![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Well, I now know not to ever read a live-blogging review of one of my books... It wasn't one of my books that got eviscerated over at Dear Author this weekend, but it was a book by someone I've known a long time. It makes it rather more flinch-inducing than if it had been a stranger's book.
I'm not sure what to think about this, partly because I can't be completely detached over this particular example. I'm of the general view that authors need to learn to deal with critical and even abusive reviews (and to understand that the two are not identical), but I think live-blogging reviews have the potential to cross the line from snarking the book to snarking the author even when the reviewers are normally very clear on the difference, simply because they are immediate and off the cuff. I rather think that the best thing to do is to stay well away from one if you've got any emotional involvement at all.
ETA: This thread is now on screened comments which will be unscreened as and when I am around to do so, and disemvowelling will be applied if it becomes necessary. I apologise to those commentators who can disagree without being abusive, but some of the private email I'm getting suggests that it's now attracting drive-bys.
If you have come here from somewhere else, understand this: I am not a member of the Cult of Nice. I do not think readers should adhere to "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all" when discussing books. I do think that authors should consider whether they can handle adverse comment before reading it -- and that the particular form of comment I referred to up there has the potential to get under the skin of authors who are normally able to deal with adverse comment.
If you are reading that last sentence in the original post as anything other than having an implied "lest ye be tempted to be stupid in public" clause, and you post a comment, you may not get the reaction from me that you were expecting. Whichever side you think you're on.
I'm not sure what to think about this, partly because I can't be completely detached over this particular example. I'm of the general view that authors need to learn to deal with critical and even abusive reviews (and to understand that the two are not identical), but I think live-blogging reviews have the potential to cross the line from snarking the book to snarking the author even when the reviewers are normally very clear on the difference, simply because they are immediate and off the cuff. I rather think that the best thing to do is to stay well away from one if you've got any emotional involvement at all.
ETA: This thread is now on screened comments which will be unscreened as and when I am around to do so, and disemvowelling will be applied if it becomes necessary. I apologise to those commentators who can disagree without being abusive, but some of the private email I'm getting suggests that it's now attracting drive-bys.
If you have come here from somewhere else, understand this: I am not a member of the Cult of Nice. I do not think readers should adhere to "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all" when discussing books. I do think that authors should consider whether they can handle adverse comment before reading it -- and that the particular form of comment I referred to up there has the potential to get under the skin of authors who are normally able to deal with adverse comment.
If you are reading that last sentence in the original post as anything other than having an implied "lest ye be tempted to be stupid in public" clause, and you post a comment, you may not get the reaction from me that you were expecting. Whichever side you think you're on.