Legitimacy--question to readers.

[sartorias]

When I was thirteen, I used to carry a pen around wherever I went so that people would see it and know I was a writer. I'm sure now if anyone even bothered to notice my myopic, zit-faced self, the pen just looked stupid, especially as it marked up most of my clothes. But I thought people would see past the dorky clothes, the scrawny, awkward

Comments

[frumiousb]

It's certainly made the feedback feel more direct. I've been writing capsules about the books that I read for some time now-- in journals, at Amazon, and now in my own journal. I've noticed in the last few years with so many writers blogging that I have started to get responses from the writers themselves, or friends of the writers. Interestingly (at least to me) there are now a few writers who I cannot read without having their online presence in mind.

It's often interesting and occasionally has led to some lively conversations. But it has also lately taken on a pecking order flavor all its own-- kind of a tone against non-writer reviewers. Occasionally it takes on a feeling that only professional reviewers and other writers are qualified to discuss someone's work. I don't like that very much.

[sartorias]

Eugh, no. But the proliferation of book reviews and discussions was a big part of wanting to participate in the interwebs.

[coalescent]

But it has also lately taken on a pecking order flavor all its own-- kind of a tone against non-writer reviewers. Occasionally it takes on a feeling that only professional reviewers and other writers are qualified to discuss someone's work.

I haven't felt that myself, but I do think the extent to which writers make up the sf blogosphere -- in comparison to, say, the broader litblogosphere -- ends up distorting the nature of the discussion that happens quite a bit.

[sartorias]

How? Too much networking/backslapping/touting of one another's stuff in friendship circles? I see a lot of the latter, but then have to think, well, the reason they became friends was because they loved one another's stuff so much, so the legitimacy of their enthusiasm can't be disallowed.

[coalescent]

I think the effect is largely inhibitory; people say less than they mean, or say what they mean more cryptically than they otherwise would, because they know there's a very good chance that the author will read it, and although some authors can be perfectly civil, there are plenty who can't. I'm feeling quite disillusioned about the sf blogosphere as a venue for serious discussion of books at the moment (again, as opposed to the broader litblogosphere) -- there's plenty of chat, but not much in-depth analysis.

[sartorias]

Quite true. Various attempts I've seen at establishing a critical site have fallen (at least, so I've seen) to discussion of the same old names, making the same old points. I don't really know how to solve this one. I have to admit, when I feel the desire to dig into a text, I tend to channel that into older literature, where I can follow contemporary discussions and read modern critical texts, or in person.

[sartorias]

I've noticed that too. Here are my guesses--first, people feel intimidated. They might feel they need to respond at the same critical level, which few people can dash off with any grace or precision, much less depth. So one thinks, oh, I'll come back to that. And even might think about a response, but by the time they can get back to the net, there's a truckload of new posts to catch up on, and the impulse is buried.

The net presently seems to lean toward the post and response on the fly.

[scribblerworks]

An interesting (to me) perspective on the situation. And perhaps why I intuitively set up my website as I did. I can put up more permanet reviews (or even "papers" - when I get to them) about things there, and leave the blogging places to be for more "in the moment" responses to things.

But, that works because I've intentionally decided to maintain multiple internet contact points. For those who only want one point... it's harder because, well, how do you differentiate between the immediate response to something and the more studied, analytical one?

[coalescent]

I'm impatient for the end of the month, when I will have time to start making contributions to the discussion again myself. Fingers crossed that you're right about the cycle.

[david_de_beer]

pretty much summed up my exact thoughts on the matter. The only thing I can think of that might work is something similar to Dear Author, where the reviewers are kept anonymous. Allows the freedom to say your mind and be honest.
There'll still be "let's all go pile on the idiot who dissed my mate!" stuff, but least it can be ignored better.

It doesn't counter just non-writers though, sometimes writers will stop talking, or withdraw more either out of fear of their opinion being held against them, or because they don't want to upset people they might run into somewhere.

[frumiousb]

I think that this is true, yes. And I find myself that the biggest risk I have from knowing writes online is to self-censor.

I recently wrote a long response to a critically popular SF book with which I had many problems as a reader. I admired it, but I didn't like it. Afterwards, I discovered that the author was quite closely linked to a number of my separate online friend circles. Having written it, I would not now take it down. However, I have to admit that if I read another book by the same author, I am not sure that I would go into such detail about the issues I had with the work.

[frumiousb]

I haven't felt it as much as heard it-- kinds of conversations between people to which I've been a tolerated party. This plus a bit of complaining from the published writers about Amazon reviews and reviewers.

[sartorias]

Yes!

[david_de_beer]

>kind of a tone against non-writer reviewers.

yeah, seen it, hate it.

>Occasionally it takes on a feeling that only professional reviewers and other writers are qualified to discuss someone's work. I don't like that very much.

nor I. not going to get into it here, but don't stop putting out your opinion, just because some writers are huffy and their mates get huffy on principle.
Readers pay the bills writers live on, they are most entitled to have an opinion. More of a case that writers should shut up than vice versa.
Every new writer and new book I've picked up in the last couple years has been through the blogosphere, and none of them through "professional" reviewers recommendations.