wincing

[julesjones]

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.

Comments

[julesjones]

Ah, I'm following your line of thought now. Sorry about that -- I've seen enough people saying that other authors mustn't join in because it's mean to the *authors* being snarked that I automatically thought along those lines. I'd say pretty much what dr_laura_v has said.

I've winced at some of the commentary on cover snark, because I thought it occasionally crossed the line into personal abuse of the artist, but I don't feel a need to say "Don't look, because you'll be tempted to get into an argument" to artists. They seem less inclined than authors to respond immediately instead of sitting on their hands long enough to think about whether it's wise to do so.

I do think the live-blogging aspect carries a risk of it getting nastier in hindsight than the bloggers intended or would want, and that it's because you have that odd mix of a realtime party atmosphere together with a transcript that can be read later. I've done my share of slash turkey reads at cons, and Eye of Argon readings are a traditional staple of sf cons, but it's a closed group, with no recording. I would be very uncomfortable with written transcripts of those panels going online, much more so than I would videos. The timescale in which it's experienced as an outsider coming in later changes the emotional impact of what's said. "You had to be there at the time" applies much more in transcript form, I think.

[redrobinreader.livejournal.com]

Do you think you would have responded differently if you didn't know the author from Eve? I can only recall two comments (maybe three) that touched on the author, and only one that downright flummoxed me as to its purpose and meaning. Most of the comments seemed to me to be reactions to the snippets of text J&S posted and comments on those comments. As someone else said somewhere, the lag was so great that it was tough to keep up unless you were one of the first ten who could comment without being approved.

[julesjones]

I think that it would have had less emotional impact, but that I would still have found it disturbing. I can't be sure of that, of course, but my reaction to it was different to the reaction I have to a negative but dispassionate review of a book by someone I know personally.

I still think that my view of it, coming in cold, was different to the way the participants saw it. Reading through it as a transcript rather than in real time, those rapid-fire reactions and comments back look like a competition to see who can come up with the wittiest remark, in a context where witty becomes snarky, and not just about the book itself.

[julesjones]

Addendum -- the post when I first saw it *looked* like a review, not least because of the tags. If it had said up front "turkey read", which is what the transcript looks like to me, I think I would have been less bothered by it. There'd have been less of a whiplash effect.