail to get their point across, and those writers should stop accusing their audience of not paying attention. If your reader walks away from your communication with a message other than what you were trying to convey, more often than not, the fault lies with the writer.
Or, alternatively? Maybe we get it just fine, and still think it sucks. Stop expecting us to have a rapturous revelation if we squint at the words harder.
And this book is most certainly written -- every word of it -- by me. If and when I can't write a book on my own, you'll know about it. And no, I have no intention of allowing any editor ever to distort, cut, or otherwise mutilate sentences that I have edited and re-edited, and organized and polished myself. I fought a great battle to achieve a status where I did not have to put up with editors making demands on me, and I will never relinquish that status. For me, novel writing is a virtuoso performance. It is not a collaborative art.
The idea that your words are so perfect, that allowing an editor to comment, or make suggestions, or change them, would somehow besmirch the purity of your vision... it boggles me. You don't always have to take the advice, but you should consider the possibility that you're not as good as you think you are.
Back to the novel itself: the character who tells the tale is my Lestat. I was with him more closely than I have ever been in this novel; his voice was as powerful for me as I've ever heard it. I experienced break through after break through as I walked with him, moved with him, saw through his eyes. What I ask of Lestat, Lestat unfailingly gives.
Oh my god, it's the muses. The MUSES ARE SPEAKING THROUGH HER. I hate the muses. Who the fuck are these muses anyway? They never speak to *me*. Maybe these people with muses... shouldn't be quite so trusting of the voices they hear in their heads, you know?
Every word is in perfect place.
Bwahahahahahaha! Dude, there aren't even any *paragraph returns* in this damn review.
Now, if it doesn't appeal to you, fine. You don't enjoy it? Read somebody else. But your stupid arrogant assumptions about me and what I am doing are slander. And you have used this site as if it were a public urinal to publish falsehood and lies. I'll never challenge your democratic freedom to do so, and yes, I'm answering you, but for what it's worth, be assured of the utter contempt I feel for you, especially those of you who post anonymously (and perhaps repeatedly?) and how glad I am that this book is the last one in a series that has invited your hateful and ugly responses.
You won't have ME to pick on any more! I'm leaving, and taking my toys with me!
There are readers out there and plenty of them who cherish the individuality of each of the chronicles which you so flippantly condemn. They can and do talk circles around you. And I am warmed by their response. Their letters, the papers they write in school, our face to face exchanges on the road -- these things sustain me when I read the utter trash that you post.
Lurkers Support Me In Email.
I just about died when I saw this. How many times have I seen this stated to bolster an argument? It doesn't matter what you all say, I *know* I'm right, because of the untold support I have that none of you are privy to! There's no way you could be right, when other people disagree with you! And also, they outnumber you! (And you're STUPID!)
Good Grief.
(Tomorrow: Mercedes Lackey single handedly changes to term to: Myste Sue)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-09-21 08:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-09-21 09:01 pm (UTC)Oohhh...
Date: 2004-09-21 09:06 pm (UTC)*adds to Interlibrary Loan List*
no subject
Date: 2004-09-21 09:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-09-21 09:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-09-21 09:16 pm (UTC)...Everyone needs editors, if just for that other perspective. Of course when you edit your work it'll be clear what you meant to say - you wrote it, after all. And that can blind you to inconsistancies, lack of clarity, ambiguous statements... you need someone else to look at it with a fresh view.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-21 09:37 pm (UTC)Wait until you get into a position of management. And you write very careful and clear instructions that are ignored. You will find out fast that sloppy readers outnumber careful readers about a thousand to one.
*snerk*
Date: 2004-09-21 09:39 pm (UTC)Its worse then that, a long time ago I heard the muse (Lestat) was talking to her. Some rot about him leaving pissed off messages on her answering machine due to him not agreeing with one of her books.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-21 09:52 pm (UTC)Who the fuck are these muses anyway? They never speak to *me*.
Thank God it's not just me. I was starting to think I was crazy for not having voices in my head telling me what to write.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-21 10:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-09-21 10:32 pm (UTC)Right now it's down to Anne Rice, Nickolaus the Goth, and me--and I plan to lay low until the first two hang themselves.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-21 10:41 pm (UTC)Re: Oohhh...
Date: 2004-09-21 10:44 pm (UTC)A Laugh-In joke! Hee! Excellent!
no subject
Date: 2004-09-21 11:38 pm (UTC)I'm sorry. Only, y'know, kinda not. XD
no subject
Date: 2004-09-22 01:47 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-09-22 03:10 am (UTC)For *real* fun, try working in a lab and being the one who has to write out protocols for new graduate students, undergraduate project students, and medics doing their first real lab work. 'Idiot proof' takes on a whole new urgency when people are handling radioactivity, humans tissue samples and toxic chemicals, often all at the same time.
"No, I don't think you ought to put the blood-filled used syringe in the general paper waste bin. In fact, I think it will make the cleaners very tense and unhappy."
no subject
Date: 2004-09-22 05:02 am (UTC)The one thing that has been made clear to me - through people who know her personally - is that Anne Rice's cheese has slipped her cracker. She displays bipolar tendancies, and blows up at people for the most trivial things - unless they're lauding her shamelessly, that is.
No doubt a few of her works are fantastic, but I wouldn't go so far as to say they're as great as she thinks they are. She's long-winded, and she uses her characters as religious mouthpieces, getting across her views of Diety.
No doubt her sales will take a nosedive after that little rant.
The one thing I was always told is that we are our own worst critics. Well, she's not criticizing herself at all, and that's a foreseeable problem in any future novels.
...She WALKS with Lestat? Oh, dear.
And here I thought the whole muses thing was one big joke shared between fanfic writers.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-22 05:05 am (UTC)Re: Oohhh...
Date: 2004-09-22 05:34 am (UTC)Good thing it's not a chicken joke ;)
no subject
Date: 2004-09-22 05:44 am (UTC)A few readers are always going to be confused, but the few becomes as many as this, that's when you should consider that it might not be everybody else's fault. Perhaps you should have included a few more nudges, or should just leave it to the interpretations of the fan, however negative, without trying to lord it over the reviews. Part of leaving something to interpretation is the leaving bit.
If this whole thing was just a hoax, it was a cruel and damaging one. I love a good hoax, but I wouldn't be able to applaud this, however realistic it might be.
Incidentally, I've never read anything by Anne Rice. Vampires don't appeal to me. Werewolves, yes, but vampires are just glorified mosquitoes. They've never seemed to me to have the symbolic complexity and psychoanalytical leeway of other monsters. It's all sex, sex, sex. Give me a Wolfman, on the other hand, and I could do a lot with it.
I wish I hadn't said that last sentence.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-22 06:04 am (UTC)I read Interview long before the movie came out and continued later with the next three, but it became more boring and boring. Memnoch did it for me. Hundred pages of nothing but sheer boredom. But I suppose it is because I am so limited that I did not saw the great exitement behind *giggles*
Anyway, very interesting article(s) glad you shared them and that it was x-posted ;)
no subject
Date: 2004-09-22 06:12 am (UTC)This whole thing comes close to home for me because I have a schoolmate who is absolutely convinced she is the daughter of one of the characters from the books (Marius, I think) even though she's an adopted Korean girl. Nutty authors and nutty fans. XD
Friending you because this blog rocks.
Good essay
Date: 2004-09-22 06:25 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-09-22 06:27 am (UTC)Anne Rice's stuff, on the other hand, is self-indulgent unnutritious drivel. Flimsy characters, no plots, little motivation and lots of needless angst (you LIVE FOREVER, you idiots!! What the eff are you angsting about?!) Her style is as pleasing as fingernails dragged across a chalkboard.
If there's a "writing gene" in Christopher's genetic make-up, he sure as hell did not get it from his mother.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-22 07:24 am (UTC)