Lurkers Support Me In EMAIL!

[flummery]

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, 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)

Comments

[kassrachel.livejournal.com]

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.

I worship you. I throw flowers at your feet. Thank you thank you thank you.

[laurashapiro.livejournal.com]

I had to giggle when I saw this. Anne Rice! Gee, why is it only the really crappy writers who trot out these arguments?

Oh, wait...

[therealjae.livejournal.com]

Followed you here from elynross's journal. Wonderful excoriation. :-)

-J

[kadymae.livejournal.com]

Flummery, I think I hurt something laughing.

Bwahahahahahaha! Dude, there aren't even any *paragraph returns* in this damn review.

Now if she had been skewering some completely off base fool I'd be yelling "Go Anne Go!", or if she'd been giving Harold Bloom a double barrel of his own snottery I'd be in heaven.

But this? This is priceless!

[tv-elf.livejournal.com]

I am so sick of writers who think they are above needing editors...

Uh, sorry, ::waves:: editor here. Even editors need editors. If only to say, "um, idiot, learn to use the return key."

[musesfool.livejournal.com]

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. Oh my god, so many truckloads of "yes" to this. Why do people not get that writing is communication?

[halimede.livejournal.com]

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.

This is not a defence of Anne Rice, who's books I tried a long time ago and didn't like. But you know, I'm all about alternate readings are valid, but to say that if a reader walks away from a piece with an unanticipated interpretation to say that there is any fault at all strikes me as strange. Everybody walks away from a story with a different interpretation. I can't conceive of knowing each individual potential reader well enough to use language as a fool-proof medium for conveying exactly what you meant.

The example you give with the McDonalds/Burger King confusion boggles me. The way you write it seems to suggest to me that if you put the word's McDonalds on the note, but the addressee shows up at the Burger King, you are still somehow at fault for not communicating clearly. How could this possibly be the case? How far can you nail things down, in the end?

I think you can make a good attempt, but there will always be grey areas. In that respect there can be stories that you just don't get. I know there have been stories that I just didn't get at one point in my life, that I've come to love as my own point of view has changed. The reader brings something to the story too. And IMO that's not about fault, but about diversity.

[billietallent.livejournal.com]

Also wandered in from elynross's journal, and I think you're absolutely wonderful. I read practically anything and everything, but when it came to "Interview With the Vampire" I didn't even make it through the first chapter. Since then, I've tried to read some of her other books, but had the same problem. It's not that I misunderstood them, it's just that I didn't LIKE them. That doesn't make me a bad person. Most of her arguments seem very immature, like a 5-year-old complaining about being picked on in the school yard. A 5-year-old would get sympathy from me, Anne Rice does not. She needs to grow up. On a side note, may I friend you?

[marycrawford.livejournal.com]

I just read this via fandom_wank (the Rice 'review' I mean, not your post! *g*) and was both boggled and amused. And then I thought, should I post about this? And now I don't have to, because you said it better.

Just one addendum:

And you have used this site as if it were a public urinal to publish falsehood and lies

Um, yeah. Because that's what you do at a public urinal, I'm sure...

Mary, shaking her head

[falzalot.livejournal.com]

Whoo-iee nelly. She really is something, ain't she? :->

Who the fuck are these muses anyway? They never speak to *me*.

They never speak to me either!! Is there like a secret club or something?

[lilithlotr.livejournal.com]

I wandered over from metablog.

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.

[cofax7]

Love the rant.

There's also the issue that an editor (or a beta) can help identify those areas where people don't get the message the writer is trying to convey. And then the writer can choose to change the text to make the message more clear, and broaden the readership, or can stay with the original text, limiting the readership to those who grok her.

Sure, the reader has some responsibility, but as you say, so does the writer. A matching interpretation of the text requires effort on both parts. A writer can choose to limit their readership and be the next James Joyce, or can write for a broader audience and be the next Joan Collins.

Ms. Rice appears to want a huge and loving readership but isn't willing to make the effort to make herself more readable. Blaming the readers won't make her text any better written, and claiming that editors mutilate the text shows an absurd misunderstanding of what benefits an editor can bring to the process.

And in either event, ranting makes her look STUPID. ::rolls eyes::

(Ps -- want a laugh? read her other Amazon reviews.)

[ltlj.livejournal.com]

Excellent post. I saw the Anne Rice thing too where someone had linked to it, and god, the woman is insane.

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?

I want this on a t-shirt.

[destina.livejournal.com]

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.

Well...it's not an issue of fault, really. It's just that individual readers bring their own perception and interpretation to text, and they see things in the text the writer never intended. That's a vital part of good storytelling, IMO. The writer has to deal with the fact that often, people see trees where there are flowers; they see rivers where there are creeks, and deserts where there are beaches. And that's not a bad thing, nor is it bad writing if the reader didn't quite come away with all of what the writer intended. It's just part of the reader interactivity with text that writers like Rice desperately want to avoid, since it interferes with her Pure Vision. *rolls eyes*

[sanj.livejournal.com]

I'm incoherent. And all I can say is: wow. What a hack.

Okay, and one more thing.

Everybody needs somebody else to be their dentist, their lawyer, their doctor, AND THEIR EDITOR. Period. End of discussion. If you think otherwise, you are a fool.

Period.

She did leave her email in the review...

[culurien.livejournal.com]

I think you should send this to her.:D

One thing we learned in high school English: writing is NEVER perfect. You can always go back and make it better. Refusing editors? Throwing tantrums on Amazon? Grow up, Anne...

(here from metablog)

[kyuuketsukirui.livejournal.com]

I believe it really is Anne Rice. On fandom_wank someone mentioned that the post was made under a verified name or something, which means that the name on the review matches that of the credit card Amazon has on file.

Re: Lurkers Support Me In EMAIL!

[pir-anha.livejournal.com]

lovely rant. sounds like anne rice hasn't learned anything from the last time she wrote an essay about not needing an editor. writers with flat learning curves do, unsurprisingly, not sell any books to me after the one that convinced me they're not listening to any criticism.

though i take issue with your example: 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. -- i know what you meant to say, but the way you said it, *grin*, i would definitely assign failure to the reader. if you had said "meet me at that burger joint, the one downtown." then the example would work better IMO.

anyway, enjoy your writing -- got here from klwalton.

[gwyn-r.livejournal.com]

While I agree with everything you're saying, I think you do a fundamental disservice to your argument with the example of saying it's the writer's fault if I (the reader) go to Burger King and they told me to meet them at McDonald's. This is not really applicable to the concept of interpreting creative texts, I think, and also, I would bristle if anyone told me that my writing was unclear if I said "go to McDonald's" and the dumbass who read my note went to Burger King. I understand what you mean, but I think it doesn't work here. What Rice is doing is (and god, I hateherhateherhateher because of her ongoing attacks on my profession) less about clear communication and more about elevating her status as an Artist who knows what's good for you and knows more than you ever will. Any creative text by its nature is going to be open to interpretation; that's what makes art so... artistic. But communication in the more prosaic, directional sense, such as in your example, shouldn't be open to interpretation, and "fault" is more about goals and what the writing actually achieves of those goals than intrepretation and artistic quality/vision.

Sometimes, a reader can be dumb or bad. And in the Burger note, that's definitely a bad reading job. But a reader emotionally reacting to a creative work -- different ball o wax, and Anne Rice needs to just shut the hell up.

[the-shoshanna.livejournal.com]

God, I worship you sometimes. You are so right, and AR is such a pissy little prima donna it boggles my mind. All I can add is, I hope her editor and copyeditor get hazard pay.

And maybe if I'd had an editor, I wouldn't have screwed up the end-ital tag the first time I tried to post this! :g:

[yueni]

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!)

There is a logical fallacy here, which I cheerfully point out to all privy to it. It is called the Fallacy of the Bandwagon. My mother often asks me this: if all your friends jump off a cliff, would you?

And also, since I'm so stupid and ignorant, and you are obviously superior to me in both intellect and stature? Why should you care if I can't understand what you are saying? I am obviously speaking through ignorance and jealousy.

[mythechan.livejournal.com]

Here from metaquotes Funny entry!

I like the comment she made about how all the people who like her books are clearly "smart and intellegent and can talk circles around [the uneducated peons who dare to think that Anne Rice is not TEH MOST WUNDERFUL WRITER ON EARTH! OMG!!!!11]"
I've heard rumors about AR for forever and have never felt the need to read her books or even watch the movie when there are wonderful authors who are kind and rational and can use my money for better things then to supplement an income so they can surf on Amazon reading all the comments about themselves and leave whiney comment about how mean people are to them. *tear*

[mhari.livejournal.com]

Yup, yup yup yup. Word and what you said. Honest to God, I know fourteen-year-olds more mature than this woman.

What would make this whole thing textbook is if she started railing against everybody who liked her first two or three books -- the ones that didn't suck -- because those were her OLD, PLEBEY stuff. But I don't think that'd fit in with the "I am infallible" thing she's got going.

[dragovianknight.livejournal.com]

(Tomorrow: Mercedes Lackey single handedly changes to term to: Myste Sue)

You mean this, right? You're really going to post it? You aren't just jerking my chain?

[ithiliana.livejournal.com]

Got here via metablog though I saw the Rice rant in fandom_wank (and knew it was her because of a horrified read or two through her web site or blog a while ago in which she made all the same claims).

Excellent points on how the "prowriter" sounds a lot like some "fanwriters."

And you know, I teach creative writing, and this is why my one unalterable rule for writers is that the writer can never talk while we're workshopping hir work, 'no not even answer questions, no not make faces, no not use sign language, stop smiling/frowning/wiggling in anguish, just sit there and write down everything we say and go away and think about it, you're the writer, you can decide later on, but you cannot tell us what to see in your work, and whatever you think now you'll probably think differently in a couple of weeks' time and then we'll talk about it, so hush.'

And why my unalterable rule for readers is that the people workshopping don't just get to say any variant of it is good/bad, they have to describe what they see happening, what they think is going on, what they think is good or bad, specifics, specifics, specifics. Heck, once you're heard eight different summaries of what a poem is about for readers, or five different descriptions of the protagonist, you know there's a range of responses and early drafts need work, and a piece is never done just turned in.

It takes from 4-6 sessions to train them, then I can pretty much sit back and let them do all the work after that. The hardest part is for the writers to keep silent. We all really want to tell people what we mean, snicker.

I think Anne Rice needs a good writing workshop. Too bad she's apparently made so much money that editors can't touch her work. Maybe that will change....

p.s. I did like Interview with the Vampire, but it all went downhill after that one I thought and I gave up reading her many books ago.