![[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
I'm trying to separate the issue from Anne Rice, which is hard. I can't, off the top of my head, think of anyone who writes as badly, but with as much presumption.
As you said at the beginning, it does trouble me that ANYONE can post ANYTHING at some of these sites--and as a corollary, some people being lemmings by nature, a lot of other people will pipe up and agree, who might never have been heard from otherwise. On a marginal book or movie or some other type of endeavor, someone like that, snowballing enough, could sink it.
But considering the alternatives, I'll take freedom of speech, even when some of the speakers are misguided or misinformed or just plain malicious.
And in this case? I think Anne used her own freedom of speech to pretty much prove the case against her.
no subject
I think her son comes close.
no subject
no subject
It's been a few years since I rotted those brain cells, so I don't remember very well...
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0786886463/qid=1095808228/sr=ka-2/ref=pd_ka_2/002-0576951-0185658
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0786888067/qid=1095808228/sr=ka-3/ref=pd_ka_3/002-0576951-0185658
He avoids the whole supernatural element, but otherwise they read a LOT like his mom's books.
Or is that libel? (I love that she doesn't know the difference between slander & libel, btw.)
no subject
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
Well, you know, I did used to read her. It was a ways back, and I think I stopped with Tales of the Body Thief, which bored me. I never finished it. So I can't say I've read this book, or that it sucks. It's the arguments being put forth that I've seen so many times before, but usually by people who aren't actually being paid for their work, and not all in one neat location at once, like that.
And yeah, there's a level of presumption that shines through. For all I know this was the best book ever written, but her arguments aren't ones that are going to convince anyone of that.
no subject
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
You're restricting yourself to fiction. Try Ann Coulter or Michelle Malkin or Bill O'Reilly. Better yet, don't.
no subject
Hmm... Anne McCaffrey may come pretty close. She is another of those who stopped "needing an editor" along the way. And she's another who somehow thought it would be great to descend to the level of interacting with her readership (presumably, in search of direct ego-stroking), but who didn't realize this would sometimes expose her to what people really thought of her work.
AM wouldn't usually employ the "great art" argument, though. One of her favorite responses to critical viewpoints was "if you want to go and create your own world and write something better, please do".
Which of course, is another position that you sometimes see bad fanwriters taking in debates -- the "well, you who are criticizing me, your own work isn't so hot!" stance. Or, the "you cannot presume to speak on a subject if you yourself are not demonstrably an expert at it" stance.
Which is bull, of course. The validity of the audience's reaction has nothing to do with the audience being able to produce that which they are reacting to. Even the history of professional criticism tends to be filled more with people who have *studied* a category than people who have actually *performed* a category.