Whose definition are we using?

Today, I'm writing about "professional behavior" because it's been coming up on other writer's blogs in all kinds of ways. I've seen writers talk about whether it's professional to write too negative reviews, or too positive reviews, or any reviews at all. I've seen writers talk about whether we should talk about our health, our finances or sales numbers, our political opinions, religious beliefs (or lack thereof), or our thoughts on publishers or other writers. All of these topics revolve around the notion that writers ought to behave according to a stricter code of conduct than other people do online.

Why? For the love of God, we're writers, not middle managers! We have more in common with musicians and artists than we do with desk jockeys. When other people dream of fleeing their cubicle hell jobs, they daydream of being writers, free to write and say whatever they want. Writers have acted as the critics of society and industry, and as the advocates of reading and critical thinking, from the beginning of the written word. It's part of our job description to be blabbermouths, and not everything we say will be positive puffs of sunshine. By now, people should have learned to deal with it. Instead, they're still suggesting that maybe writers should "tone it down with all that negativity." Not possible. It's part of the job description to be critical.

[image error]I'm not suggesting that writers should get away with murder, but I find it sad that in this modern era of open communication, one of the topics of discussion among writers this year is what we should or shouldn't say in front of our readers. Part of the problem is, we're never seen as being off the clock. Every blog post we write is taken as part of our "branding effort," and every status update we send on Facebook becomes a matter of public record, even if we restrict our list to "real friends." Writers have no off-time in the online world, and so that builds the public expectation of us behaving "professionally."

Begging your pardon, folks, but whose definition of professional are we operating on? Because this sounds like the definition for a professional politician, not a professional indie author of weird and dark fiction. My job is not to write a blog. Really, it's not. I don't make a dime off of my blog, and no matter how many posts I add, that never changes. I write fiction, or clever lies, and I sell them to you. I only make money when you buy my lies. So, my definition of professional behavior is, I get up and write all day. I'm always busting my ass to put out more work, and that's my professional behavior.

When you read my stories, that's me on the clock. That's where I work to get rid of as many typos as I can. You bought the book and paid me, so my writing has to earn my paycheck. That's where I need you to see me as a professional. But when you come to my blog, you're reading my thoughts outside of my job. It's like you've followed me to the pub to listen to me ramble over a pint of lager and a bowl of nuts. (Hehe, nuts.) That's the point of me having a blog, so you can see some side of me outside of my writing. It's where I'm supposed to talk about my hobbies and my interests. It's where I give my opinions on current world events.

Given that my main hobby is reading, a lot of my posts are fiction reviews. Some of those reviews are not positive. Hey, it happens. Generally, if I am unable to finish a book, I will post a review on Goodreads, but not here on the blog. That's not always true, and there have been exceptions. I'm sure there will be more exceptions in the future too. But some folks have suggested that because I'm also a writer, I shouldn't make negative reviews. Why? Because readers might see it as sour grapes from another writer. So, one camp says I can't post a positive book review because it might be seen as favoritism, and another says I shouldn't post a negative review because that's seen as being mean? Where does that leave me in expressing my interests as a reader? Does my position as a writer invalidate my ability to evaluate the work of other writers?

With all due respect, fuck that. If I decide I don't like a book and I want to write a negative review, I will. If I decide to gush and make a 5 star review, I can do that too. In neither case will my review have anything to do with the writer. It's all about the story, whether I'm raving or ranting. That's the whole point of a review, right? I tell you what I feel about the work without giving too much away. Then you decide if you want to plunk down the money to check the story out. Maybe you will, and you'll come away with a vastly different take. But the purpose of the review isn't to be a rah-rah sales cheerleader for the book or the writer. It's a book report from one reader seeking to inform other readers.

These reviews are also my efforts at reading advocacy. I feel that more people should read as a hobby, and I want to support writers at all levels of the profession. Which is why I plan to continue posting reviews of books as I read them. Some will be gushing squee-fests, and others will be rants. The only books I don't review are those that don't register with me. I read them, but I don't feel anything for the events or the characters. In those cases, I don't write anything because I don't feel anything. So if I dislike something strongly enough to write a bad review, you can be sure there's no hidden agenda, no attempt to discredit or smear another writer. I just reacted badly to the story and feel a need to express my opinion. And I can do that. Viva freedom of expression!

Occasionally, I have been known to wade into a major controversy to deliver an unpopular opinion. That another reason why I keep a blog. It serves as a place for me to vent or rant on topics that I run across during my daily online commutes on new sites. It's where you come to read me off the clock, warts, typos, and all. If I felt I had to filter out what I wrote about so only "safe topics" are left, I would just as soon shut down my blog and never offer anything but my stories. And that would be pretty damned boring.