Shit sandwich, or, some thoughts on bad reviews.: seanan

Shit sandwich, or, some thoughts on bad reviews.

(Yes, that is a quote from Spinal Tap. No, I am not ashamed.)

We begin with a fabulous essay about a worst-case scenario that I have yet to encounter, but probably will someday, that being the way the publishing world seems to work: My Horrible New York Times Review. It's funny, it's well-written and well-considered, and it's made me want to read the author's books (Ronlyn Domingue, this random mention in a blog you've never heard of is for you). To quote a bit that seemed particularly true to me...

"My novel is, in fact, one of the worst books some people have ever read. An insipid waste of paper. Readers writhed in agony at florid prose, gnashed teeth at familiar characters, fumed at confusing shifts of time and place, and grimaced at the triteness of it all. There are unsubstantiated reports of eyes bleeding.

"My novel is, in fact, one of the most amazing books some people have ever read. A soulful work of beauty. Readers found peace while grieving lost friends and family, bonded more deeply with people they care about, and enjoyed the story long past their bedtimes because they couldn’t put it down. This book changed lives.

"I'm a horrible writer, and I'm a brilliant writer. Next time, I won't need reviews to reveal this. Lesson learned."

I may print this out and hang it on my wall. Or ask Erin to do it in calligraphy so I can hang it on my wall. Or design a cross-stitch pattern, make a sampler, and hang it on my wall. Or...

You get the picture. Everyone knows, intellectually, that they won't be the first author in history to be universally loved and praised by all that they encounter. There are people who hate Shakespeare. I mean, I could give a whole list of famous people, but let's be serious, here: there are people who hate Shakespeare. If he can't be universally loved, no one can. At the same time, emotionally, every author I've ever known has been quietly hoping that maybe, just maybe, they'll be the exception that proves the rule. I am not leaving myself out, here! No matter how much I say "no, no, not everyone will like my work, I'm braced for that," I'm secretly going "please love me please love me please love me." That's how the human mind works.

Michael Melcher wrote an excellent article on what to do when your friend writes a book, which I also sort of want to hang on my wall. It includes such gems as "Do you think your birthdays are important? Well, to a writer, writing a book is like ten birthdays, maybe twenty." Also, "When things touch our soul, they are beyond logic and practicality. If you have a friend, relative, or distant acquaintance who writes a book, I can guarantee what they want: for you to share their joy. That's it. End of story. Share. The. Joy." Read the article. It's a good one, and very helpful, whether you're a writer or just trying to survive in close proximity with one.

Which brings us around, at last, to the original point: bad reviews. Bad reviews can be useful. They tell me what I did wrong, what I did right but not quite right enough, what people were hoping for, and what I need to improve. I can use bad reviews to become a better writer. Bad reviews can be hurtful. They tell me I'm terrible, I'm talentless, I'm insane for thinking I could write in the first place. I can use bad reviews to justify drinking a lot of cheap port and passing out on the couch while Dinoshark vs. Mega-Croc plays on SyFy. Bad reviews can be hysterical. I had someone write me to ask whether I was aware that my publisher had badly revised my film noir detective story to insert—drumroll, please—icky girly fairies.

Yes. Apparently, DAW rewrote Rosemary and Rue to insert the fae. Good to know, right?

Today's round of contemplation was brought about by a bad review for Feed, which was posted at Fatally Yours, and which falls into the fourth category for me: reviews which are either funny or frustrating, depending, because they are reviewing me on the basis of what I didn't actually write. Sort of like the people who pan Evernight for not being Twilight, or get cranky at Rosemary and Rue because it isn't paranormal romance. (I have a much longer post on the urban fantasy/paranormal romance divide brewing, but it needs a little more time to come together). You know what? A Local Habitation is bad erotica...because it isn't erotica. Discount Armageddon is bad horror...because it isn't horror. And now, to quote this review of Feed:

"To be honest, when the book started reading as an adolescent version of Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail with a dash of zombies my interest dwindled. I didn’t want to read about a bunch of politicians having tense meetings in board rooms. I wanted to read about zombies. And if you think that you’re going to offer me zombies and then try to bait and switch me with a bunch of unbelievable and boring political drama and still walk away with a good review, then you’ve got another thing coming.

"So it’s not really a book about zombies.

"It’s a book about politics."

Yes! That is correct. It's a book about politics. It's also a book about zombies, virology, Internet culture, wireless technology, bad beer, brand loyalty, sunglasses, the CDC, and horses. But mostly, it's a book about politics. Politics, zombies, blogging, and how George Romero accidentally saved the world, which is why I tell people it's "The West Wing meets Transmetropolitan meets Night of the Living Dead."

If you're looking for full-scale zombie gore, you probably won't like Feed, and I'm sorry. The zombies are the way they are because that's what they are in this universe. I may someday write a book called The Rising, and set it during the Rising, and that will be full-scale zombie gore, but Feed? No, and if I've somehow given you that idea, I'm sorry.

Bad reviews. Just one more part of this balanced breakfast.

Deleted comment

seanan_mcguire

March 19 2010, 16:42:29 UTC 7 years ago

New comment

It really is "be amused" or "start taking blood pressure medication." Mostly, I settle for amused, and the temptation to start a support group for authors whose heroines like wearing pants.

spectralbovine

7 years ago

More Expand

March 19 2010, 16:42:20 UTC 7 years ago

I had someone write me to ask whether I was aware that my publisher had badly revised my film noir detective story to insert—drumroll, please—icky girly fairies.

Yes. Apparently, DAW rewrote Rosemary and Rue to insert the fae. Good to know, right?
Ha, wow, awesome.

As for that review of Feed, I tell everyone I recommend the book to that it's surprisingly low on zombie action and is much more about politics and conspiracies and whatnot. For some people, that's a plus. And if it's a minus, well, then it's not the book for you. It's all about avoiding the Vegemite Effect.

janetmiles

March 19 2010, 17:20:36 UTC 7 years ago

I think I'm going to have to add "Vegemite Effect" to "Haggis Shortage" in my list of food-based metaphors. Even though I've never eaten either Vegemite or haggis.

keristor

archangelbeth

tsgeisel

March 19 2010, 16:49:17 UTC 7 years ago

Based on that review, I want to read Feed even *more*.

It may not have been an especially flattering review, but at least parts of it were accurate. Even if they missed the point. Which is probably more than you can say for a lot of reviews. (I'm remembering the scene from "All That Jazz" in particular, which was fictional, but likely based on fact.)

March 19 2010, 18:16:05 UTC 7 years ago

Oh, yeah. It wasn't flattering, but I really tend to think it wasn't flattering because it wasn't what the reviewer wanted. And I can't entirely fault that.

beccastareyes

xjenavivex

March 19 2010, 16:50:09 UTC 7 years ago

For the record, I already wanted to read this book. If I hadn't made up my mind though, "To be honest, when the book started reading as an adolescent version of Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail with a dash of zombies my interest dwindled", this convinced me!

March 19 2010, 18:41:56 UTC 7 years ago

Hee. See? There are advantages to bad reviews.

illian

March 19 2010, 16:50:25 UTC 7 years ago

I had someone write me to ask whether I was aware that my publisher had badly revised my film noir detective story to insert—drumroll, please—icky girly fairies.

Yes. Apparently, DAW rewrote Rosemary and Rue to insert the fae. Good to know, right?

*spit take*

*carefully wipes off his monitor*

That would be one of the funniest things I've read if it wasn't so sad.

March 19 2010, 18:42:30 UTC 7 years ago

I really can't figure out how the story could work without the fairies. I almost wanted to write back and ask. But I was afraid.

March 19 2010, 16:52:58 UTC 7 years ago

More about politics than zombies? I am happy to hear that!

March 22 2010, 04:07:29 UTC 7 years ago

Yup. I mean, I love it so, but it's about the political, not the gore.

phillip2637

March 19 2010, 16:53:49 UTC 7 years ago

"you’ve got another thing coming"

I so hope that's verbatim from the review. Whichever...it's glorious! (...and potentially useful.) :)

March 19 2010, 16:56:50 UTC 7 years ago

It is. I don't edit reviews unless it's a) to take out large spoilers (which I replace with ... markings), b) to correct spelling errors in my name or the title of a book, or c) to fix "smart text" punctuation, since that breaks my browser. Of those three, the only one I don't admit up front is the invisible third.

dornbeast

blackpaladin

March 19 2010, 16:57:11 UTC 7 years ago

> "I'm a horrible writer, and I'm a brilliant writer. Next time, I won't need reviews to reveal this. Lesson learned."

Just pinged you over email regarding this.

March 22 2010, 04:13:44 UTC 7 years ago

Heeeee.

solarbird

March 19 2010, 17:11:46 UTC 7 years ago

Michael Melcher wrote an excellent article on what to do when your friend writes a book
The same applies to musicians releasing CDs, I think. I'm sympathising greatly with him here, too - tho' from my experience I think he's expecting way too much out of people.

March 22 2010, 04:14:10 UTC 7 years ago

Yes, but still. I can totally see where he's coming from, and it's something to aspire to.

moshez

March 19 2010, 17:18:38 UTC 7 years ago

Disclaimer: still in the middle of Feed

It's not a book about zombies. But I *love* what you do with the zombies to highlight crisis the newspaper world is in, and that (at least for me) is what the book is all about.

Reading Feed after reading http://www.shirky.com/weblog/2009/03/newspapers-and-thinking-the-unthinkable/ one goes "yes, yes, this is how journalism could be done." I am so far loving every second of reading Feed... :)

March 22 2010, 04:14:25 UTC 7 years ago

Yay!

wendyzski

March 19 2010, 17:25:10 UTC 7 years ago

Most Zombie books that are any good aren't about Zombies anyway. The Zombies are there to highlight and point out stuff. I am STILL explaining that World War Z isn't really about Zombies - it's about PEOPLE and what they do right (and do horribly wrong) when the Zombies come.

March 22 2010, 04:14:50 UTC 7 years ago

Very true.

erinwrites

March 19 2010, 17:30:28 UTC 7 years ago

"The West Wing meets Transmetropolitan meets Night of the Living Dead."

This? Makes me want to get my hands on a copy of Feed like, OMG right now.

Also, I will do anything you want in calligraphy anytime. ;)

rhoda_rants

March 20 2010, 15:05:31 UTC 7 years ago

Seconded!! That sounds awesome. I'm not crazy about gore for gore's sake, but conspiracies? HELL yes!

la_marquise_de_

March 19 2010, 18:09:34 UTC 7 years ago

Those are good links: thank you.
My second review was barely literate and graded me (poorly) out of 5 for various things none of which the reviewer understood (like grammar). Then there was the young man (about 12?) who kindly emailed me to tell me how much I suck and how Dumas is a 'real writer' whom I can never be like.
We rise above and move on.

March 22 2010, 04:28:03 UTC 7 years ago

Precisely so.

And you're very welcome.

March 19 2010, 18:45:21 UTC 7 years ago

I know I try to catch when my dislike for a book is the 'this was not what I was expecting' when I blog about them. Mostly because I know it colors my reviews -- if a book wasn't what I wanted or was expecting, then I know I'll be constantly wondering why the author emphasized X instead of Y.

March 22 2010, 04:28:29 UTC 7 years ago

Right, and that's totally natural. It's a hard line to walk.

kippurbird

March 19 2010, 18:56:52 UTC 7 years ago

If they were Tinkerbell fairies, I could see the 'icky girl fairies' remark. But um Toby is not an icky girl fairy.

That comment is really silly.

The one thing I've noticed in my time as a librarian is that people seem to have very strange reading comprehension. They read the words but somehow it ends up turning into something completely different in their heads. I think they have some sort of reality filter in their brains.

March 19 2010, 22:58:00 UTC 7 years ago

Everybody has a reality filter in their brain. And with the exception of a tiny minority, people's filters work well over 98% of the time.

It's that tiny minority plus that less-than-two-percent that makes it necessary to have words like "facefault," "headdesk," and "facepalm."

March 19 2010, 18:59:57 UTC 7 years ago

Before I die, I want to mosh to an all-female thrash-metal band called The Icky Girly Fairies.

March 22 2010, 04:30:14 UTC 7 years ago

I agree with this desire.

March 19 2010, 20:03:08 UTC 7 years ago

I have a much longer post on the urban fantasy/paranormal romance divide brewing, but it needs a little more time to come together.

And I will be printing it out, framing it, and hanging it on my wall. Because the world needs this info.

March 22 2010, 04:30:26 UTC 7 years ago

Hee.

agrumer

March 20 2010, 00:25:55 UTC 7 years ago

I think there's an important distinction to be drawn between bad reviews and negative reviews. A good reviewer reading a flawed book will point out its flaws in a way that a good author can learn from (once the author has recovered from the pain). A bad reviewer might just be incoherent, or incapable of distinguishing between his own preferences and the book's actual qualities.

Also, note the professionalism in that NY Times review: There's nothing in the review that can be taken out of context and used as a positive pull-quote. Contrast with Scott Lefebvre's review of Feed: "This book brings something to survival horror that has long been absent: Fun!" "Plenty of fun to be had." "Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail with a dash of zombies."

March 22 2010, 04:31:06 UTC 7 years ago

This is very true.

And jeez, you're right. That reviewer really left himself wide open for quoting out of context.

lysystratae

March 20 2010, 21:37:36 UTC 7 years ago

I'm going to put the bad reviewer in the same catagory as the guy who thought they rewrote your book to put fairies in it - stupid people don't pay attention :)

March 22 2010, 04:31:23 UTC 7 years ago

Sadly true.

Post a new comment
74 comments

Log in

Shit sandwich, or, some thoughts on bad reviews.

Error