![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Lurkers Support Me In EMAIL!
Somewhere, 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)
no subject
(Anonymous) 2004-09-21 01:38 pm (UTC)(link)If you write "Went for a burger, meet me there!" and expect the other person to just infer that you meant McDonald's, you failed. Maybe you never eat at any other burger joint, and you assumed that your friend knew that, so that therefore they should have known where to meet you. Doesn't matter -- you failed to communicate what you meant; they didn't fail to understand what you wrote.
no subject
Yes, and that would have made sense to me. But I take the wording 'If you leave someone a note to meet you at McDonald's' to mean that it said McDonalds in the note. If it had said 'a note to meet you at a burger joint' I wouldn't be confused, here. Which just goes to show that there are multiple reasonable interpretations of a text, I suppose.
no subject
Now, if you said "Meet me at the McDonalds on Main and MacArthur at noon today for a burger -- my treat -- I've got your number, but call me at (XXX) XXX-XXXX if you have to change plans, okay?" NOW you're communicating. (And obviously I've had to herd people around IRL, can't you tell? ;)
no subject
I would say that you are filling in too much that wasn't in the original text. :)
I think what she meant it, the theoretical "you" MEANT the note to clearly state "Meet me at McDonalds!"
And that would make sense to me. But since she said (and I quote) leave someone a note to meet you at McDonald's it boggled me that she would fault the author for the reader taking the explicitly spelled out name of the rival restaurant to mean Burger King. That seems to me to be taking the argument a wee bit to far.
no subject
Hmm. I guess she wasn't quite clear enough.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2004-09-21 09:37 pm (UTC)(link)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.
no subject
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
The number of times I have written seemingly inane instructions (because hey, maybe you should use sterilized gloves in an aseptic operation) just boggles the mind.
no subject
Of course, however good the instructions are you still can't do anything about the people who don't read through to the end of the protocol before they start work, or that if pieces of equipment don't seem to fit together then brute force is a better option that checking they're going about it the right way, or who think than ammonium sulphate and ammonium persulphate are probably close enough.
no subject
*insert name here* was a chemist.
*insert name here* is no more
what he thought was H2O
was H2SO4.
no subject
"I don't understand what to do!"
"Did you read the directions?"
"Yes!"
"What do the directions say?"
"Well...it says to match up read the passage and answer the questions."
"So what do you think you should do?"
"I don't know!"