Stars In Their Eyes

This post started out as a response of sorts from a Twitter reply I got from author Chris Bohjalian. Earlier that day I rated his newest novel, The Night Strangers, on Goodreads two stars. He was very polite and apologized for me not liking the book. As soon as I saw that, I had to reply back to say he had nothing to apologize for, because I knew many that enjoyed that book.

I mean, what kind of world do we live in when a writer feels he or she has to apologize to a reader that doesn’t completely enjoy a book and rates it on a murky spectrum of subjectivity and objectivity on a website?

Then, this morning, I read this article about a blow up turned flame war that engulfed writers, reviewers, agents, and worst, publishers and spread from Goodreads to Twitter and other social networks. It reminds me a lot about an incident I peripherally involved in a few years back involving the Twitter chat #Romfail and author Ray Garton, where I wrote a series of posts on the over all professionalism that such incidents lack.

If you wish to read them, they are the Calliope Wept: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3

While the Goodreads blow up and Chris Bojalian’s response to my rating are very different, they both still stem from a problem with in writing: A unhealthy obession with ratings and reviews.

Yes, they are helpful–to an extent. Case in point: At Anthocon, during the MFA Programs panel, the topic of epublishing and “gatekeepers” came up, myself and Kevin Lucia agreed the lack of gatekeepers in the e-publishing world. At the end of the panel when we were open to questions, a man mentioned that the gatekeepers for epublished works were the customer ratings and reviews. The good books will get good ratings and the bad will get bad. And I called bullshit.

Yes, they can be helpful, especially in tough economic times, to help choose what book to buy. But, even the less perceptive people in the world can see that many of those 1 and 5 star ratings are shames. As I told the man, “If see simply, ‘This book rocks!’ or ‘This book sucks!’ or similar one sentence reviews, they don’t count in my mind.” I will expand on that in saying that those kinds of reviews are typically written by 1.) Friends or family trying to help get a good word out about the book or assholes being asshole or 2.) People with no real practiced skill at reviewing that they are going on base Pleasure Principle reactions which are the most subjective, thus invalid, methods of of ranking objective quality of a thing. It is those reviews that are at least a paragraph long that you always look for, because you know there is a better chance that the person who wrote it took the time look at it in an objective way and will use that toolset give to us all in 4th grade: Compare and Contrast.

But somehow, anyone who just decides to write anything, from the insipid to the intellectual, are seen to be endowed with a world altering power to decide the fates of books. I’m calling bullshit, again. I know the only book I can influence is the one I write, promote, and sell. I can use tools like ratings and reviews to help speed things along, but if all book blogs and site shut down, I can still build an audience and a fan base.

I think we, as a society, like to rate things a in the extremes. We want black and white, because the shades of gray get depressing and boring after a while. I had a friend in college that would go on those “Hot or Not” sites and only rate 1 or 10. She said, “If you aren’t gorgeous and decide to put you pic on here, you better be ready for harsh critics.” It the same thing here. So I wanted to share how I rate things. It’s not perfect, and that’s because it is still subject to my personal tastes. But I try to be as objective as I can.

1 Star – This is the ones where I wonder how they even got published. It the home of the books I add to my First Chapter Fail Club. There are intrinsic problems in the book that are apparent from the beginning would be hard to rectify by the middle of the book.

2 Stars – This is low end of most books. Now, this is not to say it is a bad book. Just that within the story, there were recurring elements that I thought were either weak, unnecessary, or one of the few pet peeves of mine. And those elements were enough to throw me out of the story. Not bad books, just not up to par.

3 Stars – This is where every published book is that gets the job done. Have good characters, interesting story, keeps the action moving, with a satisfying ending. If you are published by any kind of press with an editor, you should be here at the very least.

4 Stars – This high end of most books. They do everything the 3 Stars due, but crank it up a notch. So by the time I finish reading I am glad I read it and I know I’ll go back to it again in my lifetime.

5 Stars – These are the elite of my books. Either from a objective point of view, like Ulysses, that is just a literary masterpiece; or a subjective one, like The Hellbound Heart, that affected me both as a writer and reader and resonated with me and my own writing.

See, even I can’t keep the 1 and 5 stars from being heavily influenced subjectively. And there, in a way, I think is the fault of any kind of rating system: It can never be objective if left to the whim of humanity.

Calliope Wept – Part 3: The 5 People Theory

Unlike the last two posts, this is not a about a generally accepted idea. Though, it is based on other accepted ideas. So the tone and structure of this post may be different.

We have see it all before. A group of people, all sharing a common drive and goal, who assault our lives with their various causes. Those who believe their cause is the right and best cause. Ones that tend to get a lot of Nazi comparisons. It seems like more and more, there are new fanatical groups popping up, trying to shout the loudest to be the the only one heard. These are very different than the ones who have care along with conviction in what they believe in. The ones that make you want to volunteer some of your time to help or to engage in discourse. Where is the difference? It is something I call the “5 People Theory.”

It is something that I started to realize in college. There were a lot of groups for various things. It was surprising that with every new group, there seemed to be more and more nonsensical actions or statements made in the name of the group. There were also more conflicts with people or other groups. I started to wonder why. In the end I came up with this theory:

Any group consisting of more than five people, who all share near identical viewpoints on a the reason they gather, the personal intelligence and common sense of those people lessens.

It passed on a number of theories that everyone already believes in, like, groupthink, group polarization, conditioning, risk management, and other.

You see, unlike a typical group of friends, lets say, groups gather because they all have a common interest. Now, among healthy groups, there is a diversity of thought and ideas. If a group is small, say three or four people, it can handle more conformity of ideas, because the percentage of common ideas is closer to an equal balance to the differing. If there isn’t, the destruction of the group is imminent because individual personalities will start to take over instead of ideas.

Once there are five, though, the percentages start to play a different game. You can have even just a few similar ideas, but the collective power of those common group ideas is greater than each person’s individual different ideas. This is where the festering begins.

We’ve all had a point in our lives where we share a lot of things in common with other people. It is a invigorating and intoxication. We are drawn to that person and want to spend more time, pursuing the interests that we share. Now imagine five people with each other. It becomes almost incestuous at that point. And closed off, because no one will understand us like these people understand. What happens is that they become reliant on that relationship. Because they’re closed off, they have no other true interpersonal relations that can compete with the group devotion.

So people become weary “others” unless they show some sort of connection to the group ideas. They become defensive because they have relied on each other for protection and support. They become vitriolic because the world had become much larger and everyone seems like an enemy because of their exclusiveness. They become the people that will yell out you days after a argument just because they haven’t been able to resolve that is was a difference of views, not a malicious attack on something they hold dear.

And I see these groups, cliques, and organizations grow more and more. From fans of a particular writer to activists for a social change. And the problem with them is that they have given up individuality and freedom of thought for complacency. They become the generator of the un-professionalism and the vitriol that can make new writers ruin their career before they start.

I have have left friends because of this. The insular nature is almost frightening. As a writer, I want to explore, learn and create new ideas. How can I do that if I homogenize my thoughts and opinions? If you are a writer or a reader reading this post, look at the people you keep closest when it comes to literature. Do you have friends that will have opposing thoughts to yours so that you can have an honest debate and possibly learn more about books and writing in the end? Or, do you keep company whose thought are so similar to your that the threat of stagnation always looms over you. Diversity is key to life, and in the end, that is what all stories talk about. Anything else results in death and decay.

Calliope Wept – Part 2: Vitriol

For those that read the comments on Part 1, you will notice that a general theme came up in all of them: snark and meanness. I didn’t go into a lot when I responded to them because I knew I had this post coming next. Hopefully, I will better explain my thoughts I briefly stated there.

I remember a night where a group of then Seton Hill Writing Popular Fiction students were talking about bestsellers. In that conversation, the Name of Names of the horror genre, Stephen King, was brought up by one person. I can’t remember the exact wording, but basically she said that he was shlock writer after his fifth book. The discussion changed at that moment. No longer were we talking about the qualities that seem to be inherent in books that are listed as top books in the country on what ever list you look at, but now we were in a mini flame war about Stephen King.

This is the power of vitriol.

While it seems like a tool of social self-defense, it’s not and it shouldn’t be. Vitriol, by its definition of “cruel and bitter criticism” is tied to wars of opinions. and it comes out, most often, when a person or a group of people forget that criticism is not about right or wrong ideas, but purely an viewpoint. Today, as I write this post, colleagues and acquaintances are meeting more and more vitriol on their various sites and Twitter feeds from #romfail ladies and/or supporters. This is all vitriol does, it self-perpetuates. Growing more hate-filled with each use. And it doesn’t even need a response to enact this mutation of social discord. It’s a pressure cooker: once the lid snaps on, it will build up until the release valve is opened.

I have noticed that vitriol has taken a firm grip on the writing world. Whether this is new, the same it always been, or a growing trend over a period of time, I don’t know. But in the present day, it would seem that anyone over the age of twenty-two should be better than to let such vile conversing take place between grown adults. And who knows why it is; the possibilities are endless.

It’s worse when professionals spout it about someone or something within their profession. These maybe your thoughts and your opinions, which I am not saying you can’t express, but you need to know how to express them properly. The second thing for new and aspiring writers to know:

Criticism is important to us. From readers, editors, publishers, reviewers, and other writers. They are the gauge we use to see if we are communicating out thoughts clearly. But they are only worthwhile if they are constructive, not destructive. As you will be criticized, so you must criticize, but in a manner of respect. Snark and vitriol are self-serving and selfish.

What comes next is going to seem like an attack to the #romfail people. It’s not, or the very least, not meant to be. I am merely giving criticism to both you and everyone else who happens upon this post.

The idea of #romfail is to be a place to make snarky comments about excerpts of a book chosen for roasting. I heard mention that they liken themselves to Mystery Science Theater 3000. First off, I’m still trying to understand why snarky comments are the same as a well written comedic script of riffing. MST3K’s jokes weren’t improvised, they were well thought out and sequenced jokes. Also, while they made fun of the flaws of those movies, they joking was about celebrating where sci-fi films started from and honoring the cult classics.

In #romfail’s case, all it is snark. Yes, the members of the group might find it humorous, but they do say that this a group for review and criticism purposes. Snark can’t be a part of that and expect to not have people question the true intentions and purpose of the group. And when anyone does they either try to ignore the questions or snap the lid shut on the pressure cooker of their vitriol.

All art lives in a community. In that community there are ones for each of the arts and so on and so forth down to the individual. When a writer goes as far as to use snark and vitriol in response to anything in that community, the other communities will soon color their views of the snarky by that. We have all have people in our neighborhoods, towns, counties that were know for derisive acts towards other, the more they did it, the more it became their reputation. Sure they may not out cast everyone, but they do make themselves the untrustworthy. That is the effect on the inter-personal.

What about the inter-professional? The schism it creates can be harsher and more difficult to mend at anytime in the future. In a everyday office situation, it can be seen as abuse. People have been fired for the same thing. I know I’m repeating myself, but that why it important to understand the bigger picture and not just your little corner of the world.

We writers help each other by not just pointing out flaws in each others work, but to explain why they are flaws and give suggestions on ways to improve it the next time around. The best advice I was ever given on critiquing a piece of work was, “Never critique the writer. Critique the story. By saying is the writer’s fault you are judging that writer and that is not your job or purpose. Your only task is to help the story become the best it can.” And what you have to remember is that you will come across stories you don’t like, not one word of it. But liking it is not constructive because it’s subjective to each readers personal taste. If you don’t like something, that it mean it badly written? Of course not. You have to be objective in your remarks. Personal preferences or personal ideas of how things should be writing can only be aimed at your own work. Doing it to others is just telling them, “Rewrite this the way I want it be written.”

In the end, it comes down meanness. Just look at the definition and the synonyms of snark and vitriol. Would you want any of them to be words that describe you, as writer, as a professional. I hope not. Writers can’t get trapped in meanness. We are the meaningful.

Calliope Wept – Part 1: Professionalism

I have spent the last few days trying to decide if I even want to tackle a response to this. There is a few things I want to tackle, so this will be a series of posts.

For those that aren’t in Twitter land, there is apparently group that meets Friday nights under #romfail. The basic gist of the group is that a book review blogger post lines from romance and erotica books that are then mocked and ridiculed.

Okay, now a note. I will not post any links in my discussion. They are easy enough to search (the number of hits I got on just people search is one reason I felt I should say something). While I’m going to use #romfail as a current example, these three posts post is a general topic that can go to any group in any genre at any time. End note.

Now, I won’t say that among friends I have not done the same thing. I think many of use either to ourselves or friends remarked at one point about an atrocious line of writing. It happens, it’s fun, and it makes you feel better after you’ve done it. And as a group of friends or acquaintances or whatever they want to call themselves, #romfail have the right to say those things on their mind.

Hang on! I see some of you already fuming and others smiling cause they think I’m on #romfail’s side. Read the first half again carefully. See how I’m making a remark about a personal relationship? Here is the first thing everyone who wants or does write must know:

Personal relationships and professional relationship should not and cannot be interchangeable.

I, too, write book reviews. I know a number of writers in a personal level. When the two come together, I have the hardest time writing a review. I want my reviews to be unbiased and tell readers how I learned from the good and/or bad of a book. I want them to be professional. Not as in, I want them to help launch a career as a reviewer, but that there is an air of authentic criticism to them. I do that because my reviews are open to the public. I have to present myself as a professional. If I have something I don’t like that I think would skew the professional outlook of my reviews, I save that for when I’m talking to friends and it is away from the eyes of the public. Why?

Respect. I only have a short story published so far. I’m the new guy on the block. The people who have written books have accomplished something I haven’t, so far. Therefore, they deserve credit and respect for that accomplishment. Sure I have a M.A. in Writing and I have the knowledge and learning of the language. But that doesn’t change the fact that knowing and doing are two completely different things. Knowing what a great book is can only start you on the path to writing one.

From what I understand, there are a number of aspiring writers in #romfail. They openly make the remarks about the writing out into the public that are personal opinions covered in snark in hopes to be funny. This is not what criticism is. That’s just personal conversation. And that is something I don’t think many on the #romfail side see. If you are just chatting with friends on Twitter, it’s one thing. If you insist that it somehow relates to true literary criticism, something that people will learn something, then you are making a world of hurt for yourself in the professional stratum of your life as a writer. Doing so openly on Twitter just makes it easier for potential colleagues, editors, and publishers to view them as your professional manner and viewpoint, they will make note of that and have a biased judgment when your manuscript comes around.

You don’t think they will? Ok, what about the fact that employers and businesses regularly try to look at potential and existing employees Facebook and Myspace pages to see if there is anything objectionable to them on it that might cause a problem for the business? It is the same thing. In fact I wouldn’t be surprised if Twitter is added to that list soon. What people don’t seem to realize is that doing anything on any social networking site is the same as doing it in an open area in public. Now on all of them, you can lock your account so you choose who can see these things if you wish, but if you don’t, you have to think about the consequences of your actions. Would the #romfail ladies be as secure to openly criticize these books the same way if they were in, say, a hallway at the next RWA Conference?

We are extremely lucky to live in the world we do to day. We can communicate with anyone, anywhere, anytime, in nearly real-time. But I think that so much access has blurred the line between the professional and the personal. We can’t just do what we want when we want to. That’s anarchy and it is self-destruction in the end.

We have common sense, reasoning, and willpower for a purpose. Yet more and more, we seem to use them less and less.