> Well, criticism is pointless, for a start. As David Gerrold is fond of > telling readers and want to be writers at workshops, "Where the hell were you > at 3 am the week before deadline when I needed a better idea?" It's always > in process, so if you want to praise or condemn a work I finished over a year > and a half ago, it's your prerogative. Either way I ignore it because it > does me personally no good regarding the craft. See, if you think quality > has fallen off, I've got readers sending me notes and e-mails saying they > like the new stuff better than anything I did back in the day. So, who am I > to listen to? The guy who thinks Magician is the best ever or the guy who > thinks Kingdom Besieged is the best ever? Best advice my dad ever gave me > was "If you believe the good reviews, then you've got to believe the bad > one's too. So best to not believe any of them." The first big time review I > got was above the fold in the Sunday Book Section of the Washington Post, two > columns and the guy liked Magician better than my mom did. One week later > the book reviewer at the Charlotte Observer pretty much said I should be shot > for writing in the English language and everyone at Doubleday should be fired > for publishing Magician. I think my ex-wife put those two side by side in a > scrapbook she made for me. She always had a quaint sense of humor. > > My opinion is you're catching flak not because you liked Magician better than > Besieged, but because you characterized the work as falling off because I'm > bored with the world. We've never met; you don't know me. You and I have > never had a conversation about how my process works, what my overall vision > is, or any other meaningful aspect of the story arc, to the best of my > knowledge, yet you presume to characterize it as an aspect of my respect or > lack thereof for the material and my readership. > > Me, I don't care. You're free to like what you like. But apparently some of > the others on this board took umbrage. > > And I don't debate my work with anyone (save my editor) because the work must > speak for itself. Which is one of the points I stress with want to be > writers at workshops, i.e. "If you're telling me what you're doing in chapter > 4, put it in chapter 4 because you're not going to be standing in every > bookshop on the planet explaining to the buyer what you're doing in chapter > 4." > > I'll take about pretty much anything that interests me, but I'll never debate > the work. > > Best, R.E.F. > > ---- > www.crydee.com > > Never attribute to malice what can satisfactorily be explained away by > stupidity. > > Ray, I've heard your above story before, and it tells the tale precisely. Most people want to hear the good reviews and don't want to believe in the bad ones. But when you have an audience of several million (or whatever) you're going to find people who love you and who hate you. I prefer the audience of one.
And .....really? Shot for writing in the English language? Wow, that is the harshest thing I've ever read that has been published. Fire an entire department for your book. I wonder if that reviewer is still working? It would be funny to go back to them and see if their opinion has changed. Thanks agin for your hard work. Dan.
