You know, I have read books by new authors and books by well known authors and said to myself, "Self, how did this ever get published?" I try to use it as inspiration, but I would hesitate to ever say the same thing in a public forum.

I like both your grans. They both speak their minds. But I make it a point to stay away from old people with cattle prods.

Yes, I always wondered why people are doing that. It must be envy + herd mentality.

I've read the Harry Potter series and enjoyed the books very much. I've also read the DaVinci Code and, thought it's not the best written book in the world, I liked the plot. Never read the Twilight series; never will.

I quite agree. It's strange, isn't it? Like everyone forgets the old "be nice to those you meet on the way up, you'll meet them again on the way back down." *sigh*

Both your grans were right, I think. But then I'm Irish too. :)

Ah, yes, the fine line between having an intelligent critical discussion about books and falling into the knee-jerk herd hate mentality. Unfortunately, there are those who don't seem to realize that you can express your dislike for a book without going on frequent and extended rants about it and expecting everyone to agree with you.

I agree with you 100%. I find that people who attack success are generally small-minded and resentful - there's a very specific word to describe them (begins with "L")...

If a book is successful, a smart writer's group (one whose members are on the road to publication) would look at WHY the book is successful, and seek to imitate that success if possible!

Or possibly Lemmings...

I concur with alaneer. Herd mentality and envy. It's good to put books down and even better to find other people who agree with you and then to take it to a public forum so you can show the world how smug, literary and self-righteous you are in your criticism. It's the old "I'm writing important literature, not that poorly written, commercial crap" attitude.

You also come across as arrogant, petty, and small.

I've seen it in a genre community or two where a group will say: "How dare that person steal our tropes and make millions. Who do they think they are? They suck!" When the real question should be: "That person's writing what I write and they're successful. What did they do that I can learn from and become successful to?"

It's a group victim role. "We've been doing this for years and they come around with one book and they make it. How dare they!"

It's always easier to be angry and nasty (listening to one's ego) than to be supportive and open to learning (listening to one's higher self). Some might even say they have nothing to learn from those who've made it, as they know what's what. Those folks will never be confused with true gurus.


Gary . . .

I like your grandmothers.
I sometimes try to steer a person towards a book I enjoyed, but I wouldn't try to steer someone away from a book I didn't like.

Hear, hear. To get published takes talent and luck. I wouldn't begrudge anyone for having either.

I'm going to go against the grain here. I am not a jealous person and am always happy when my friends' books and stories are published, even if mine are form-rejected by the same venue on the same day. I do not begrudge Rowling or Stephenie Meyer, or anybody else for that matter, their success - and I am not really interested in riches or crowds of adoring fans.

However, if I happen to read a book that I think fails on the level of plot, language, dialogue, characterization, faithful/unfaithful representation of various groups, etc., I will surely discuss that with friends who read the same book. I think understanding where a writer fails in mechanics ultimately makes me a better writer. I also have a habit of dissecting the good bits of books with my friends. That does not, emphatically, mean I am jealous. That just means I am interested in the mechanics of writing.

Not all books are going to work for all people. It is only natural. Ulysses works for most of my friends and not for me, but it doesn't mean I have pedestrian tastes. Stephenie Meyer works for many people but not for me, and that doesn't make me snobbish or envious. It just makes me a person with a set of preferences.

I understand my preferences pretty well, but I also want to understand what makes other people like or dislike a specific work. Harry Potter 1-3 works for me, later books do not; but I understand why they work for other people. I dissected the 'Life of Pi', a book I acutely dislike, with friends for many an afternoon, trying to understand why it worked for them. Similarly, I spent a fair amount of time discussing finer points of Cordwainer Smith and Ursula LeGuin with my friends. A writer, by putting his or her work out there, opens their work for criticism - and thoughtful criticism is a good thing, since it indicates that people actively engage with your work.

Besides, when books that (in our opinion) suck, go on to make it to the big leagues, shouldn't it give us hope?
I don't see how it does, unless one thinks "my work sucks, sucky work gets published, which means there's hope for me." Imho - and this is only my opinion - if a writer thinks his or her work sucks, a writer has an obligation to attempt to improve it before inflicting it on unsuspecting masses. Someone else's bad writing, no matter how highly paid, does not give one the moral licence to happily compose crap (again, just my imho).

Self-critical is good, it helps you grow. It is, imho, much better than thinking your first (second, third) drafts are solid gold - I've seen this attitude and it ain't pretty.

There is no such thing as a perfect novel. They are all imperfect. Your best is probably good enough. :-)

As for jealousy vs criticism, it is a fine line. So many times I've heard or witnessed a criticizing person being put down by others who say, "but [SOMETHING] is so successful! You are just jealous!"

Success is not an equivalent of good. McDonalds hamburgers are successful but that doesn't make them good, nor are they particularly good for you.

I doubt most people are jealous, actually. When something they think is brilliant succeeds, most people are very happy. When something they think is crap succeeds, they are not happy, often to the point of having a dissing section - which is not pretty, but most often is not, in fact, jealousy.

Problem arises when Writer X starts feeling that everything is crap
just because it is published, while the full collection of Writer X. "Works of Genius" is still languishing in the drawer. I've seen this happen, and it is not nice, and spectacularly bad for one's development as a writer, not to mention one's friendships.

I linked over from greyrose's post. Cheers,I think you nailed it.

And Greyrose, it doesn't sound like you're who Jon is discussing. You don't read like many of the comments I see floating around out there so I believe you when you say it's analysis and critique in the legitimate form. I think what Jon is talking about is different from this.

It sounds like this:

"OMG. Twilight was a piece of crap. I can't believe anybody ever read that book and the worst thing is they all read THREE MORE! Those books were so badly written they should never have been published..." blah blah blah.

Here's the thing. They WERE published, a LOT of people liked them, and not everyone was an English major. I know lots of folks who will tell you they liked those damn books in spite of the writing. Just one example but there's Dan Brown, Rowling, et.al.

It just sounds lame when somebody trying to gain success as a writer lights into authors who have had extreme commercial success without one positive thing to say. It doesn't sound like academic critique when you offer wholesale assault on the intellect of everyone who participated in the process of that book's success from the author to the end consumer.

I once read a bestselling novel with seven Tom Swifties on one page.  Seven!

Jealous?  No.  Upset?  Yes!  Why not be honest about it?

As an aspiring writer, reading that dull book was a painful experience and an eye-opener.  How come I have to adhere to the rules when published writers don't?  What editor would allow seven Tom Swifties on one page?  See where I'm going with this.

My first attempts at writing were squashed, stomped on, ripped to shreds.  Time and chocolate healed those wounds, and you know what?  I became a better writer because somebody had the guts to tell me what was wrong.

Bradbury said it best: You have to know how to accept rejection and reject acceptance. You go, Ray.

Edited at 2009-07-10 12:06 am (UTC)

My point? Um...what was the question again.

My apologies. It was late, I was rambling.

You know, I keep seeing the suggestion that "criticism = jealousy" (not from you, but in some responses to the original post and even this one) and it never ceases to annoy me. Why is it so hard to believe that someone might just...not like a book?

Now, the suggestion of entire groups getting together and ragging on something - no, I don't care for that; I'd much rather chat about stuff I do like.