Seanan McGuire (seanan_mcguire) wrote,
Seanan McGuire
seanan_mcguire

  • Mood:
  • Music:

The lines of interaction.

Common wisdom among authorial circles says "do not respond to reviews." I consider this a mantra, and practically have it cross-stitched on my living room wall. Good review? Happiness. Bad review? Sadness. Review which bears no resemblance whatsoever to the book I wrote, leading me to wonder where the reviewer gets their books, since if they have a dimensional portal, I want to borrow it? Bewilderment. But nowhere in there do you find a class of review that comes with "engage reviewer and either look smug or bitch about how they don't understand your genius."

I will respond to reviewers, if we have a relationship, however casual it may be. The majority of the reviews I link to are found by my helpful Google spiders, which skitter around the Internet bringing me things without concern for my feelings. I tell them they're good and feed them lots of flies. Some reviews, however, come to me because the reviewer emails me directly to say "I reviewed your book." In those cases, I feel entirely justified in replying, privately, with "Wow, I'm glad you liked it," or "I'm sorry this wasn't your cup of tea, hopefully the next book will suit you better." Because we're in a private setting, interacting like people, as long as I'm polite, I'm okay.

The lines start to get a little blurry when newer forms of social media come into play. Like Twitter. If someone @'s me, they know I'm going to see their Tweet the next time I check my @replies. That's the culture of the system, which is built on the expectation of/hope for interaction. I don't answer every @reply, but I make an effort to read them all, and answer the majority. So am I responding to a review, or am I sticking to the dominant culture of the platform? What about on Facebook, where people tag to your profile? They know that doing so will send you a notification. Is that an invitation to interact, or is it a sad reality of the system?

Miss Manners never had to deal with being a polite, professional working author in the Internet Age. I think that's why she doesn't have any pointers for certain kinds of behavior, and why she never considers "get a baseball bat" to be the appropriate beginning to a polite response.

So where are the lines for you? What do you think is the boundary for "polite" authorial behavior—and from the other side, what's the boundary for behaving politely toward authors? Inquiring minds want to know.
Tags: contemplation
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 98 comments
These are fabulous rules.

I try to be good about things, I really do. I know full well that the Internet is forever, and well. I want to be well-behaved enough that if I have a day where I snap and start screaming, people will forgive me a little more than they otherwise might.
Thank you. And that's an excellent point; people are more likely to forgive someone who acts out of character once or twice than they are someone whose character is just bad.

I spent three months doing my legal internship at a firm that did employment and banking. I divided my time between the two, so I spent, what, six weeks or so in each.

Even in that little time--a tiny snapshot in time for a profession where a single matter can drag on for years or decades--I still saw cases in BOTH categories (employment I expected; banking was a surprise) that involved stuff said on the internet coming out as ammunition, when the speakers thought they were anonymous (or at least speaking in private, or assuming nobody but their buddies would read it even though it wasn't protected), getting dragged through the legal system. It was serious food for thought; I always thought you should be polite online because I was taught to be polite and to respect the impact your words can have (I have often goofed up on this score, but I try), but I didn't fully appreciate just how problematic the net can be for saving EVERYTHING until I spent hours digging up things party opponents said so that their words could be flung back at them in deposition or at trial.
I truly wish more people understood that the Internet is forever, and made an effort not to say things they'd regret.