OW is OW because being a writer can hurt.
It hurts to be isolated all the time (trying writing with other people in the room!), it hurts sending your work out for some obviously incoherent moron to reject (how could anyone reject my baby?), it hurts that when you finally get your book published, you find it in the "remainder bin" at the bookstore half a year later.
I know: whine whine whine, have some wine on me--but then sprinkle salt on me to get the stain out. Or is it sparkling water that gets the stain out? When criticized publicly in a review, can ANYTHING get the stain out?
Outsider Writers do not write just for themselves, of course--you put words on paper in the hope someone else will read them (other than your parents). But they DO write for themselves more than a "mainstream" writer would. They do not write on assignment ("Gimme 75,000 words, a novel of lustful romance based on our General Outline B-12"), they do not take on books just to make money ("Wanna ghost write a book, If I Invaded Iraq For Totally Made Up Reasons And Lied To The American Public Because I Did Not Have The Guts To Tell Them The Truth, Here Is How I Would Have Done It).
No, alternative/independent authors write because they feel an interior need to go exterior--to express themselves, and hope they are saying something worthwhile enough that at least one other human being will get something useful from their writing.
I am 61. I sent out plenty o' stuff when I was a teenager, and all of it came back. Sometimes with form rejection letters, sometimes personal. That hurt--OW--so I simply stopped sending stuff out. It wasn't just the hurt of course, but an insecurity about whether the writing was actually any good or not. I mean heck, I know it looks good to me, at least right now--but who really knows how anyone else would see it?
So years went by without my sending anything out. In the late seventies to early eighties, I gave "living on my writing" a shot. It was ok, for five years. I made a decent living, mostly narration scripts for documentary films, some feature film screenplays (never produced, but I got paid), newspaper and magazine articles. I can't say any of it was fulfilling or better than a day job. And in some ways, it was worse--pretty close to selling my only deeply felt talent for a buck.
However, when I was looking at turning 60, something clicked in my head: you're gonna croak soon, buddy, time to get your ass in gear! I had been writing all along, had done a fair bit of volunteering with writers' organizations, but it's fair to say I was a total unknown as far as the world was concerned (my dog likes me). There were some internal politics in the local organizations, but nothing big--just the usual problem when you get people in a room together (yes, I am something of a misanthrope--if you don't agree with me, obviously you are part of the problem; if you do agree with me, that only reaffirms my low opinion of people. See? It's lose lose.)
Realizing that it was perhaps time to take a shot at literary immortality (i.e., getting published) I started sending stuff out. I also, as a result, became more involved in the literary world, in particular the online world. As it turned out, it's a lot easier to submit than in the old days, especially online. No more trips to the library or bookstore--you can browse websites. No more printed letters--you just email. Type my name into Google and you'll get some of the accepted stuff (none of it's a big deal).
But in going online and becoming active, I also eventually began to realize the enormous level, at least with some people, of negativity about mainstream literature, a lot of it deserved--but with me getting the feeling that if Random House wanted to publish one of these guys, he'd cry for joy (please see the excellent Jim Munroe's website, No Media Kings, for someone who had the guts to drop out of that mainstream system!) But it was not simply criticizing the mainstream. It was staking out territory! Guys (yes, it seems to be mostly guys who do this) were peeing all over literature, marking their space! I've never seen so much urine in my life as I've seen online, and I'm not talking about golden showers either (see how the web can educate a person?) I eventually left one organization because of the negativity, and the apparent need to attack rather than to build.
Shall I get to the point?
I allow comments on my two blogs (the book review, now here, and my personal blog, at http://victorhypertension.blogspot.com), but I must approve them. Recently, on my book review blog, one negative yenta posted a comment on a review: that the review was pablum, that all the reviews were pablum. He was trying to criticize me by criticizing the review. You won't read the comment because it was one of only two I've ever deleted (the other was a blogging spam from a porn site--same thing, in a way). I have allowed personal criticisms on the blog from the same person, but those were just criticisms of me. This was, in an attempt to attack me, also hurting an innocent victim--the writer who was the subject of the review. OW!
I wrote to the commenter, noting that in attempting to get back at me he was sideswiping an innocent writer. He wrote back: huh? me? no way!!
How he could not see that calling a review "pablum" was not also a negative attack on the writer is beyond me. Clearly writing "pablum" meant I was too easy on the writer. In turn, that meant I should have gone harder on the review, because, obviously, the reviewed work sucked. At least that is how I saw it.
This commenter sees hostility as the equivalent "honesty". He has peed over so much literature all his books need a dehumidifier.
I've written this rant and mention this now because if you go to the book review section on this site, which I run, you will generally find only positive reviews. Does this mean those reviews are pablum? Nope. It means that I want to direct readers towards good writing rather than warn them from bad.
It is true that I discourage reviewers from penning a critique of a book they don't like. What's the point? To tell a person not to read a book because it sucks? For a hyped book, okay--you don't want people to waste money on a book that's been heavily advertised, where they have been misled. For a very well known author, okay, people have a right to know if the author's current book is a disaster compared with her or his previous ones. But for an underground book that most people don't know about?
OW!
Yeah, writing hurts, so why post a negative review on an unknown writer, especially if it's the only review the writer may get?
Yes, I'm Mr. Sensitivity, and if you don't agree, fuck you.
(Ever wonder why the only words we have for making love are the same words for rudely disagreeing with someone or making a mistake?)
Not only that, but what if the reviewer did not like the review because she/he ate too much pizza the night before? What if that one reviewer raged against the book, but everyone else who read it loved it--but the only public review is negative? If you're serious about this stuff, there are a lotta moral questions involved.
I have many qualms about posting negative reviews--but if one of my reviewers submits a negative review, I run it. There are only two rules I have for that situation: the review should be constructive and the reviewer should not use a negative review to show off how smart he or she is, at the expense of the author.
There are books I've read which I have not reviewed on the site for this very reason. I thought the books were lousy, but knew that most readers would have never heard about them--so why waste the time of a reader by essentially writing, "Don't read this, it's terrible?" If someone's going to visit the site and scroll through the reviews, I'd rather have them saying, "Wow, look at all the great stuff I've been missing."
As for the jerk who wrote the comment you'll never see, let him eat pablum.
Last update : 20-03-2007 10:56
|
|
|
List All Content 
(0 vote)
...
By: Leopold (Guest) on 20-03-2007 10:50