I feel sorry for Anne Rice
Sep. 22nd, 2004 04:25 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
msagaraI don't know how many of you have seen the response she posted at amazon.com to reviews about her latest novel, Blood Canticle, but I'm assuming by this time many of you have -- because things like that tend to get around.
I read it with a kind of horrified fascination -- because, of course, it's the type of thing you think when you're very unhappy about a particularly nasty or incomprehensible review, which affects you say, when you're in the throes of PMS, etc.; the type of thing you might, in fact, grind out against a friend's shoulder in bitter frustration. Never the type of thing you post in public.
Otoh, she's always been a fairly public person, and she's not known for her lack of opinion about her work. How do I know this? Because I also visited her web site after I'd read her commentary. She's pretty clear about what she wants, and about how she views her own writing. And it's damn clear, reading her words there, that that lovely patina of detachment that writers are supposed to develop in public about their work and the comments or reactions it engenders? She hasn't. Ever.
Proof, of a sort, that you don't necessarily have to develop these calluses in order to be a million copy+ bestseller. Yes, that was a digression.
Do I agree with what she said? No. I don't think that people who didn't like it are clearly stupid or of lesser intellectual capacity. I think speculating on why the book didn't work -- that she was tramautized by the death of her husband and it affected her work, or that he must have been writing the other books because now he's dead and this one 'sucks' -- gives me some information about how seriously I should take the reviewer, and I understand why she might feel a sense of outrage at the implication that the words weren't hers. I think talking about the genius of one's own work is always teetering on the edge of wise (the wrong edge), but frankly, I've heard so many damn authors say the same things about their own work, either publicly or in chat rooms with a large number of people, that I guess it slides off the hard skin; it doesn't surprise me. It doesn't offend me.
What I find somewhat bewildering is the hostility that the counter engendered. She is clearly emotionally invested in her work to such a degree that she can't detach once the book has gone out of her hands; she's done something inadvisable and even publicly embarrassing (to herself), but I understand the source of the reaction because she's demonstrably not capable of not taking it personally; the work is what she has.
Do I advise anyone else to do this? Not on your damn life. And I would be eternally grateful to anyone who stopped me from doing something equally ill-advised; that's what spouses are for, poor sods.
The anger and scorn and derision and general cruelty that arose in response to her comments? I understand that less well. I don't understand that it comes from the same place; there's obviously no one with that same visceral attachment, that same inability to let go, because it's not their work. Yes, it's published. Yes, it's now open to public commentary, and yes people on Amazon have every right to post their opinions; I'm not arguing against that.
It's the reviews, if you will, of her response to the reviews that I find almost creepy. Or mob-like. Or something. It's like, "Okay, she's down and she's exposed a very stupid vulnerability, so let's all get together and kick her and giggle." I understand bonding exercises, and things that draw a group together in fun -- but this kind of fun is not my kind of fun. There's not a lot of malice in her words, that I can see; a lot of rage and obvious pain, but not a lot of malice; she's right there, in her words. She's completely exposed. There's a sh*tload of malice coming from other people, and it doesn't seem to come from a place of pain.
A better way to put this: She's not knowingly lying. She didn't knowingly turn out a bad book. She's not misinforming others to their detriment. Will the book make money for her? Yes, but not in a scam-artist way. I can understand a group assembling around any of these other things, because it seems to me to serve a purpose. Not entirely getting the purpose served here. (And Graydon, if you're reading this and you attempt to tell me this is some value of poor insecurity management, we'll have words <wry g>.)
My reaction to Rice's post is, as I said, a certain horrified fascination; it's like watching something implode. Or worse. But I'm wincing at it. If she came into my store tomorrow and screamed her head off, using more or less the same words? I'd grind my teeth and say nothing, and feel sorry for her because of the obvious cracks in the façade; but I'd be thinking, while I did it, there but for the grace of something-or-other go I. You build a lot of walls in this business, and it's like watching a car accident when they come down in this particular fashion.
I'm not immune to disaster scenes. I'm probably a lesser person because of this. I have to go and look. Why? Because obviously I'm stupid. And I have an edge. Just not that much of one.
I read it with a kind of horrified fascination -- because, of course, it's the type of thing you think when you're very unhappy about a particularly nasty or incomprehensible review, which affects you say, when you're in the throes of PMS, etc.; the type of thing you might, in fact, grind out against a friend's shoulder in bitter frustration. Never the type of thing you post in public.
Otoh, she's always been a fairly public person, and she's not known for her lack of opinion about her work. How do I know this? Because I also visited her web site after I'd read her commentary. She's pretty clear about what she wants, and about how she views her own writing. And it's damn clear, reading her words there, that that lovely patina of detachment that writers are supposed to develop in public about their work and the comments or reactions it engenders? She hasn't. Ever.
Proof, of a sort, that you don't necessarily have to develop these calluses in order to be a million copy+ bestseller. Yes, that was a digression.
Do I agree with what she said? No. I don't think that people who didn't like it are clearly stupid or of lesser intellectual capacity. I think speculating on why the book didn't work -- that she was tramautized by the death of her husband and it affected her work, or that he must have been writing the other books because now he's dead and this one 'sucks' -- gives me some information about how seriously I should take the reviewer, and I understand why she might feel a sense of outrage at the implication that the words weren't hers. I think talking about the genius of one's own work is always teetering on the edge of wise (the wrong edge), but frankly, I've heard so many damn authors say the same things about their own work, either publicly or in chat rooms with a large number of people, that I guess it slides off the hard skin; it doesn't surprise me. It doesn't offend me.
What I find somewhat bewildering is the hostility that the counter engendered. She is clearly emotionally invested in her work to such a degree that she can't detach once the book has gone out of her hands; she's done something inadvisable and even publicly embarrassing (to herself), but I understand the source of the reaction because she's demonstrably not capable of not taking it personally; the work is what she has.
Do I advise anyone else to do this? Not on your damn life. And I would be eternally grateful to anyone who stopped me from doing something equally ill-advised; that's what spouses are for, poor sods.
The anger and scorn and derision and general cruelty that arose in response to her comments? I understand that less well. I don't understand that it comes from the same place; there's obviously no one with that same visceral attachment, that same inability to let go, because it's not their work. Yes, it's published. Yes, it's now open to public commentary, and yes people on Amazon have every right to post their opinions; I'm not arguing against that.
It's the reviews, if you will, of her response to the reviews that I find almost creepy. Or mob-like. Or something. It's like, "Okay, she's down and she's exposed a very stupid vulnerability, so let's all get together and kick her and giggle." I understand bonding exercises, and things that draw a group together in fun -- but this kind of fun is not my kind of fun. There's not a lot of malice in her words, that I can see; a lot of rage and obvious pain, but not a lot of malice; she's right there, in her words. She's completely exposed. There's a sh*tload of malice coming from other people, and it doesn't seem to come from a place of pain.
A better way to put this: She's not knowingly lying. She didn't knowingly turn out a bad book. She's not misinforming others to their detriment. Will the book make money for her? Yes, but not in a scam-artist way. I can understand a group assembling around any of these other things, because it seems to me to serve a purpose. Not entirely getting the purpose served here. (And Graydon, if you're reading this and you attempt to tell me this is some value of poor insecurity management, we'll have words <wry g>.)
My reaction to Rice's post is, as I said, a certain horrified fascination; it's like watching something implode. Or worse. But I'm wincing at it. If she came into my store tomorrow and screamed her head off, using more or less the same words? I'd grind my teeth and say nothing, and feel sorry for her because of the obvious cracks in the façade; but I'd be thinking, while I did it, there but for the grace of something-or-other go I. You build a lot of walls in this business, and it's like watching a car accident when they come down in this particular fashion.
I'm not immune to disaster scenes. I'm probably a lesser person because of this. I have to go and look. Why? Because obviously I'm stupid. And I have an edge. Just not that much of one.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-09-22 08:20 am (UTC)amazon.com has the most amazing affects on the minds of many writers. It turns them to mush. It brings out the really, really paranoid tendencies. And conspiracy theories. There are people who do abuse the reviews to take swipes at people they don't like; there are reviews that were apparently written by space aliens, because they certainly weren't written by anyone who read the book. Then again, those people are taking swipes at them everywhere, not just on amazon.
I guess it doesn't bother me as much because I've never bought -- or not bought -- a book based on amazon reviews. I find them helpful in some ways (as in "how many people will kill me if the next book I write is not House War? Oh. All of them. Hmmm."), but I don't draw the numbers that Rice does, so the pool of people who are willing to take the time to post something is smaller. But I don't look at the negatives as a threat to my career.
And some people really do feel that any negative review is a threat to their career or an attempt to damage their career.
The books that sold best for us based on reviews were often the books at the store that one person hated and another person adored; people wanted to know who was right, or which side of the debate they'd fall on, so they'd pick up the book to see.
That said, kicking someone off of a board for having an opinion seems a bit extreme.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-22 11:13 am (UTC)Some people are just going to be assholes. I don't understand how people in the industry, or, hell, in life, can expect otherwise.
That said, if someone was personally attacking me on a public forum, I probably would get pissed. But, I wouldn't dignify the asses with a response. If it seriously upset me, I'd vent about it on a friends-locked LJ rather than risking making myself look like a prima donna. (Which, to be honest, with the whole "No editor will ever touch my work" tangent, she does resemble. :P)
I guess it doesn't bother me as much because I've never bought -- or not bought -- a book based on amazon reviews. I find them helpful in some ways (as in "how many people will kill me if the next book I write is not House War? Oh. All of them. Hmmm."), but I don't draw the numbers that Rice does, so the pool of people who are willing to take the time to post something is smaller. But I don't look at the negatives as a threat to my career.
I haven't bought books based on Amazon reviews, nor not bought them. I've actually found some of my favorite books by browsing Amazon, but that's not really related to the reviews.
Granted, I'm more likely to pick up a book from a library due to being broke, but if I really like it, I'll buy it. For example, I read all of Anne Bishop's work from the library and bought it anyway. And continue to buy even the books that I didn't particularly like, because I adored her Black Jewels trilogy and want to support her as an author.
And some people really do feel that any negative review is a threat to their career or an attempt to damage their career.
Now, see, this I've never understood. But, then, I've also never personalized any of my work. I'm not my book and an attack on it is not a personal attack on me. Some people, though, seem to feel otherwise.
The books that sold best for us based on reviews were often the books at the store that one person hated and another person adored; people wanted to know who was right, or which side of the debate they'd fall on, so they'd pick up the book to see.
Heh. Controversy sells.
That said, kicking someone off of a board for having an opinion seems a bit extreme.
If the boards had been based on discussion of her work, I could almost understand it. I still wouldn't have agreed, but I would have been less outraged. However, the boards were for writers, and it was at one time a very nice community; said author wanted to pay forward.
It got to the point on that board where if anyone disagreed with her on non-writing-related issues, people ran the risk of getting banned. So, there was probably more to that than just review phobia, as it were.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-22 11:49 am (UTC)Now, see, this I've never understood. But, then, I've also never personalized any of my work. I'm not my book and an attack on it is not a personal attack on me. Some people, though, seem to feel otherwise.
Oh, this one is easy. If a book gets negative reviews, some people actually think this will make a big difference to those sales, i.e. the total number of books sold will drop because of the bad review. So every bad review literally takes food off the table. In this worldview.
I'll say that a good review from the right magazine does make a career difference.
Anyway... if the bad reviews cause loss of sales, and the author is a newer author, and on the marginal line, this could literally -- in this author's mind -- sink his career.