Q&A with Josh Lanyon discussion
note: This topic has been closed to new comments.
ARCHIVE (General Topics)
>
Writing Questions for Josh
I feel bad now. :( I do a lot of work electronically, but at some point, I usually need a hard copy in hand--usually for heavy rewrites. Edits I can do on a screen, but when I am making huge global changes, I need to be able to flip, to see notes and highlighting, to compare pages simultaneously,... I need to see all the puzzle pieces at once, to continue with Josh's analogy.
With my most recent manuscript, I am trying to rewrite without printing, but I'm getting to the point where I kind of need to. I am such a visual and tactile person. I can't just work with words...I sort of feel the structure of the story in my head...and it is hard for me to visualize without printing.
But, I am still cutting down on printing unless I absolutely need to. I used to print TONS and STACKS of articles for class reading, and I do all of that reading on my iPad now (made easy by a PDF annotation app). And I do almost all of my writing, editing, etc. electronically. Just wish that the annotation app would work for me when I'm doing fiction rewrites. But no go. :(
Kari wrote: "Christine wrote: "YES.#iamnotcrazy"
Where's the fun in that? ;-p"
Ha!
Christine wrote: "I feel bad now. :( I do a lot of work electronically, but at some point, I usually need a hard copy in hand--usually for heavy rewrites. Edits I can do on a screen, but when I am making huge glob..."
Don't feel bad about using paper! I use paper a lot myself. I find more things to fix. I proofread for others a lot at work and I always print out the item first.
Just keep it in a bin and take it to the recycle yard if it makes you feel better. Nothing wrong with using paper.
I *have* to proof read on paper. I use only recycled paper and I print the text I have to proofread on paper already printed on one side.
Josh wrote: "The first anything I had published was poetry. In fact, for many years, I thought I was going to be a poet."It did make me happy to read that. Is it still possible to buy some of your poetry?
Christine wrote: "I feel bad now. :( I do a lot of work electronically, but at some point, I usually need a hard copy in hand--usually for heavy rewrites. Edits I can do on a screen, but when I am making huge glob..."
Nonfic, I still need in paper. It's physically impossible for my brain to absorb new data unless I first highlight it, then put a sticky note by it. :-D
Josh wrote: The first draft is slow motion drudgery.Thank you! Now I don't feel so weird. There may be hope for me yet.:)
My question for those of you who are published authors isa) do you read reviews of your work
and assuming that the answer is yes
b) what strategies do you use for dealing with reviews with equanimity (apart from resorting to alcohol).
Caroline wrote: "My question for those of you who are published authors isa) do you read reviews of your work...
Yes and no. Not really? I pay attention when a first book releases to gauge how readers are responding to a story, but once I get a feel for that, I let it go unless someone or something cues me to a specific review.
My attitude towards reviews is...they aren't for me. Reviews are reader territory, by and for them, not me. I don't belong there. The less time I spend in reviews, the better.
and assuming that the answer is yes
b) what strategies do you use for dealing with reviews with equan..."
Getting my ass chewed into bloody hamburger did the trick for me. Nothing phases me much anymore, LOL.
Honestly, I think reading reviews is something you do more when you're newer. Like a rite of passage? After you've a dozen titles or so, tracking them all? OMG, forget it. Who has the time? Not me. Besides, I have editors to guide me and know my writing weaknesses better than anybody else. Not saying readers and reviewers don't know what they're talking about. I imagine many of them are spot on. Editors are just better equipped to help me strengthen and improve those weaknesses.
Caroline wrote: "My question for those of you who are published authors isa) do you read reviews of your work. . ."
I avoid them, unless they're specifically brought to my attention or I open my GR Updates page and one is staring at me.
I've seen so many writers get unhinged (on authors' loops, usually, but sometimes in public) by reviews, I want to smack 'em. So much fuming and angsting! Yet they keep going back for more.
There's something weirdly masochistic about that.
Mod
You did carefully consider the question of regular backups, didn't you? ;-))"
Yes! Most definitely.
Mod
a) do you read reviews of your work
and assuming that the answer is yes
b) what strategies do you use for dealing with reviews with equan..."
I try very hard not to. It's hard though. You just can't help wondering what readers make of any given story. But at least I've managed to get to the point where every random opinion does not hold equal weight for me. That's pretty much when you're at your most vulnerable in the process, and most likely to be affected by either too much praise or unfair criticism.
I'm managing not to read 1-2 star reviews. 3 and up, I'm actually reading. Which... is a bit crap when you get one of those rare nasty passive-aggressive ones that are 4 or 5 stars...
K.Z. wrote: "There's something weirdly masochistic about that."Ha! Right??
Mod
It did make me happy to read that. Is it still possible to buy some of you..."
No. I just sold the occasional poem. I was never a real poet like you!
Caroline wrote: "My question for those of you who are published authors isa) do you read reviews of your work
and assuming that the answer is yes
b) what strategies do you use for dealing with reviews with equan..."
Actually, what helped me was reading tepid and bad reviews of other books I LOVE. Seeing reviewers rip apart and "not get" books that I adore helped me to realize that, well, every book is not for every reader. And I know for a fact that even my writing partner, whose tastes are fairly similar to mine, would hate some of the books I love. So... *shrug*
Mod
..."
The democratization of publishing has naturally resulted in the democratization of criticism. Not only does everyone have the means of expressing their every opinion, they seem to feel it's their duty. And it can be exhausting, numbing, bewildering to be on the receiving end of that, especially if you're thinking you should be "learning" from every review.
There is a built-in problem there given that no book is going to appeal to every reader. So you should you really be trying to "learn" from someone the book would never appeal to in a thousand years?
Mod
God yes. If you're the kind of writer who's going to be upset or depressed or wants to answer the reviews (which is kind of the writing temperament, really!) it is paramount that you don't read them.
P-A-R-A-M-O-U-N-T!
For the most part I listen to Josh and really try not to read reviews, but it's hard, especially with a new release. You want to know how your work is being received. Just a few years ago, you'd have no feedback from a reader unless you received a personal letter. Now readers can let the whole world know what they thought of your book, which can be a blessing or a curse.
If I do read a nasty review (and some of them can be nasty, not just constructive criticism) I check to see how the reader reviews other writer's work. If the reviewer leaves one-star reviews and pithy comments for other writers I don't feel quite so demoralized.
Such much wonderful advice about reviews. Thanks. I'm going to print out your comments and arm myself with them.
Mod
a) do you read reviews of your work
and assuming that the answer is yes
b) what strategies do you use for dealing with r..."
Exactly.
In fact, I used to do that with my own bad reviews. I would go and check out what other reviews the reviewer had done, and if mine was the only review, well, that tells you something right there. Or maybe a review of my book and a toothbrush holder. :-D Or if all the reviews are terrible.
It's not so much to negate the criticism -- I really do understand not every reader, not even every m/m reader, is going to like my work. It's more to judge how useful the comments are. Because I DO take my reader feedback seriously. I just tend to place more importance on the readers who contact me directly or through other social interface.
Mod
Just a few years ago, you'd h..."
One thing about snark. That's as much (or more) about the reviewer as the story being reviewed. That's someone showing off. So right there the opinion loses credibility. I don't dig the review-as-performance-piece. That's trying to build your reputation on the bones of a colleague.
You can still be funny and witty and deadly accurate in a review, and not stoop to snark or cheap shots. I love funny reviews. I don't love meanness.
Josh wrote: "One thing about snark. That's as much (or more) about the reviewer as the story being reviewed. That's someone showing off. So right there the opinion loses credibility. I don't dig the review-as-performance-piece. That's trying to build your reputation on the bones of a colleague. ..."I hate snarky reviews with a passion, and I'm not even a writer! I do NOT like it when someone writes essentially a performance/comedy piece at the expense of an author. That is just so not cool.
Mod
True. But unfair criticism stings too. In fact, it stings more.
Especially when you can't respond to it.
Susinok wrote: "I hate snarky reviews with a passion, and I'm not even a writer! I do NOT like it when someone writes essentially a performance/comedy piece at the expense of an author. That is just so not cool."Whereas I like snarky reviews and think they are very cool. Look, I do get why this would be uncomfortable for the author. I am very glad people don't put up snarky reviews of my work! But as a reader, I wish that authors would not read reviews if they can't avoid taking them personally. Because funny, clever reviews (including snark) are a pleasure for me to read just like funny clever books (including snark). To me, they are there to entertain the review-writer and review-readers, not to be mean to the author. They aren't about the author - they are about the book and the review-writer's reaction to it and the review-reader's reaction to the review and the book. I would be very, very sorry if review writers were convinced to not say anything if they don't have anything nice to say.
Na wrote: "It reminds me of the film 'you've got a mail' :Joe Fox: It wasn't... personal.
Kathleen Kelly: What is that supposed to mean? I am so sick of that. All that means is that it wasn't personal to y..."
Agreed! These days when I can read the author's discussion and see what books they read and like and comment on, it is more difficult to separate author from their work. And I don't want to.
Mod
No, I'm talking as a reader in this instance. For me there's a difference between snark and wit. I think the word "snark" is used to so prevalently that maybe they seem interchangeable? I think of snark as mean-spirited. I like a funny, sharp review. It's a pleasure to read (maybe not to receive, but certainly I enjoy it as a reader).
I don't enjoy cheap shots and cheap laughs, and to me that's what snark is. It's like a substitute for real wit.
Mod
On the score of who reviews are for, I agree that they are not for the author. However, in the process of revamping Man Oh Man, I interviewed a number of reviewers and I was startled at how many of them want authors to read their reviews.
So it looks like the whole reviews-are-not-for-authors theory really depends on the individual reviewer.
Mod
.."
I don't know what the long term ramifications are of the new interactive reader/author dynamic, but I'm pretty sure it can never go back to the way it used to be.
I do read reviews - not all of them and I stop after the first few weeks a book is out - but I think they're useful tools for me as I try to hone my work to speak to this readership. I've written in a lot of genres over the years - poetry, literary fiction, science and now m/m romance - and each has a suite of reader expectations that it is important to learn. A lot of those I learn by reading other writers' work, but some I didn't think about until I saw them pop up as a consistent issue with readers. It's good learning for me. That said, I try not to pay attention to every review - no matter what I do, not everyone is going to like me, difficult as that is for me to believe ;). What I try to get is a composite view, if that makes sense.
Charming wrote: "I would be very, very sorry if review writers were convinced to not say anything if they don't have anything nice to say."It's not about having nothing nice to say. It's about being wantonly cruel and demeaning while you say it to build up your street creds on the bones of someone's corpse. Also, it's not real bright if your *ahem* "friends" comment on those reviews so it's constantly streaming into your GR newsfeed. Nothing like a good old-fashioned bitch slap from a pal (or colleague) with your morning coffee. Awesome. Even when you want to avoid it, you can't. Your only option is disappearing from GR entirely, until the Snarky Bitch Posse is finished getting their jollies off of (and garnishing admiration from each other for) burning you in effigy. Except you have to make up a reason for not being around until the free-for-all is over since, just for kicks, you have to act like you haven't seen a GD thing because, yanno, authors do not ever respond in any way to a review if they have a lick of sense.
Niiiiiiiiiice.
I'm no delicate flower. I can take a bad review (or twelve) on the chin, is part of my ticket to ride. Snarky Bitch Posses are a whole nother thing and trust me, it's not so fucking entertaining when they come after you. It's humiliating. It's embarrassing and when people you thought were your friends join in "the fun," it's frickin painful.
I won't have anything to do with that, no.
Thankfully the two groups I know who are like that now do it in secret groups after being dismayed about being unfriended and/or banned/blocked by authors on whose arse they went medieval. I see a lot less of it (also because I tend to ban/block if I get snarked - I'm essentially filtering my reality to preserve my motivation to write).
Aleksandr wrote: "Thankfully the two groups I know who are like that now do it in secret groups after being dismayed about being unfriended and/or banned/blocked by authors on whose arse they went medieval. I see a ..."There are positives: 1) realizing who your friends aren't, and 2) reviews will never bother you again. References to brain bleach? Pfft! Amateurs. ;-)
Lol - ouch. :) yeah, it's a good litmus test. I had a situation where one reader was hugely affronted I'd blocked them - but I don't want to be friends with somebody who called me a cynical sellout and one of my best works a waste of space. It didnt seem like a good start to a relationship, and woe betide me if they were going to read one of my weaker books. :)
They can't comment on blog posts or status updates. (Was new to me, too.)
Aleksandr wrote: "Lol - ouch. :) yeah, it's a good litmus test. I had a situation where one reader was hugely affronted I'd blocked them - but I don't want to be friends with somebody who called me a cynical sellout..."Friends don't have to like my work. I'd hazard to say a good many of mine don't actually, LOL. That's fine. That's 100% cool, no problemo. But a genuine friend doesn't bend a buddy over in public -- no lube.
Kari wrote: It's not about having nothing nice to say. It's about being wantonly cruel and demeaning while you say it to build up your street creds on the bones of someone's corpse. Aleksandr wrote: " Lol - ouch. :) yeah, it's a good litmus test. I had a situation where one reader was hugely affronted I'd blocked them - but I don't want to be friends with somebody who called me a cynical sellout ......"
Ouch Kari and Aleksandr although they all sound like people who need to get out more and do something more useful with their lives.
Josh wrote: " On the score of who reviews are for, I agree that they are not for the author. However, in the process of revamping Man Oh Man, I interviewed a number of reviewers and I was startled at how many of them want authors to read their reviews. ..."These days I tend to assume the author may well read the review. I don’t particularly want them to but it does mean I’m measured in what I say – definitely good points first and if I really didn’t like the book I’m not going to ruin someone’s day by going through all the things that are wrong with it especially if it’s a first novel. Perhaps I know too many authors in real life now and am too aware of how some of my friends can tie themselves in knots.
How interesting that your reviewers wanted some response from you or at least to know that you’d read it. So they see posting a review as another way of communicating with the author which is all part of the democratisation process that Na mentioned. I think I’d be startled if an author contacted me as a result of a review but perhaps not for a craft book. It’s June 2013 that your revised edition is due out?
Aleksandr wrote: "I'm essentially filtering my reality to preserve my motivation to write."Well said. That's what review-avoidance boils down to. It isn't that we (the avoiders) don't value readers' opinions, but we've learned that too much negativity/too many low or mediocre ratings tend to erode our desire to keep writing.
(And what's with that "secret groups" crap? I've noticed that some authors and readers like to form little cabals. Why? What goes on in them?)
K.Z. wrote: "(And what's with that "secret groups" crap? I've noticed that some authors and readers like to form little cabals. Why? What goes on in them?) "Shhh. Buttsecks and martinis. Don't tell or everyone will want in.
I tend not to read my reviews anymore unless it jumps up and smacks me in the face (i.e. shows up in my Google feed). I know sometimes maybe someone asks a question I should answer, but I just avoid them on principle. Better for my self-esteem. LOL (shallow girl)
As a reviewer, I assume an author COULD read it, so I try not to be too harsh. Can you be harsh in a nice way? I don't want to be responsible for making anyone feel bad, but I won't lie either. I just try to be fair about it.
Even praise can get under a writer's skin if it comes bundled with inaccuracies.I recently faced a huge conundrum with a review I'd seen accidentally. It was quite laudatory, and by a person who's been very kind to my work, but . . . it contained two erroneous statements that were voiced as mild criticisms. ("She didn't cover such-and-such." In fact I did, and could easily have pointed out the relevant passages.)
I spent half the day feeling torn between correcting the reviewer and just letting the statements go. I ultimately chose the latter course. But I'm still irked. :/
K.Z. wrote: "(And what's with that "secret groups" crap? I've noticed that some authors and readers like to form little cabals. Why? What goes on in them?)"Secret/closed groups don't bug me. People make friends and meet colleagues with shared interests. There's nothing wrong with privacy and I don't blame anyone for trying to retain a scrap of theirs by NOT doing everything inside the public arena.
Tam wrote: "Can you be harsh in a nice way?"
Sure you can! There's a huge difference between a review that points out faults/weaknesses in a story and a public lampooning. The former is about the book. The latter is about giving the reviewer an opportunity to strut how clever they are. The book isn't nearly as important as the look at me! look at me! -- at someone else's expense.
Listen, IRL...I like making people laugh. I ADORE it. If you guys got into my personal fb acct, you'd see that easily half of what I do is smartypants cracks to give friends & family a chuckle, brighten up their day. There's little I won't do to get that laugh. The ONLY thing I won't do is tear someone else down. If it hurts someone? If it demeans them and the point of the joke is to make someone else less? It ain't funny. It's just mean.
K.Z. wrote: "Even praise can get under a writer's skin if it comes bundled with inaccuracies."Or if it makes said writer an insufferable ass. Nothing quite as irritating as an author who starts believing their own press. GAH.
Mod
Well, if you're going to act like a teenage girl, you shouldn't be surprised to find the penalty is exactly what it was in high school.
I do think "snark" is used as an all purpose term for sarcasm and mockery and even witty criticism. I've seen comments about Adrien English's "snarky" sense of humor, but I don't think Adrien is particularly snarky (which, again, I associate with teenage girls). I think he can be derisive and self-mocking and sarcastic. He's no angel, but for me at least "snark" carries particular connotations that I don't think apply.
Mod
This has to be one of the weirdest parts of social media. The being "friended" by people who apparently don't like you or your work.
What kind of interaction are they hoping for?
Or this -- I had an experience on Facebook recently where someone who had at one time made negative comments about me later requested being friends again and (because I don't keep track of this stuff) I went ahead and friended them, which then infuriated another "friend" who made some dramatic posts on my wall, and then *that* person's "friend" made some dramatic posts and took me to task for taking the side of one "friend" over another...
I mean...seriously?
I unfriended and blocked all all three of them.
I enjoy social media and interacting with readers, but there is a line, and that was it for me. I don't have time or energy for high school behaviors.
Mod
For some, I think this is true. Maybe not so much that they want to correspond with the author, but that they want the author to write a different kind of book. They want the author to learn from the review. They do see themselves in the position of giving useful or needed instruction.
I don't think that's true universally. I think authors who are reviewing other authors simply as a means of building audience and name recognition or as a networking tool, don't particularly want to piss off other authors. (Although there is that -- jealous or rival authors running perceived competition down in anonymous reviews -- which is a whole different dynamic.)
And then there are reviewers who really are just reviewing for readers.
So it does come down to the individual reviewer.
Reviewing is changing just like every other aspect of publishing.
Mod
..."
Exactly. When I bother to review it's generally because I have something critical, even harsh to say. I try not to be mean about it, and I hope I don't stoop to snark (although I won't deny trying to be amusing -- a good review should be well-written and entertaining to read). But I'm not advocating blandness or never saying an unkind word. I'm an ex-teacher for godssake! Criticism is part of my makeup.
Josh wrote: "I had an experience on Facebook recently where someone who had at one time made negative comments about me later requested being friends again and (because I don't keep track of this stuff) I went ahead and friended them, which then infuriated another "friend" who made some dramatic posts on my wall, and then *that* person's "friend" made some dramatic posts and took me to task for taking the side of one "friend" over another..."I should keep a close eye on your Facebook page, it sounds quite entertaining - if one is not involved...
Josh wrote: "there are reviewers who really are just reviewing for readers"I'm not a reviewer, but I write reviews because I appreciate friends telling me: ''This is great!'' or: ''Avoid this!'' and I want to repay the favor.
This topic has been frozen by the moderator. No new comments can be posted.
Q&A with Josh Lanyon
Books mentioned in this topic
Alphabears: An ABC Book (other topics)Rag and Bone (other topics)
As Meat Loves Salt (other topics)
The Well of Loneliness (other topics)
The Selfish Gene (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Julie Smith (other topics)Bernard Cornwell (other topics)
Robin McKinley (other topics)
Tove Jansson (other topics)
Astrid Lindgren (other topics)
More...
Plus all those little two hundred words here and three hundred words there do ultimately pay off. Even though at the time it seems like you barely wrote anything, it all adds up."
I've been trying to do that since the beginning of the year. Even if it's only for a few minutes. I now have 22,000 words on my newest wip and they're pretty solid.