Sticks, Stones, and Bad Reviews

[rj_anderson]

No worries about that subject line, I haven't personally had any bad reviews yet (phew!). But then, I've hardly had any reviews yet at all... and I've been thinking about how to handle it when the comments really start coming in.

To any of my fellow writers who may read this, whether you're ficcers or in a critique group working on getting published or (especially) if you're an established pro -- how do you deal with reviews? Do you:

A) read them avidly, good and bad, trying to see what you can learn from them? (And if so, have they actually taught you anything, or just alternately exhilarated and depressed you?)

B) read only the good ones, and ignore the bad? (And if so, how do you manage to do this?)

C) read no reviews whatsoever? (And if so, why?)

I'm still undecided about the whole thing myself. I love hearing nice things about my writing (who doesn't?) but I also don't want to turn a deaf ear to any advice that could help me improve. On the other hand, as has often been said, "reviews are for readers", not the author, and many authors feel that reading them is really not helpful on a practical level and is only likely to discourage you and hurt your confidence in your next project. I'm not sure what the argument is for reading no reviews at all, though.

Anyway, if you have thoughts on this subject, as an author or a reader or a critic, I'd be glad to hear them.

Comments

[imaginarycircus.livejournal.com]

The first time I took a writing workshop 90% of the class told me my character was too whimsical and I was trying too hard to make her seem magical and delightful. They hated her. I was a little gobsmacked. And although I hadn't written a Mary Sue at all--I had made a lot of novice mistakes about not trusting my reader. Painful but instructive.

I'm not sure how many workshops I've been in since then, but when I teach now I ask my students to leave whether they liked something or not out of their critique because there will always be readers who don't like a work and probably at least some who do like it and in the early stages of a story that is not helpful at all. Critiques that are helpful explain what that reader's experience of the story was. Like the flower fairy comments--those critics were trying to name their reading experience. I honestly don't think that critic was trying to pigeonhole your work, but was only trying to explain what it was like for him/her. The same way you would explain what something tastes like. When it something new or unfamiliar you compare it to a known quality. A well constructed review should go on to say something about the merits or problems of the novel in particular with concrete examples.

If a critic says that dialog is trite and doesn't give concrete examples that isn't very helpful and is easy to dismiss. If someone gives concrete examples and I disagree I let it go. If someone gives concrete examples and I agree--I stow it away for next time. Learning craft is a never ending process.

The major differences between editorial feedback during the revision process and critical feedback after your novel is published is that it becomes a matter of public discussion instead of a closed dialog and you cannot change much after the book is out there unless you make changes for a future edition.

I don't know. I don't think writing novels is about getting it "right." It's about telling a good story. If you've done that--you've done your job. Short fiction is more about getting the form perfect.

Have you ever read Tobias Wolff's Bullet in the Brain? I think it is one of the most brilliant pieces of short fiction, but also a fabulous snapshot of a literary critic. (It's in his collection of short stories called The Night in Question.)

[rj-anderson.livejournal.com]

Some very good points there -- I especially like your take on what others called "pigeonholing"; I hadn't thought of it that way before, but I think you're quite right.

Haven't read that story by Wolff, but it sounds intriguing. Thanks for the rec!