![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatThis past weekend, I hit a snag on my novel, which was NOT aided by a bunch critical posts on lj "justifying" the rejection letters or lack of response agents and publishers give to writers who've submitted work - you know sometimes you just think why bother sharing your work at all? Easier to just keep it to yourself. Sharing one's work, whether it be a knitted scarf, a piece of pottery, a beaded bracelet, a handwoven basket, or a story - is a bit like presenting one's child to a teacher the first day of preschool, hoping there's room in the class. (There's been a Baby Boom in Brooklyn and there's 300 applicants for every preschool, which takes about 18-20 kids each). All your love and care has gone into it and you think as you present this fragile piece of your heart - please treat it kindly, don't rip it to shreds. Forgetting of course that there's a hundred parents and kids waiting in line behind you and the teacher's tired and cranky and can only accept eighteen for the class.
At any rate...these two posts made me feel better this weekend and I thought I'd share them with the rest of my writer friends:
1. This one is a rant by Joss Whedon on whedonesque. He had just finished writing the first arc of the upcoming Season 8 Buffy Comic, and wandered onto his fansite to see how people were reacting to the promos of his work - the first five panels to be exact. And the internet being the internet...well, suffice it to say he has his critics.
If you are afraid of being spoiled for the comic, although you'd have to be living under a rock not to be on this part...I'd think. Here's the gist: Anyway, it's idiotic for me to defend the work -- you either dig or you don't. All I can do, he more or less says, and in more than one interview I've read - is create my work and throw it out there. You'll either like or you won't. I have no control over that.
I just finished the last pages of this arc and here you are reading the first. Circle-y. I am serene and at one with the universe. And yet there's this term... 'wanked around'... Hmm.
I love "The Girl in Question". I thought it was hilarious and relevent and everyone involved was at the top of their game. When I started writing the comic I had Buffy with the Immortal but it felt wrong. It was important for Angel and Spike to know she had moved on, but it was equally important for Buffy to be where she is in this comic book. And I realized Andrew WOULD have thought this up, and would have thought it was hilarious (plus the wink at the fact that everyone knew that was a double in the ep was fun). As for his input -- he was running the L.A. slayer unit in season 5 of Angel, so it's safe to assume he's got some cred. You could call this wank, but you could say the same about any retcon -- like Spike loving Buffy from the start and not realizing it, which worked for me just great, especially 'cause it had the chaos demon standing around with his antlers dripping (good times, good times). Anyway, it's idiotic for me to defend the work -- you either dig or you don't. But the part that keeps stopping me is this: why on Earth WOULDN'T George Lucas discount the Star Wars Holiday Special?
"But... how do you kill a thing... that has no life?"
Ranty, -j.
2.![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
jimbutcher, the writer of the best-selling sci-fi noir series The Dresden File which is premiering as a TV show on Sci-Fi in late January, posted on his lj - scroll down a few entries, it's back in the beginning of December, I believe - a sampling of the negative reviews he'd gotten on his books. At the very end of the post, which contains everything from a gun expert chiding him on his research to people who think his writing is rudimentary or the plots poorly constructed, he writes - "some days it's sort of hard to get motivated".
Here's an example of two of the reviews:
"Hrrrrrm"
As a werewolf fan, I had to give the Harry Dresden series one more chance and picked up the second book. Not as hard to push through as book one, but in the end I was not satisfied with the read.
I'll give it two stars for the interesting take on werewolf types, but that's about it. The content had me grinding my teeth as FBI agents and Police acted so outrageously unrealistic the suspension of disbelief couldn't hold.
I enjoyed minute parts scattered through the book, but it's like picking the chocolate sprinkles out of an otherwised soured dessert.
"What a Letdown"
All I can say is that I was truly dissapointed in this book. I have read fantasy/Sci-fi nearly all of my life and this was a waste of $8.00 and change. The Author seems to write like this is his first novel and he is trying really hard to throw every possible situation and character definition into 500 pages of dribble. The main character, if you want to call him that since the book is so choppy, is well built I suppose. But it also follows the same pat design of so many other GOOD novels by GOOD authors (ex: Eddings and Feist). I am not comparing those two authors to Butcher since that would be like comparing a kindergarten play to Broadway. It is even so embarassing that one of Butcher's place names is the same as Eddings in the Belgariad. I suggest to save your money and time by not purchasing this book."
In response to this post, by the way, Butcher received over 138 replies telling him how these reviewers were full of it. Some of the responders were booksellers and some librians who could not keep his books on the shelves.
Both made me feel better. Apparently everyone has their critics. Next time I get overwhelmed by mine, real or imaginary - I'm re-reading this.
At any rate...these two posts made me feel better this weekend and I thought I'd share them with the rest of my writer friends:
1. This one is a rant by Joss Whedon on whedonesque. He had just finished writing the first arc of the upcoming Season 8 Buffy Comic, and wandered onto his fansite to see how people were reacting to the promos of his work - the first five panels to be exact. And the internet being the internet...well, suffice it to say he has his critics.
If you are afraid of being spoiled for the comic, although you'd have to be living under a rock not to be on this part...I'd think. Here's the gist: Anyway, it's idiotic for me to defend the work -- you either dig or you don't. All I can do, he more or less says, and in more than one interview I've read - is create my work and throw it out there. You'll either like or you won't. I have no control over that.
I just finished the last pages of this arc and here you are reading the first. Circle-y. I am serene and at one with the universe. And yet there's this term... 'wanked around'... Hmm.
I love "The Girl in Question". I thought it was hilarious and relevent and everyone involved was at the top of their game. When I started writing the comic I had Buffy with the Immortal but it felt wrong. It was important for Angel and Spike to know she had moved on, but it was equally important for Buffy to be where she is in this comic book. And I realized Andrew WOULD have thought this up, and would have thought it was hilarious (plus the wink at the fact that everyone knew that was a double in the ep was fun). As for his input -- he was running the L.A. slayer unit in season 5 of Angel, so it's safe to assume he's got some cred. You could call this wank, but you could say the same about any retcon -- like Spike loving Buffy from the start and not realizing it, which worked for me just great, especially 'cause it had the chaos demon standing around with his antlers dripping (good times, good times). Anyway, it's idiotic for me to defend the work -- you either dig or you don't. But the part that keeps stopping me is this: why on Earth WOULDN'T George Lucas discount the Star Wars Holiday Special?
"But... how do you kill a thing... that has no life?"
Ranty, -j.
2.
jimbutcher, the writer of the best-selling sci-fi noir series The Dresden File which is premiering as a TV show on Sci-Fi in late January, posted on his lj - scroll down a few entries, it's back in the beginning of December, I believe - a sampling of the negative reviews he'd gotten on his books. At the very end of the post, which contains everything from a gun expert chiding him on his research to people who think his writing is rudimentary or the plots poorly constructed, he writes - "some days it's sort of hard to get motivated".Here's an example of two of the reviews:
"Hrrrrrm"
As a werewolf fan, I had to give the Harry Dresden series one more chance and picked up the second book. Not as hard to push through as book one, but in the end I was not satisfied with the read.
I'll give it two stars for the interesting take on werewolf types, but that's about it. The content had me grinding my teeth as FBI agents and Police acted so outrageously unrealistic the suspension of disbelief couldn't hold.
I enjoyed minute parts scattered through the book, but it's like picking the chocolate sprinkles out of an otherwised soured dessert.
"What a Letdown"
All I can say is that I was truly dissapointed in this book. I have read fantasy/Sci-fi nearly all of my life and this was a waste of $8.00 and change. The Author seems to write like this is his first novel and he is trying really hard to throw every possible situation and character definition into 500 pages of dribble. The main character, if you want to call him that since the book is so choppy, is well built I suppose. But it also follows the same pat design of so many other GOOD novels by GOOD authors (ex: Eddings and Feist). I am not comparing those two authors to Butcher since that would be like comparing a kindergarten play to Broadway. It is even so embarassing that one of Butcher's place names is the same as Eddings in the Belgariad. I suggest to save your money and time by not purchasing this book."
In response to this post, by the way, Butcher received over 138 replies telling him how these reviewers were full of it. Some of the responders were booksellers and some librians who could not keep his books on the shelves.
Both made me feel better. Apparently everyone has their critics. Next time I get overwhelmed by mine, real or imaginary - I'm re-reading this.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Criticism
Date: 2007-01-09 04:29 pm (UTC)Re: Criticism
Date: 2007-01-09 06:05 pm (UTC)But, for every critic out there, there are people who love what you are producing. To deprive those who do want to hear what you have to say, do want to see your work, do want to read it - just because of the critics/detractors - is I think unfair to them. I remember a while ago reading an interview of Amy Acker's who played Fred on Angel for several years. She repeated a conversation she'd had with Alexis Densiof, regarding a time when she went online and read what people were saying about her performance on the series. He'd asked her if there were any positive posts - well yes, she responded, but all she saw were the two negative ones. She ignored everyone else. I've done it myself - when I wrote those essays and posted them online. But what's important to remember, I think, is that the negative responses did not stop Amy Acker, Joss Whedon, or Jim Butcher from doing their art.
Re: Criticism
Date: 2007-01-09 07:18 pm (UTC)Nor will it stop us! For soon - the creative types will take over the WORLD!!!
*cheers all around*
The downside is that no one will ever wear matching socks or clean their rooms again if we really DO take over.
Re: Criticism
Date: 2007-01-09 07:25 pm (UTC)Re: Criticism
Date: 2007-01-09 11:39 pm (UTC)*nods sagely*
Re: Criticism
Date: 2007-01-09 11:11 pm (UTC)Radical interpretation of Whedon's Anya bunny fears!
Re: Criticism
Date: 2007-01-10 04:29 pm (UTC)*eyeballs dustbunny colony that has moved in near my door*
Re: Criticism
Date: 2007-01-10 05:11 pm (UTC)Dust bunnies adore NYC apartments. They seem to multiply by just looking at each other.
Re: Criticism
Date: 2007-01-10 06:39 pm (UTC)