quick curious q

[rm]

Pro authors are all over LJ, often in very participatory fashion. Does this effect how or to what degree you critique their books?

I'm being relentless on the subject of Melusine and was just sort of taken up short by "Monette is on my friends list" in another comment on it. Of course, it doesn't really change my tonal quality, which is what it is, but it interested me.

Conversely, for those of you published or working on publishing, how do you want that sort of thing handled and how do you intend to handle it on your end.

Personally, I think I'd have to do a lot of constant reminding my myself not to engage, because I can explain my work all day long, but ultimately a book must speak for itself, no matter how engaging I seem to think I am on the subject.

Comments

[violetisblue.livejournal.com]

"Pro authors are all over LJ, often in very participatory fashion. Does this effect how or to what degree you critique their books?"

Generally I try not to critique at all if I know the author has a blog. Some of these folks (i.e. the authors) clearly ego-Google themselves and their work constantly while claiming they don't and are masters of the passive-aggressive "link to a bad review by random stranger so my groupies friends can go hotly defend me, while I claim myself not to mind the review at all and just be happy my book's talked about" strategy, and life's too short.

"Conversely, for those of you published or working on publishing, how do you want that sort of thing handled and how do you intend to handle it on your end."

Ignore it (however praiseful or otherwise it is), and if I must comment or vent do it to a very small filter. I think there's a lot to that old theory about readers needing the freedom to discuss a work well outside the (active, known) presence of the writer.