The occasional links and opinion post, on the week that just was…
Links of Interest
In Slate, The Purpose of Science Fiction:
That said, our job is not to predict the future. Rather, it’s to suggest all the possible futures—so that society can make informed decisions about where we want to go. George Orwell’s science-fiction classic Nineteen Eighty-Four wasn’t a failure because the future it predicted failed to come to pass. Rather, it was a resounding success because it helped us prevent that future.
A response from The New Yorker’s Book Bench (Via @Book Bench)
Sawyer writes that it “raises profound questions about who should have the right to create living things and what responsibility the creators should have to their creations and to society.” This seems like a good prescription for writers of any sort, who are creators of “living” literature. Is Gary Shteyngart’s novel “Super Sad True Love Story” sci-fi or literary fiction? Who cares? In a reality increasingly permeated with science, as the lines between reality and manufactured reality, science and art, creator and created fade, it follows that genre lines should, too.
While I agree, I can’t help but find it interesting how literary types refuse to allow genre distinctions when they place anything good on the genre-only side of the divide.
*****
Robin @Tuphlos Bradford posting at Lauren Dane’s blog about libraries(via @Mike Cane):
The book culture is about sharing. The book culture is about falling in (and sometimes out of) love with books. Readers talk, extensively, about breaking up with series and authors. There is a stop, though, between “I love this series” and “I’m done with this series” and that stop is: the library. Long running series would be a lot shorter without the library. When readers are tired of reading the same book June after June, they stop buying. New authors have come along they would rather spend their money on. But if the library has the book, they may make an effort to keep up if they still have some interest left in the tank. Maybe the last two books were horrible, but this one looks promising, so they’ll check it out from the library. If it works, interest may be re-ignited. If it doesn’t work, the breakup may be final. But do you really think people will keep buying books they have no interest in reading? Really?
*****
I really enjoyed this Totally Hip Book Reviewer vid from WaPo book critic Ron Charles. My favorite bit is when Charles says: “Oh, I’ve just been handed a note by the 92nd Street Y asking me to speed things up” while a “Refunds available in the lobby” shows on screen. (via @mathitak)
*****
In the NYTRB, philosopher Ronald Dworkin’s essay on What is a Good Life? I thought readers of this blog might appreciate this bit:
If we want to make sense of a life having meaning, we must take up the Romantics’ analogy. We find it natural to say that an artist gives meaning to his raw materials and that a pianist gives fresh meaning to what he plays. We can think of living well as giving meaning—ethical meaning, if we want a name—to a life. That is the only kind of meaning in life that can stand up to the fact and fear of death. Does all that strike you as silly? Just sentimental? When you do something smaller well—play a tune or a part or a hand, throw a curve or a compliment, make a chair or a sonnet or love—your satisfaction is complete in itself. Those are achievements within life. Why can’t a life also be an achievement complete in itself, with its own value in the art in living it displays.
*****
Interesting: Author Pseudonyms: Helpful or Harmful, with lots of examples, at Don’t Talk Just Read.
*****
Read a Book for Ten Minutes Each Night and Save Publishing? Author Sean Cummings thinks so. So does my son’s third grade teacher.
*****
From the Online Education Database, the 50 Best Blogs for Humanities Scholars. Devoid of the good feminist blogs, like Feministing or Feminist Philosophers, devoid of the good blogs devoted to race issues, like Racialicious, and a very heavy focus on blogs attached to print journalism. *sigh* (via Books Inq.)
*****
An amusing critique of the concept of author branding. What Color is Your Font, by Steve Weddle. Good discussion in the comments, too:
Think about what makes you buy a book. It’s the postcards, right? The bookmarks left behind at the signings? You know, that’s how most of the books on my shelves were bought. I saw a catchy postcard near the register at the bookstore and said, “Damn. Look at that postcard. That’s the same font I saw on a bookmark last week. That author must tell a damn good story.”
*****
Don’t ever interrupt me when I’m readin’ a book…
*****
A different look at piracy from an author in the Phillipines. (via @cjewel):
The problem with discussions of eBook piracy, or simply giving away your work for free, is that it doesn’t affect everyone equally. If you’re popular like J.K. Rowling or Stephen King, then it’s mostly a loss to you, since you’re not really after fame but income (to say nothing of the futility of stamping out each and every pirate). To obscure writers, like say a genre writer in the Philippines, it’s probably more of a gain, since we’re not popular enough in the first place to acquire a sufficient following to earn a significant amount from our writing. My friend Lavie Tidhar laments that his books aren’t being pirated and to a certain extent, piracy is a popularity metric; if no one is pirating you, then there’s little demand for your writing.
*****
A helpful video … How to Strip DRM from Your Kindle books (via @janel)
*****
A fun contest (closes some time on Tuesday I think) from Smart Bitches celebrating 6 years of blogging. Sarah Wendell asked entrants to post their 6 favorite things about romance. Over 300 entries provide an interesting — and fairly consistent — list of top attractions, especially “escape”, “HEA”, and “the men”. Wendell may or may not have promised to devise a contest post mortem pie chart.
*****
From Tricia of Literary Sluts, You’re Not a Traditionalist, You’re A Snob.
*****
Someone started a rumor that Ellora’s Cave doesn’t publish forced seduction stories and Kelli Collins sets them straight.
*****
Two authors make the case against writing reviews: Stacia Kane, demonstrating the fine art of digging a hole, here, here, here, and finally here. Also Jeanine Frost.
*****
I noticed a romance website that was formerly flash free has succumbed to the allure of the flash ad. Finding these ads a huge distraction from content, I decided to reintroduce Flash block. I soon became greedy and upgraded to Adblock Plus. Bliss!
*****
Personal
I spent the entire Sunday in bed, at first thinking I was hung over from my late night at the EURO LOUNGE (cue disco music and very bad martinis), and then, by 10:00am, realizing I was just sick. I read Michelle Reid’s The Italian’s Future Bride, at Tumperkin’s suggestion, which I found depressing, and we plan a post on it soon. I also hope to publish that post on Lover Awakened.
I also watched a few episodes of Spartacus: Blood and Sand. I can’t remember the last time the sheer power of good looking men kept me glued to the screen. But it sure happened yesterday:
![](http://www.readreactreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/spartacus_blood_and_sand_episode_110_2010_685x385-300x168.jpg "spartacus_blood_and_sand_\")
Now that I am recovered, I am back to PBS of course.
HAPPY WEEK!
Related posts:
This is just to say
that I love your stepbacks
especially when I have papers to grade
I have now purchased the mp3 f or that Julian Smith song…
For your Firefox add-on arsenal, I’d like to suggest Stop Autoplay, too.
That video dude falls squarely in the Uncanny Valley.
Enjoyed the post on libraries very much, and totally agree.
I find it amusing that the follow up post on Kane’s blog looks like she was getting shit for saying reviewers were for readers.
Ok it would be amusing if it wasn’t so sad. If you can’t take people disagreeing with you, you shouldn’t be an author and you shouldn’t blog. And if you do blog don’t have the comments on… maybe I missed something on twitter but I didn’t see anyone ‘bash’ her. Hell at least authors get paid.
My tone was prolly harsh but no more than hers was and if she can’t take it she shouldn’t use it. But what do I know, I tend to think post that say ‘I am thinking about stopping blogging cuz people are being mean to me’ are nothing but cries for love and no no please stop don’t go we nnnnnnneeeeeeedddddddddd you.
I don’t recall ANYONE taking her seriously enough to think she had any power to do anything. In fact I said ‘trying 2 b threatening’ because of the fact I do not think she or other authors can keep a ‘good book ‘ from being sold. But maybe it was in all the emails she was getting? Or other twitters? dunno
Less random than you think…at least for me. You just sent me to a bunch of interesting places!
I’m reminded of the lyrics to On Your Way Down – the same people you misuse on your way up, you might meet up on your way down.
Thanks for all the lovely weirdness today.
I found it fascinating to read that reviews are meant for selling books and nothing else and enjoyed the dichotomy of an author claiming that we should all keep ourselves nice and then completely fail to do so herself. I thought Lynne Connelly and Jill Sorensen’s comments were a breath of fresh air.
I agree that snobbishness is often to be found in the anti e-book statements and think that Julian Smith looks like bad Angel.
I wonder why science fiction has to be ‘for’ something and is this a burden that all genre fiction carries; the need to justify it’s exisitence. I agree that SF came from a 19th century that was discovering the world in which we lived and a 20th century where the world was changing through it’s technologies and that SF represents these things. I don’t think it explores them or takes us into radically new places because when I read old SF they have dated. Writers write what they know and extrapolate from that and most often they take their own culture as a start point with all the assumptions built into that.
Interesting. This article says that we are entering the age of 1984 now. And some would say other non-democracy regimes have used it as a model to create their governments. Nevertheless, I’ve read and enjoyed Mary Shelley’s tale and even though I knew it was written in the “Age of Enlightment,” I hadn’t put it together directly with Darwin’s theories and his research timelines.
Your genre comment: spot on.
The v-review was fun stuff.
Started to look at the Kane stuff but it seemed rather long and exhausting after so many posts. Even drafted some words. Argh, going to sleep instead.
Pennames piece was interesting but I need to think about it more. Nora Roberts wrote under more pennames than just Nora & J.D. Robb. Patterson wrote in different genres after he became hugely successful. I think the piece needs more examples outside of the romance genre and the counterargument which is that an author whose career is kind of dead under one penname can jump-start their career under a new one.
Interestingly enough, I think Anne Stuart might have released a book under a new penname this year.
I’ve been going back and forth on the bad-reviews-written-by-authors thing. There are some books I want to trash so badly I have to sit on my fingers for days. Most of the books I want to trash on the basis of editing (and I think I still may do that–I can tell when a book has promise and the writer has some raw talent, but had an editor that knew less than nothing).
I haven’t made up my mind on this yet, because I’m sensitive to the fact that I come from the sewers of the ghetto of publishing, but then… That’s not so much a sewer anymore. In fact, the ghetto may be about halfway gentrified by now.
But then are *some* authors who have been extremely vocal and downright hateful about wanting to keep self-publishing in the sewer of the ghetto…
@Moriah Jovan: I don’t see a bad review as “trashing it”. Trashing a book would be another thing. Couldn’t you review the book, give your opinion, be honest and not ‘trash it’?
@Sybil:
Oh, certainly, I can and do. I used the word “trashed” because some books make me so mad that my anger (no matter how careful I am to be calm and logical in the post itself) makes me FEEL like I trashed it. (And some books have made me mad because they were so rich in promise that was never fulfilled because the editor wasn’t up to the task.)
I wrote a post on a book I wanted to love in the worst way and I couldn’t make it past chapter one because the writing was so elementary (plus other problems). I didn’t name the book or the author, but that didn’t mean I didn’t get some backlash from the author and her friends. There is no riposte to “Yeah, well, *I* got published and yours is so crappy you had to publish it yourself.”
See, I even feel this post is bitter, and it’s not. It’s just that I *do* feel I have to be careful. But my patience is wearing thin. I’m PAYING for these books and I’m starting to feel ripped off.
That said, our job is not to predict the future. Rather, it’s to suggest all the possible futures—so that society can make informed decisions about where we want to go.
And also to comment on what society is doing now.
Yay for cheesy tv. I can tell I’m really sick when I’m watching “Teletubbies” and am intrigued enough not to care when segments are repeated.
@Liz: Get thee to the gradery!
@Chris: I love that song. Especially the line about “stealing” from the library. Thanks for the add on tip.
@willaful: Glad you enjoyed the links!
@Sybil: I think bloggers complaining about bad reactions to posts is about the same as authors complaining about bad reviews. You feel something strongly, you want to express it, but … it is rarely a good idea, rarely fixes the problem, and usually makes you look bad.
I got dizzy trying to follow the logic in some of those posts. I think the tone was very strong, and that was why it was off putting. It wasn’t just “Hey, unpublished writer, you may want to be aware of some possible negative consequences of certain online behavior once you become an author. Here, let me tell you about them, and share my strategy…”.
It was, and I am quoting:
That is categorical. “Don’t do y”, with an implied “or else”. It is not nuanced at all. But then, look at the very next paragraph:
Sounds quite a bit different to me. This one says, “If you want to avoid potentially negative consequence X, maybe think hard before doing Y.”
I don’t think authors have to write online book reviews [nor do I think they have an obligation NOT to in most cases], and I agree with Kane that if published authors would like to write online book reviews, they must be prepared for the possibility that authors will get upset about the reviews, that some readers will question and malign their motives, and some might even send angry emails.
But she fails to note that all of us who are online reviewers are subject to the very same consequences.
Are the consequences more dire when the people who are upset might be the very same people who could become the unpublished writer’s agent, editor, or publisher? Maybe. I don’t know. The Decadent publishing incident of … what? a week ago? … reveals this to be a possibility. I just think it’s for each individual writer to assess the real risks, whatever they are, in light of her goals and make her own decision.
Jess – in the internet age, it’s very interesting how things come back to bite you in the ass. Really and truly, once you put your words out there, they never go away. Look at all the facebook turmoil – employers finding out information about employees, colleges learning about students and the things they do??? I mean, upload it and it’s anybody’s baby. Sucka!
As an author, I feel perfectly comfortable recommending a book. I’m also comfortable letting my readers know what I’m currently reading. I would not feel comfortable writing a detailed review. That’s just me. Some authors do write interesting, thought-provoking reviews. For the most part, they tend to stay pretty positive because they too have been in the hot seat and it does not feel good.
Quite honestly, I prefer to read reviews written by readers and or readers/reviewers. I generally get a better feel for the book.
@Jessica: I think it is silly in the extreme to post anything, anywhere about anything then get upset if people don’t like it.
Do you always expect to be agree with? Maybe those are the people tumbler (whatev they are call) accounts are for. As for authors reviewing or not, personally I think it is for each person to decide. I am a reader. So don’t care. And am cynical so would always find it suspect. If someone only posts praise I generally dismiss it out of hand.
BUT that is just me, I know of other readers who are happy to try out authors their faves rec…
Any author is welcome to think whatever they want about reviewers, reviews and the whole author reviewing thing. If they wanna hold a grudge against people giving them bad grades who then become authors, well my question is still how do they do that? Is there a bad list of reviews with names kept ‘just in case’ so every time someone emails u a question you check off who has been naughty or nice? (well only if they are authors? or all?)
Sorry that is sarcasm and I am sure doesn’t make me look, oh good god that doesn’t make me look any different than I normally do. ::shrug::
I think Stacia Kane’s original advice got lost in there somewhere, but I agree that authors should choose our words carefully and be aware that we’re sometimes under a microscope. I started writing a post about why I review months ago, but I’m reluctant to finish it because of the scrutiny it might generate. (I’d rather stay on the down low!) Not to mention that I have about a hundred different points and mixed feelings to try to articulate. All of which I will save for a post that may never see the light of day.
One thing I will say is that I’m uncomfortable with the underlying message (not explicitly stated by Kane, but suggested by Painter? I think) that we should be *especially* careful when criticizing authors who are in a more advantageous position. As if the little people don’t matter–as much.
Anyway, I’m a big fan of Stacia’s blog because she’s interesting and I disagree with her a lot. I don’t usually comment, but I enjoy reading. It would be boring to read stuff that I agree with all the time.
Sybil and Jessica:
The way I see it, it’s these kinds of misunderstandings that you’re expressing here (and other places) that are what Stacia was talking about getting frustrated about.
I mean, practically half your twitter feed after you read Stacia’s post, is about that post. You’re kind of proving her point, about how you never know how things you say can be blown out of proportion, for her, just like the comments, e-mails etc she’s been getting from people.
Sybil, yes, your tone was (in my ears) very harsh. A lot of your criticism about her post wasn’t about what the post said, but how you perceived the tone. But the main problem was that you weren’t disagreeing with Stacia’s opinion. You were ascribing an opinion to her about something, and then disagreeing with her on that. Have you really read the comments section on Stacia’s site? She doesn’t have a problem with discussing things, and people having different opinions. The problem is when people criticize her for something she never said.
I’m a reader, but I realize that Stacia’s original post didn’t have anything to do with people who just review, but with reviewers who also aspire to be published. I agree with Stacia, that I don’t get what’s so hard to understand about that? If you’re just a reviewer, then that post wasn’t about you. And as for you talking about how authors shouldn’t hold a grudge – Stacia said, time and time again that that was far from her point. This isn’t about holding a grudge, it’s about business. Why is that hard to understand? When you say that all the authors commenting with similar opinions to Stacia’s are just there to support her as a friend, did it occur to you that it might also be that they’re commenting because they genuinly agree with her?
Another one of the points you wanted to make, was that you think it sounds as if authors should be silenced, and not say what they feel about things. First, I have to say that you yet again prove her point by posting the things you post. She didn’t say authors (well, she actually talked about people who want to be authors, not published authors) shouldn’t say what they want, simply that, if they do, they should be aware that there could be consequences in some form. (Like in this, case people grossly misinterpreting what you’re trying to say, and then criticizing you for it.)
When she says that there will be consequences, of course she doesn’t mean that in like a mafia context or something, which you seem to take it. But that if you post something on the internet, be aware that anyone might be reading it.
It is a business, and authors and agents are in the business of selling books. Selling enough so that they possibly can live off the profits. Stacia didn’t say she agreed about the fact that it’s unwise of authors to always give their opinion on things. She simply stated the fact that it is unwise given how the business works. (Again, you prove her point by misunderstanding what she’s trying to say. Would you have cared as much about her opinion if she hadn’t been a published author?)
It sucks that you can’t say what you want, and I know Stacia agrees with that, but it’s just a fact.
What I’ve written here, will probably look combatative to you (and I guess it is), but it just annoys me that you seem to disagree with Stacia on a point she never tried to make. That’s what’s frustrating to her (and to me).
Also, have you noticed that neither of you seem to really discuss what Stacia actually said, but the way she said it? You keep commenting on the “tone” of her post, not the content. Why does that bother you so much?
@Merrian:
I do think in the romance blogosphere at least, this is a major, if not the primary, function of book reviews, but there are others.
@Jill Sorenson:
I think so. This is what I meant by “digging a hole.”
I can see why this bothers you. I think her point was that a person with greater stature and power has a better chance of having the ability to make you pay for a negative review if she so chooses, and this is, I think, true. On the other hand, she may be less likely to use that ability since her success has made her generous and merciful, LOL.
For me it all comes down to (a) how realistic is the threat of negative consequences, and (b) how to you rate speaking freely about fellow authors on the interwebs against not ruffling feathers. That’s a personal decision, I think.
@Jill Sorenson:
@Marie: Marie, I don’t think you know a thing about my twitter feed. I made only a few comments, interspersed with many more tweets about my usual topics, and here they are:
The only potentially negative tweet I made was this one, and I was right:
As for tone versus substance, the reason I don’t offer arguments against the substance of Kane’s original view about authors writing reviews is because I agree with her.
She allowed criticism to upset her (she admits this herself), causing her to post additional emotional posts that revealed a number of viewpoints with which I disagree. For example, the “negative reviewers are mean” bit. But I hadn’t mentioned any of that here.
@Jessica: You’re absolutely right, I don’t know anything about your twitterfeed. I thought about clarifying that part of my comment, because I originally addressed my comment just to Sybil, but thought that some of what I was saying applied to my views on your comment as well (how nobody seemed to be discussing the issue), so I included you. I should’ve clarified that I was talking about Sybil’s twitterfeed.
I’m sorry, but I still don’t see the “negative reviewers are mean” part that you see.
I have to say as well, that I don’t understand what the horrible thing is about getting emotional, as long as you still manage to write a blog post that gets your point across. But I guess if a post is perceived as too emotional, some people will be put off by that.