On Jul 16, 2012, at 5:43 PM, Dan Henby wrote: > >> 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. >
Well, I exaggerated that a bit . . . Never let the truth get in the way of a good story. > I wonder if that reviewer is still working? It would be funny to go back to > them and see if their opinion has changed. I have no idea. It was 30 years ago, after all. > > Thanks agin for your hard work. > You're welcome. Best, R.E.F. ---- www.crydee.com Never attribute to malice what can satisfactorily be explained away by stupidity.
