[LMB] Bujold book reference

[Lois McMaster Bujold]

sekhmet sekhmet42 at yahoo.com
Wed Jan 24 13:15:02 GMT 2007

and back on topic:

A Civil Campaign is also mentioned on Patricia Briggs'
site
http://www.hurog.com/

by the author's husband's on Jan. 19 just after her
Jan. 22 message. He mentions how a book can grow on
you, so that the review you would have done
immediately after reading it isn't how you'd review it
later, and uses ACC as an example.

He's talking about authors handle criticism, and it
struck me again how few authors could stand up to the
intense scrutiny we routinely give Lois' books.

 

*** Oh, I'm as thin-skinned as any.  Or, as my friend Pat says over one 
of our dinners, as I whinge over the latest Amazon/websearch ouchie, 
"Why do you even read those things!"  Which is, I suppose, a good 
question.  (This is partly Pat; she tends to process all complaint as a 
problem being presented for solution, and since there's damn-all a 
writer can do about reviews, her patented problem-solving mode is 
frustrated.  Except for the quoted advice, of course.)  I believe it may 
be built into our biology, for good survival reasons, that we notice and 
remember negative stimuli preferentially to positive stimuli; it's 
certainly built into mine.  One rotten tomato equals the weight of ten 
roses, or something, even when one is quite spoiled for roses.

Also, I do have these theories about reader-response, and more data is 
always fascinating.  At the moment, ferex, I notice that TSK:B has 
almost no 3-star reviews on Amazon.  They're all either ones/twos, or 
fours/fives.  Bifurcation, not a smooth curve.  Since they're all 
reading the exact same words, the differences must be in the readers.  
What are the salient features of those differences? etc.  (Alternate 
theory: most people whose response to a book is "Meh..." aren't 
sufficiently moved to post reviews.)

That said, I adore it when negative reviewers later eat their earlier 
words.  I am so anxious for July...***



I joined another chat list a couple years ago, of
authors whose books I buy and like, but who leave me
slightly disappointed by having fabulous potential but
ending up merely good or very good. I'd gotten spoiled
by the frank way we talk about Lois' work, and when I
tried to do the same thing there, got scolded for
being mean. Their list was mostly billing and cooing
and mutual back patting, so I didn't last long.


*** More to the point, discussion tends to be short and boring if 
negative criticism isn't allowed.  I mean -- Poster: "Look!  Book!"  
Assembled crowd: "Yay!"  -fx- crickets chirping -fx-

A negative comment tends to be the grit in the oyster that brings out, 
in this case, the pearl of either a lot of positive comments that 
otherwise would never have been expressed for my delectation, or a whole 
bunch of really creative Watsonian (and sometimes Doylist) excuses for 
the gaffe which I can store up and use later, or, in any case, a flurry 
of really welcome *on topic* conversation.   (Not that it ever stays 
that way, but still.)  Granted, the original poster risks going off 
feeling piled on, but they have given valuable social service, 
list-wise. ***


The authors are also active on their list on a daily
basis, and I think that makes a difference. Lois being
more of an auditor than participant makes it easier to
be frank, even if you know she might read what you're
saying.

Irene


*** There's this book I'm supposed to be writing...  (I don't know if 
anyone else will like it, mumble, mumble...)  Posting and internet 
browsing is the time-wasting writing-avoidance activity that has 
replaced the computer solitaire that I virtuously removed from my 
computer.  Writerly discipline -- it's like herding jello.

Ta, L.