as in, "if you DID like the book (or, erm, wrote it), you'll probably find my OTT derision irritating."

I didn't "pen a review," folks. I left a casual comment on GoodReads for my friends. I guess I wish I could do that without an insecure author and a condescending stranger fussing over it.

This exchange makes me laugh.

Cripes.

I didn't read the first story and rush to the computer to rip it apart. Nor did I finish the book. I read the first four stories in full. On a train, on my way home from work, at a library.

I was hoping to get moved or charmed or surprised by something so I could tell the friend who'd recommended "You Must Be This Happy..." which story had moved/charmed/surprised me. None did.

Then I impatiently skimmed several more stories when I got home. My strongest and most prevailing impression was that this book blew. From the first story on. So I posted my reaction to the first story, which I feel is representative of the others: "irritatingly cutesy-angsty-hipster-overly-everything."

Then I moved on with my life. Which, hey, you two could do, too. Though Josh might need to get one first.

I didn't like it, either. Can I have my 15 bucks back?

Hey folks- this isn't the New York Times or anything . Not everyone takes Goodreads so seriously, although if it's the only place you're getting reviewed, maybe that would shed some light on this strange exchange. As for not finishing it- well- that's why Rory put the book is on the "Started-not-finished" shelf. It's an opinion, and I'm sure we've all read books that we didn't feel were worth finishing. If we all liked the same books and felt the same way then life would be pretty boring, right?
So Ms. Crane, move on, realize you aren't going to win them all, and stop debating with readers on Goodreads. I'm sure it's turning people off.

A few things that I think about Elizabeth Crane. For one, it is awesome to see an author get so involved in a debate on Goodreads and not just sitting in some ivory-tower type isolation ala the New York Times. More and more authors, artists, etc. are using the evolution of the internet to be more connected to their readership, viewership, etc. It definitely didn't turn me off, I thought it was great to see an author respond to a review! It makes the whole reading process more of a conversation than just people saying things because they want to say them.

Another thing that may or may not be at issue here. Experimental writing. I admit I haven't read this new one yet, but now that it has come to my attention I can respond in a more informed way later on this week (or month, I'm a bit busy). But I did read When the Messenger is Hot. And I surely appreciate when an author writes differently than what we were all taught to do, ala most nonfiction: linear, predictable, full of those illusory facts. When I first read Liz Crane I found it to be in a markedly different voice than I'd ever heard, someone's real internal voice and unique strategy of putting a story together and how to use language to do it, not one masked by, like I said, how we were all taught to write. or in someone like david sedaris' case, what some people were taught would be super audience-friendly yet strangely always empty of any real message. But that's just me, maybe, oh, but also all of her other tons of fans.

Laura, I'm glad you wrote that GoodReads "makes the whole reading process more of a conversation than just people saying things because they want to say them." It really underlines that different people are gonna expect and want different things from social sites like this one.

Because, in the GR world, I DO want to "just [say] things because [I] want to say them." Meanwhile, I expect my GR friends to be the only ones who really give a toss. And 92% of the time, I take note only of what THEY'RE reading/liking. Not because I've got no interest in (or respect for) the wider GR community, but because I'm really reluctant to let my "to read" list get any longer!

When I made that remark about Elizabeth's book, I did not consider it a universal broadcast--I was sharing my (admittedly crude) quick take with pals. That's how I've chosen to participate in this particular folksonomy. Others, meanwhile, write more deliberate (and generally useful) reviews that they're probably dying for strangers and authors to notice.

There is, and should be, plenty of room on GoodReads for both approaches. I wasn't slagging off Elizabeth personally when I called "You Must Be This Tall" shitty, but her first comment WAS personal. It didn't open up a "conversation."

And the following comments weren't even about the book. Instead, Elizabeth and Josh criticized the way in which I'd READ it. What's more, their complaints were self-righteously rooted in a faulty assumption that I'd only read one story. How, exactly, is this "nice and engaging"?

I really appreciate that Laura at least wrote about the writing. Where as she (and, yes, I know--lots of other people) finds Elizabeth's "real internal voice" made for an interesting and refreshing read, I disliked. Not because it was experimental (I like Miranda July's stories, for example, especially "The Swim Team") but because I thought it was overwrought, self-indulgent and weirdly flat.