hawkwing_lb: (Aveline is not amused)
[personal profile] hawkwing_lb
Rules for reviewing, Opposite World edition:

1. Reviews must be "objective."

2. Never use passionate rhetoric.

3. Never mention the author's treatment of female characters.

4. Never mention the author's ability, or lack thereof, to construct a sentence.

5. Probably best to just quote the flap copy and say "Eeee."

6. All negative reviews are personal attacks upon the author and everyone who likes their work.





I'm venting, at least a little. The comments on the review over at SH are pretty much the first time I've had shit-talking directed at me personally over the internet (what can I say, I've been relatively sheltered) and it's been an interesting learning experience. (One of the commenters scored a sexist/abusive bingo right out of handbook.) (Also, wow, anti-intellectualism.) (But most of them are, I suspect, just feeling judged by the fact that someone else thinks that a thing which they like is crap. As someone who still holds a tendre for a couple of books by Terry Goodkind and an avid reader of some really really problematic (and sometimes downright bad) books, I can sympathise.)

Thing is, for me? I get as much or more out of a negative review (by someone else) than I do out of a positive one. Article-sized negative reviews frequently go into more depth, so I can see exactly what I may or may not like about the work - and they're frequently more entertaining.

I mean, mostly I'm reading article-sized reviews of films. These days I get my book recommendations in the form of a blog paragraph or line from people whose tastes I know often align with mine (I think the last book I bought as a result of an actual review was Suzanne McLeod's urban fantasy, which I found rather meh, in the final estimation. Or take the case of The Steel Remains, which I ended up loving but which was getting such good press from reviewers whose tastes don't align with mine I thought I'd hate it to pieces, and only read it out of guilt at ignoring a gift sitting months on my shelf), or in the form of direct recommendations after asking people. But the point is, I think, comparable.

Anyway. Venting done.

Date: 2012-01-15 06:21 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] britmandelo.livejournal.com
Had to comment on that thread. I think I won't go look at it again now that I've done so, though. Ugh.

If it helps, a very similar thing happened to Joanna Russ in 1979 because she published a takedown of epic fantasy as a genre as it stood, and people were furious. Her response, the next issue, was absolutely killer, out of the park. It begins: "I know it's painful to be told that something in which one has invested intense emotion is not only bad art but bad for you, not only bad for you but ridiculous [...]" and gets better from there.

There's also a great letter she wrote in response to people saying her reviews were unfair or too harsh; it's a brilliant summation of the job of a critic, which is not ever to be nice. (All of this stuff, and her reviews, are collected in "The Country You Have Never Seen.") And if those folks thought your review was harsh, Russ's would have given them heart attacks.

Date: 2012-01-15 06:42 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] hawkwing-lb.livejournal.com
Yeah. I've been wading through the comments out of a commitment to keep pushing back against people who only use the tone argument - I'll do it when I have time and energy, which isn't always. (Why you gotta be so angry, baby? by itself is an intellectually contemptible stance to take. Not that I have strong opinions, or anything.)

But I don't think I'll be commenting again unless someone brings something that isn't the tone argument into play.

Joanna Russ always helps! (Well, maybe not always. But when it comes to eviscerating arguments, definitely.) Intellectual rigor and biting wit, that lady had buckets of it. (And one of these days I'll actually manage to finish The Female Man.)

I've just requested The Country You Have Never Seen from the library. Thank you.

Date: 2012-01-15 06:47 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] britmandelo.livejournal.com
Here (http://britmandelo.livejournal.com/726504.html) are some soothing quotes until your copy arrives. And I'm sorry it's been asshole!week on the internet for you.

(Only sort of related: I found that reading her reviews in that book did more to change my whole outlook on criticism than years in an academic program half-devoted to it.)

Date: 2012-01-15 06:55 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] hawkwing-lb.livejournal.com
Thanks!

I suppose some weeks are like that. You win some, etc.

(Though the person referred to in the previously tagged asshole post? Went from being I don't care to read your books to I will avoid entering elevators and deserted places if you are there as a result of his words. My This person is not safe for women meter did a big jump. Which is maybe unfair, but my instincts, I trust them.)

Date: 2012-01-15 07:00 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] britmandelo.livejournal.com
Yeah, I am in full agreement on that one. Twigged me pretty hard on the "not safe" meter, too.

Date: 2012-01-15 10:10 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] hawkwing-lb.livejournal.com
Instincts, they exist for a reason.

Date: 2012-01-15 10:03 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] jennygadget.livejournal.com
And there is no reason not to trust your instincts in such situations. Its not like its a huge loss for you if you do trust them but they are wrong. Whereas if you dont trust them and they are right...

Date: 2012-01-15 10:06 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] hawkwing-lb.livejournal.com
Best cast scenario: I'm creeped out and mildly intimidated. Worst case scenario: my serious physical injury/death/imprisonment as a result of causing physical injury to someone else. Instincts. It is better to trust them.

Date: 2012-01-15 10:05 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] jennygadget.livejournal.com
I love the title of this post to pieces. :)

Date: 2012-01-15 10:08 pm (UTC)

Date: 2012-01-16 02:10 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] http://users.livejournal.com/la_marquise_de_/
Most of those commentators are biased, and proud of it. And too stupid to listen or to try and appreciate that other people are allowed to disagree with them. It's hard to ignore it, when it;s directed at you. It's hurtful and intrusive. But you're smarter and nicer than they are. They're the ones who look like fools.

Date: 2012-01-16 03:14 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] hawkwing-lb.livejournal.com
Thank you.

It's not a reviewer's job to pay attention to people's wounded manly feelings (all one of them). I do think that there's a potential interesting conversation to be had about compelling reasons to review books, what counts as one, and whether the lack of an especially "compelling" reason to review is a reason not to.

Though perhaps that's not a conversation that can happen fruitfully in that comment thread. (Disappointingly, Jeff VanderMeer has failed to elaborate on or defend his initial argument that some books are "more worthy" of review than others: that might be a conversation worth having in genre as a whole, considering the proportion of works by women "professionally" reviewed to the proportion of those by men in light of the numbers published - even if such a conversation results in more sound than substance, there might be some substance there.)

I think you're wrong about me being nice, though. Nice people worry about hurt feelings and making themselves amenable - tho' perhaps I have too much exposure to people taking only one definition of nice.

Date: 2012-01-16 03:39 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] http://users.livejournal.com/la_marquise_de_/
The 'more worthy' thing definitely needs investigating. It's not just reviews, too -- awards' short-lists and the discussions around it spring to mind.

Date: 2012-01-16 09:00 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] hawkwing-lb.livejournal.com
Yes. It really should be interrogated.

(For now, I'm perfectly content to leave pursuing that line to someone who doesn't have two language courses, a thesis, a funding app, and a conference paper in the pipeline.)

Date: 2012-01-16 09:57 pm (UTC)

Date: 2012-01-16 06:52 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] jennygadget.livejournal.com
You are still nicER by far than many of them, though, simply by remaining respectful and professional and not making assumptions about motives.

Date: 2012-01-16 08:51 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] hawkwing-lb.livejournal.com
Oh, I make many assumptions as to motive. But I wouldn't state them in public, no.

Profile

hawkwing_lb: (Default)
hawkwing_lb

November 2021

S M T W T F S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930    

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jun. 12th, 2025 11:45 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios