If you have a mental illness, you should probably think about being a writer, as opposed to some other occupation like airline pilot, child care provider, or surgeon.
When insane people fly jet aircraft or obtain jobs as au pairs, it makes people uncomfortable.
When insane people write books, it makes people feel like they've gotten what they paid for.
Be careful: Writers often tend to be very jealous of one another.
Writers covet other writers' asses.
Not me. I never mess with insane peoples' asses.
Writing is also just about the only profession where paid authors of books also get paid to write reviews of other paid authors' books.
I don't get that. No other profession does shit like that.
It sounds a little too much like closeted ass-coveting, if you ask me, which I also don't do.
That is just crazy.
18 comments:
You're up early.
I'm completely out of the closet with my ass-coveting.
Imaging if the president of the company I work for could review the work of the president of another company. Publicly. And then people would rely on those reviews in order to decide what products to consume. Imagine how cut-throat that shit would get.
I really really wonder why people don't ask that question more often. I wonder if people think I'm crazy for saying it.
Check your email, BTW.
I don't wonder. I know you're crazy, and I thank the Creator every day for it.
I did, and thanks.
Mental illness, mais oui. I admit to having no real understanding of the whole reviewing thing, except that my brother gets reviewed by people who aren't published except for their reviews. But it's hard to shock me about that stuff, because my day job is in the classroom and I deal with that sort of Koan every day. Andrew, you are up early. Matt, dude, I don't even know what you are doing, but your comment has me in a state of existential apprehension. (See mental illness.)
You make a very good point (as does Matthew). I think the only other places you see this are in (1) sports - where the commentators are too old/fat/broken to continue to play and (2) theatre criticism where 98% of the critics are failed actors/directors (and believe me, I've seen some hatchet jobs done by failed actors masquerading as critics).
The assumption, I assume, is that writers understand and are therefore qualified to critique writing. But reviewing is really a different talent and besides, that’s only true if the author is only writing books for other writers and really, what’s the point? Also, unlike in sports, there is no such thing as an ex-writer. Like mental illness you can only control the symptoms, not the disease.
But I truly don’t get the coveting. Down in the lowly, muddy trenches, I have to say that it’s an amazingly supportive community. I guess you have to actually have some success before people want to tear you down but really, what’s the point? It isn’t like there is only room for one successful book in any given year. It isn’t an either/or industry.
The only thing I have caught myself coveting is talent. Those books that make me cry because they're so damned beautiful and because I'll never write anything half as good. That always sucks...
Toni Morrison once said in an interview that she preferred John Updike's review of her novel A MERCY rather than the typical reviewer. And not because his review was glowing, either. She valued his opinion, because he was an excellent writer. However, he was also a renowned reviewer.
Personally, if my book were published and Drew reviewed it (don't know if I could make you covet my ass, but I'd try, haha), I'd definitely prefer that to, say, even a well-established book blogger.
What do you guys think?
My thought is this: I have reviewed books on my blog in the past, but only if I gave them the highest possible praise. If, for example, I was not prepared to give a book 5/5 stars, or a 10 on a scale of 1 - 10, I could not review it -- especially if it were in my genre -- because anything less than maximum praise could raise questions as to conflict of interest or petty rivalry. Humans are humans, and writers tend to be exceedingly human. It may not be true, but the room for raising such a question would be there.
On the other hand, routinely giving out 5 stars is also suspect. I tend to stay away from reviewing. Writers should write, editors should edit, and reviewers should review.
Just my opinion. I have no problem reviewing music, and I can't stand the vast majority of movies I see. If I told the truth about the books I read (and I read a hell of a lot of books), my home would probably be firebombed.
I did eat a really great pizza a few days ago up in Berkeley, though.
The author and reviewer Lev Grossman recently wrote a piece in which he introspectively questioned his own ability to properly review books now that he is quite a successful novelist.
I have to say: I have basically the same policy. I don't really "review" books. Not in a critical sense. I will highly recommend books that I really loved, but I won't "review" a book that I thought was less than stellar.
I can't explain why, exactly, except to say that as a writer (aspiring or otherwise) I think it would be disingenuous and pretentious for me to speak negatively about someone else's writing.
As writers, I think our job is to write great books. Let's leave the reviews to the critics.
Drew, can you link me to that Lev Grossman piece? I have yet to read his novels (bad me), but I value his perspective on literature.
And I agree with you both, to a point. Writers naturally read books for vastly different reasons than other types of readers, whether casual browser, reviewer, or literary critic. A friend of mine with a degree in Children's and YA lit touched on this in a conversation we had once. "You're looking at it from the perspective of a writer," she said, "As opposed to me, someone coming at it from the position of having studied literature in college."
Basically, both writers and reviewers critique the books they read more so than the average reader. Approaching them from two very different perspectives, using two very different methods of thinking about "the book", our resultant reviews will read differently and thus be received differently.
Matthew - you make a good point. At the same time, I don't think that a critic can critique something they don't know. To review books, I think you have to have an understanding of WHY a book works or doesn't.
(And I say this as a ex-theater critic who HATED every single moment I had to spend on stage. But I felt like I could not write an informed review unless I understood how it was meant to work).
I do agree that slamming people in your genre isn't going to over well. I recently chose not to review an ARC of a writer I really respect because her upcoming book bored me to tears in spite of all of the industry folks loving it. And that decision surprised me so I'm actually thinking of not reviewing anything any more.
I'm with Andrew in that I have no similar problems with music.
Andrew, I also live in dire fear of you ever reading a book of mine. That would scare me far more than a herd of critics with chips on their shoulders. Just because your opinion would matter to me whereas I could write theirs off.
Helene, I hope you know I love you and consider you a friend, but in the interest of intelligent conversation, I'm just going to argue that your theater critic example doesn't work for me. I've been an actor in the Seattle Opera (non-singing role, thank god), the son of a stage manager (dad) and also the son of an actress (TV, stage, and a bit of film, mom), and an IATSE Union Stagehand who has worked on everything from the Royal Bolshoi Ballet, to Paul Simon at the Paramount in Seattle. So I have an intimate understanding of theater and the working of what it takes to make a production.
I don't think a theatrical critic needs to know any of that. A critic need only understand what it means to sit in the audience, and feel something. I'm not saying it's right, that someone with no knowledge of how it really works should be able to pass such judgment, but their target is the audience, not the performers. That's how they sell papers, or magazines, or online ads.
It's not quite the same in literature, but I do think it's similar. In a sense you don't have to know shit about writing to know whether a book is going to reach a lot of readers.
Do I love it? No. But then again we could probably use some more Norman Mailer vs. Gore Vidal style fistfights to revitalize publishing these days.
Also: when it comes to your own writing, I really think you need to swallow your fear, and send Andrew some pages. He's never read a novel of mine, but he has critiqued some shorter work and he's fucking A brilliant. He cut right to the one line I questioned myself, and analyzed it with the exact questions I'd been asking myself.
I've seen enough of your writing to know you have the chops, but I think we all have to face this truth: even the best of leaves room for improvement, and even some of the worst of us show something worth celebrating.
I'm not going to say EVERYONE can write, but I will say EVERYONE can improve. With help.
That last comment is missing a word: us. Sorry guys, and thanks.
Andrew – apologies, in advance, for Matthew and I taking over your blog for a debate.
Matthew – I completely respect your opinion but I respectfully disagree. You may be right that it’s about sales of papers but it shouldn’t be. I minored in theater specifically because I knew I wanted to be a critic (okay, I later decided that it wasn’t what I wanted but…for a while, it was). Knowing what you know, you can’t tell me that you don’t look at a production more knowledgeable about why the lighting changed the mood or why the director’s choice of cast or period didn’t make a huge difference to the success of a play.
I agree when you say that “you don't have to know shit about writing to know whether a book is going to reach a lot of readers.” BUT…if you are able to articulate why character A doesn’t work when they make a specific choice that might not fit with everything we know about them or why a word-choice pulls the reader out of the moment, doesn’t that give you an edge in interpreting the work?
And…I would never. Ever. Ever. Ask anyone to read my writing (except for life-long friends for whom I’ve been editing for 20+ years cause they owe me :-) and because it’s their fault that I’m writing fiction at all) and in scenarios such as your blog where you ask for it (!).
I have no doubt AT ALL that Andrew is brilliant and observant. I also have no doubts AT ALL that I have a lot to learn. But the two are not necessarily intertwined. I simply would never ever put anyone in that position.
From the point of view of a reader only (I'm the none writer in this group), I don't read any book reviews and my friends don't either. I'm sure there are loads of people that base all their book buys according to reviews but I based my choices by the personal suggestions from the people I know really well. From the tidbits I have picked up here and there reading all the comments about book reviews and the few reviews that have been posted just proves most of these reviewers are uniformed - at least my friends have actually read a book when they voice whether they loved it and recommend it or if it suck.
What an interesting discussion this is. I'm not big into being a critic of published writers except for giving five stars on Goodreads to the books that make me, and the angels, weep. The angels that I confer with, anyway. (See mental illness.) I am an unrepped, unpubbed writer and I work hard at craft and read a lot. I think my role is to support those that have been pubbed by buying books, reading books, recommending books. Andrea Brown says "Support the industry you want to be a part of" and that's how I see my role. I also want my students hearing and reading things that will set their hair on fire and make them make the world a better place.
See, this is where Andrew( do you prefer Drew? I hesitate to call you such on short acquaintance) fits in, because I believe his books do this.
I really do enjoy the hell out of this blog community.
Hah! You make a good point Helene. Maybe I'm jaded because I've spent literally weeks up on a genie lift, focusing a light, because a lighting designer had to have it just right ... and I'm pretty sure no one ever noticed.
On the other hand, I think it's different with books. If you put something subtle in a book (like some of Andrew's little tricks) and even only one reader notices it, it's still pretty cool, and didn't take as much ... effort.
I probably shouldn't complain about those tech weeks though, I was young and making a lot of money.
HOW did I miss this post? Man, I am off my rocker these days.
Okay, so yes, this is a pity me moment: I have been diagnosed with two "mental illnesses", whatever.
But if it makes me a better writer, then the real person we should feel sorry for is the cured me.
Also, I covet other peoples' asses. It's in my nature, I am a jealous person. Also, I am gay.
Post a Comment