Showing posts with label criticism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label criticism. Show all posts

17 May 2013

A Short Collection of my most Controversial and Opinionated Observations on Writers

by Carrie Bailey

If you suck as a person, you will suck as a writer and everyone who reads your work will be granted great insight into exactly how you draw into your mouth by contracting the muscles of the lip and mouth to make a partial vacuum

 I’m not saying great writers are great people. Some are the emotional equivalent of a tar pit or a new strain of bird flu. They are very much themselves when they write and happen to be jerks.

What I am saying is that if you have an obvious fault in your personality, it will come out in your writing. I say this thinking about an aspiring YA writer I read with teenage characters having dark jaded and sophisticated sexual relationships that screamed PEDOPHILE to me. I know teenagers can be complex emotional creatures, but this writer was clearly drawing from his own sophisticated sexual
"Hi, I've just finished reading your first draft. I realize
these are unusual circumstances, but I have just sent
a copy to a mental health professional and the authorities. Also,
there were numerous typos on page 6 and 27."
confusion. Most writers aren't as transparently cringeworthy as this man, although published fantasy author, Piers Anthony, certainly is.

How Not to Write a Novel is a book with a lot of examples where writers just get creepy. I recommend reading it.

Creepiness is only one obvious fault that a person can have. Some authors are shallow, overly idealistic, racist, timid, boring... and that's why they suck. Sure, they can still get published. People do, but a writer has to balance out their negative repulsive qualities with enough good ones to tip the scale in favor of attraction.

Bookishness does not make you a superior form of life anymore than wearing glasses makes you more intelligent.

A lot of farmers don’t have time to read, although many listen to a great number of audio books. A lot of poor single mothers don’t have time to read. Many worthwhile people have lives that don’t involve reading books. Time to read is a privilege. It irks me when writers pat themselves on the back for having a noble hobby as if we've all forgotten that there was an era when reading was considered an immoral distraction from responsibility. Humanity can survive without books, but we can’t live without food. Respect the hardworking people who don't read, they may just be catching your book when it gets released on film.

Shocking! It is possible for someone to follow an "author" on social media and not be their adoring fan. 

I bubble over with revulsion whenever an author I friend on Facebook, adds me, and then posts a “Thank-you for friending me” message on my wall. Why don't they thank me privately? Because, they want my friends to see that I made the choice to friend them. Bastards! My Facebook wall is not for you! People I know personally are more considerate about posting on my wall than these authors I've just met.

Real fans are not numbers on social media. Authors friend each other as colleagues not as fans. We inflate each others numbers to make each other look more popular. Sometimes we do read each others work. We share technique, stories and industry information, but we are rarely fans.

Fans are people who are in awe of a writer's work. It can be very uncomfortable to get your first real fans, because you may never have experienced that sort of un-tempered and unreciprocated adoration. While some people may be impressed that you wrote a book, they don’t necessarily plan to read what you wrote. Authors who treat every social media contact as a fan need to recognize the difference!

Being a successful writer is a group effort and anyone who thinks otherwise needs to be led into the forest and left there for 20 days with only saltine crackers.

People, who I know offline, come to me all the time and say that they would like to be a successful author. Can I make that happen? No. I cannot. I have only single digit book sales each week myself and that great trickle of dimes has taken me three years to unleash. People who believe that anyone wields the power to make them successful overnight are naïve. It is kind of cheek-pinching cute though.

However, there are arrogant pricks among writers who knowingly perpetuate this mythology of the author. One day, we click the last button and place the final period on the last paragraph of our great masterpiece. There it sits. Moments later, fans are pounding on our door. Why? Because, authors either have it or they don't; that elusive something that drives sales. It's magic!

Do you agree? Better not. I will come. I will find you and we are going out for a little walk in the woods. We'll have a nice chat. I will leave you there.

If I do take the time to give a writer advice, I expect them to either show me some support by reading one of my books, promoting me, or turn around and mentor someone else. A writer’s time isn’t free just because we aren’t paid hourly. But, we give a lot of it away, because a lot of people gave their time away to us. Now, there it is. The connection between writing and success is a lot of time invested and a lot of help from other people. We have to learn about the industry, make connections, and promote our work. No magic. Just time and the hard work and time of other people.

Giving blanket advice to writers is wrong and dumb and mean and thoughtless and a generally bad idea.

There is no advice that applies to every writer. We’re all at different points in our artistic development and career. But, sometimes people get stuck in a herd…of writers, which they find comforting and validating. And then. They get cultish. It happens.

These rabid and blind writers start to believe they have found absolute knowledge about being an author. They begin to form rules. And that isn't criminal. But, someone of these creatures with laptops and pens, go after the young and those new to writing. They attempt to validate their rules by forcing others to follow them. They oppress creativity. They crush the artistic spark. They douse the fires. They trap the muse in a small cage and poke her with a stick.

Having said that, I would like invite you to read a copy of The Handbook of the Writer Secret Society. It's free when you follow our site and connect with us. While there are no oppressive rules to follow, authors do benefit from the company and companionship of encouraging and unoppressive writers and we've captured that in book form. This handbook holds the epiphanies, experiences and humor of many new authors progressing in their careers within our changing industry.

There are only two types of writers.

Idiots and fools. No! Kidding! We are engaging in a difficult process with uncertain reward or benefit, but there is nothing foolish about it. The benefit of writing is unique to each person and infinitely meaningful to many.

However, I personally classify writers into two categories: the hopeful and hopeless. Some writers add hope to my life and some take it away. It's that simple. I try to avoid the later. I try to identify them early on during our association and keep my distance. It's my overly simplified opinion that this distinction exists and I am proud to say that it has helped keep me writing. But, more than that. It is my opinion and not one I adopted from someone else.

Having and knowing and articulating my opinions is grand. I'm not sure I do it often enough. This month at Peevish Penman, all the authors and I are being opinionated just to practice opening up and saying what we really think without worrying about offending or alienating people. If you have a very opinionated post on your blog about writers, please link to it in the comments. I'd love to read it.





28 April 2013

Opening up to criticism

by Clark Brooks

I get critics. I understand them. I appreciate that they have an important role to play. People are busy, money and time are scarce. Recommendations, pro or con, can be invaluable to readers. I also know there's a very fine line between critics and trolls, especially now when anybody with an internet connection can cast themselves as a person of influence. This little tidbit from an interview Prince did with Rolling Stone way back in 1985 has always stuck with me...

"One time early in my career, I got into a fight with a New York writer, this real skinny cat, a real sidewinder. He said, 'I'll tell you a secret, Prince. Writers write for other writers, and a lot of time it's more fun to be nasty.' I just looked at him. But when I really thought about it and put myself in his shoes, I realized that's what he had to do. I could see his point. They can do whatever they want." 


My first book isn't published yet so I haven't had a real personal stake in the review process yet. I'm not looking forward to it either. Not because I have thin skin and I dread the idea of people I don't know judging me and saying mean things about my work (that doesn't mean that I'm rough, tough and immune to that kind of thing; I have skin like toilet tissue and I'm already planning on spending a great deal of time in the fetal position in a darkened room once the critics finally get hold of the stupid thing) but because it's one of those things that's part of the deal and everybody has to go through it. I hate that kind of crap, especially the politics of it. All that stuff that isn't actual writing but necessary components of the writing "biz" seem so time consuming and counter-productive in that it has nothing to do with The Creative Process (I put that in caps in case it wasn't clear that I'm an artiste who is in love with the smell of his own farts). All the business parts of this business bore, confuse, frustrate and/or intimidate me. I know I have to sit down and grow up soon, though. A big part of that is embracing critics and reviews. That means taking time to really figure out all the nuances of Good Reads and Amazon and make connections with people whose reviews could be beneficial to me. All of that is going to be time not spent writing and creating product. "Tough luck, Suzie", you're saying (which isn't very nice and you haven't even read my book yet). "It's something every author goes through. Put on a helmet and shut up." And of course, you're right.

That doesn't mean I'm looking forward to it, though.

17 April 2013

"Poltergeist" and Online (Book) Reviews


By Molly Field

Note: I wrote this post Sunday night, when all was mostly well and Boston was preparing for its marathon. I considered pulling this post entirely in light of the tragedy, but I didn't. I didn't edit it, I didn't change it a bit. Part of me wants to remember what Sunday was like before Monday became horrible. My heart goes out to Boston and all who are affected by it near and far. 

Maybe I'll change my mind in a year or two, but I believe 5-stars are the new 3-stars. Sort of like how 40 is the new 30 25.

When I first started this blogging-to-be-a-writer gig, I was dewy and not unlike Carole-Anne when she fell through the ceiling in "Poltergiest," the first time, all lush and covered in strawberry preserves and completely unaware for what was coming my way or how the hell I'd just gotten there.

I mean, look at her... I'll wait.



image: (c) MGM Studios

I know, right? JoBeth Williams too; all slimy and ready to be smeared into a sandwich. Ready to be devoured by the Internets and judged and critiqued and not at all ready for the intensity of the drive to compete and self-promote and cross-promote and sell and promote ... myself. Something that I wasn't even charging anyone to enjoy or debase.

Then came along the Facebook blog/fan page; a so-called Must Have. It has done nothing but confuse me. Then I got to know other bloggers and I built alliances with people I didn't really "know" and became just more confused:

image: (c) MGM Studios
How'd they get there like that? How'd I get there like that? All I did was open a Facebook account in 2008 and then started a blog for grins and giggles only to end up BEGGING for Likes of a fan page that sucked more of my life away.

How'd I get from someone who just wanted to write about my observations from my cheap seats to hone my writerly skills to a gut-wrenching search for relevance? How?

Here's how: Comments. The comments felt like a kissing cousin of reviews which are only realized through constant self-promotion. I have a modest minuscule blog with a lovely following that I am grateful to have. I have no ambitions of unseating The Bloggess or anyone else, but as humans, we are all looking for favorable consideration. And that universal, human need for "favorable consideration" can eventually resemble biased and loaded boardroom backscratching book reviews.

really??

image (c) www.fourthgradenothing.com
The yearning for unbiased comments and authentic traffic (not China-based bots selling counterfeit Louis Vuitton bags) and the tiresome skulduggery (promoting, sharing, linking, tweeting) behavior has put into harsh relief an ugly fear: maybe objective reviews don't exist.

My thoughts are my own; my craft is writing, but despite all of this, I have been pulled into a direction which makes me uneasy and brings me back to feeling like strawberry preserves -covered Carole-Anne: confused. Social media has availed me to witnessing the unfortunate phenomenon of outright requests for favorable reviews of self-published books. I've heard tell of authors ranting over objective less-than 5-star reviews. I get where that comes from, because books are like our babies, but not every baby places first in the toddler pageant, and some judges won't be bribed.

I don't at all like being pulled in that direction. It feels forced.

image (c) MGM Studios

Neither does Carole-Anne. This was just before her second trip to the afterlife, this time through a giant flaming hole in the wall. 

My take on any book review is this: it has to be truly amazing for me to give 5 stars; we're talking Faulkner or (see, it's all subjective) say, The Bell Jar, which I read in one night and loved with my teeth; or as compelling as any previous NYTBSA (New York Times Best Selling Author) and even then, eeeeeeven then, you're never guaranteed of its quality, says my publishing rep.  I love Nick Sparks, but do I give him 5 stars? I give him 4; he doesn't make me swoon. Maybe I'm a Classic-ist. Nope. I'm just a good writer-ist; I want someone who will tactfully push the envelope.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I don't know who to trust anymore without Oprah's Book Club. Even the almighty Oprah got burned with James Frey's A Million Little Pieces -- that was just a simple matter of genre, he should have never marketed that book as nonfiction autobiography. Just do what everyone else is doing: "creative nonfiction," but I digress.

I do read reviews now when I go to Amazon for a book, but I didn't used to. I've become a skeptic: I also check the dates for most of the 5-star reviews and am grossed out. Say there's 35 5-star brand-new reviews. Of those 35, 27 are written within three days of release, and some of them are reciprocal. Some are completely over the top IN ALL CAPS I COULDN'T PUT IT DOWN I ABSOLUTELY LOVE THIS BOOK!

Then I like to see what the lower reviews have to say. Sometimes it's totally subjective, "I didn't like the font," or "Not all southerners say y'all." Or "I don't like romance novels, and so I shouldn't have bought this one, but my best friend's cousin wrote it..." Others are really intense: "Georgia bullfrogs don't make calls like that and they definitely don't during the daytime, at least where I live; also, you can't catch a 6-lb rainbow trout in that lake, the limit is 5.5-lbs!!! This author clearly doesn't know what he's talking about," or those reviews written by people with the moniker: "I Will Waste You." Some lower reviews say what I look for: formatting's a mess, dialogue didn't synch up or transitions were weak or nonexistent.  

The proliferation of self-published eBooks bothers me: the quality control is weak. They're like Fan Pages: there are a ton of them and quantity doesn't at all correlate with quality. When it comes to ebooks, quality of the actual product (editing, formatting, etc.) matters to me so much because it's a massive distraction when it stinks. I have stopped reading books when the formatting is wonky or "it's" or "they're" or their ilk are consistently and incorrectly used and/or I get tripped up in the formatting. Don't make me edit this... I was asked once by an eFriend to read an eBook already released, and within the first 11 pages, I experienced about 30 errors and then I started to keep track. I stopped at page 21 when I hit 150 simple errors, including tense and plurality and possession disagreements, bad punctuation, broken sentences, homophones, weird formatting and direct object confusion. I gave up.

Do we have to go through 3rd grade grammar again? YES. I gave those books: 2 stars just for making me wade through their garbage; I felt like this:

image (c) MGM Studios
I couldn't believe I was having to tolerate it. But I will always give more than one star because writing a book is hard. I give mostly 3-star to 4-star reviews if I give one at all.

I wish to give or receive a 5-star review if the book truly moved readers, or if we missed the characters when it ended. I've actually said, "NO!" when a book ended (Kate Chopin's The Awakening). If I learned something about myself, if I highlighted amazing prose or use of language, then I will give it 5-stars. If the artwork captivates me, then I will give it high marks. If it is: mostly flawless and gripping, I will give it 5-stars.

Maybe that's why I'll never publish a book: because I can't play the game and I don't want to waste your time. I'm in this gig to get better at it. I think Anita Diamant hit it so far out of the park with The Red Tent, her stunning debut, that she hasn't replicated it since. "She peaked early," said a good friend of mine. I've become so paranoid about loaded reviews that I'll read reviews in newspapers and then read what people say online before buying.

Last week, I learned that Amazon bought Goodreads. Oh. Dear. Now what? Is this the end of the fair review and awesome reader community? I mean, bully for the Goodreads founders, but many people, including this writer for Salon beg to differ. I can't say I'm surprised. I feel like Goodreads just couldn't resist this:

image (c) MGM Studios

So are they still out there? Do fair, unbiased, unforced reviews exist anymore? What do you think? Do you feel like JoBeth Williams with that skeleton at times?



 

07 April 2013

An Understructured Rant on Book Reviews, Critics, And Why You Should Write Anyway



By Jody Aberdeen


"The Artist makes culture, not the Critic." - David Bowie

In the Acknowledgements section of my debut novel Convergence, I ended up including the following passage: "I hope you enjoy it, and if you don't, well, I'll just write something else".  Admittedly, it was a bit of pre-emptive insecurity on my part, but in a way, it's really the only strategy I have to face one of the worst fears that plagues many authors, especially new ones: a negative review.

Any fan of AMC's The Walking Dead knows that the recent finale was, at best, mixed in terms of audience reception.  I got into a small Twitter debate with one of my fellow Toronto Wordslingers about one of the characters (The Governor) being true to himself versus the viewers wanting the kind of "Wham!" ending that they didn't get. And I found myself being a complete fanboy about the whole thing, which is odd, considering that the advice I usually give writers is to just write your real story, screw everyone else's thoughts about where you take it.  In most cases, I at least give lip service to the writer's discretion of taking a story where their instincts and inspiration take them, but this time, I couldn't get past my own dissatisfaction with the ending as a fan and a viewer.

But that's the thing: how much consideration to a reviewer or a fan are we obliged to give when writing our work?  It's definitely not limited to novel or screen writing, but to any artistic expression, in any medium.

(Then again, it's not like the writers behind The Walking Dead are going to care about what I have to say about it per se).

It's not exactly a new debate, but there are always new writers, so the question remains valid: at what point does a desire for artistic integrity stop you from connecting with your audience?  Do you write for the market or write what you have to say, even if it bucks a trend?

How much credence do we give to people who make it a living to criticize content versus creating it themselves?  I think by the way I phrased the last one, you can tell where I stand on the question.

Opinions are cheap, really, especially when it comes to the arts.  There's little else that bugs me quite like a so-called patron of the arts who himself does not create the content, has not ever been bit by a creative impulse in her life, but who nonetheless can say, with conviction and a measure of credibility, that this book stinks.

If it was just a matter of some random person playing armchair quarterback with an author's labour of love, then it would end at mere irritation, but because of the sheer plethora of books available in 2013 and the ever shuttering windows of time available for people to read them, critics have never had more power to make or break the career of any storyteller, and they are necessary.

That being said, the math just seems really unfair at times.  Maybe it's the newbie in me, but it just plain sucks that I could spend countless years and ungodly amounts of coffee working on a manuscript just to have one bad review in a major paper or blog site destroy my book's success before it starts.  This is especially true when the critiques are almost purely academic: Stephen King notes in On Writing that one critic panned The Green Mile because his lead character and martyr, John Coffey, has the same initials as another famous figure who died for the sins of ordinary people.  "Really, guys?" is how King puts his own reaction to that particular literary critique.

I suppose it's that very same hipsterish impulse that I'm sensitive to, the idea that a new piece of work is crap if seems too much like a comparable mainstream story, or if it's too "derivative", a critique on which I call "bullshit" quite frequently because, to paraphrase Fight Club author Chuck Palahniuk, we're all basically the aggregation of the sum total of ideas and experiences we've consumed in our lives. Great storytelling often involves using those familiar patterns and archetypes that have been done thousands of times before. Originality can only take you so far, but it's a familiar repost of the self-satisfied critic.

I'll end my understructured rant by saying this: every storyteller has the opportunity to connect with the audience.  Audience connection is the only real external concern that an author should have, but the real shiny part about it is that the works with the greatest resonance with people tend to happen when the author is being real with herself and the story she wants to tell.

Greatest recent example I can think of:  Matthew Quick's debut novel, The Silver Linings Playbook.  No, I'm not about to review the book for you in the midst of my anti-reviewer rant (my hypocrisy only goes so far), but I'll say this much: Quick told a story from a position of such authenticity that you can almost smell the barbecue at the Eagles tailgate parties he portrays, and did so in a voice and style that resonated enough with enough people to generate an Oscar-winning screenplay adaptation.  And the film and the book had enough people who nonetheless didn't feel too highly about it, but look how much that mattered in the long run.

Regardless of whether you end up with a movie deal or continue to write in obscurity, the point is this: tell your story, tell it well, and tell it with reckless abandon and deliberate blindness to the eyes and voices outside your creative process.  Create something that makes you feel good, enjoy the feeling of accomplishment when it's done.

And hey, if people don't like it, do what you were going to do anyway, and write something else.