Tagged: masq2
The 3 Best Books to Read in the Bathroom
Hi, my name is Carrie Slager and I’m a bathroom reader.
There, I’ve just admitted it and I realize that I don’t want to be cured. So, like Shaun in Deadline, I’m going to nurture my madness and to heck with what other people think. What to know what the best books are for bathroom reading? Read on!
1. Any of the Bathroom Reader series.
This is what started it all: a birthday present from my uncle. He gave me a Bathroom Reader and I’ve never looked back. Each of the numerous books the Bathroom Reader’s Institute produces is filled with bizarre trivia that is conveniently divided into sections depending on how long each article is. Some articles are only one side of a page while the longest are three or four pages. Along the bottom of each page are little ‘running feet’, which are basically random facts for you to spout at parties to impress everyone. Continue reading
Should Reviewers Give Bad Reviews?
To my surprise, I discovered a debate about the ethics of bad reviews. It involved much blustering, ad hominem attacks and ridiculously obscure literary references, so here are the simplified arguments:
For: People have the right to voice their opinions.
Against: Reviewers should keep bad reviews to themselves because they hurt authors, especially new authors.
Now, the argument I came across mostly applied to national newspaper reviewers giving bad reviews to new poetry, but sort of degenerated to encompass all bad reviews by anyone, including bloggers. That’s why I’ve chosen to write my own opinion on the topic, not only to get rid of the ridiculous rhetoric, but bring a little sanity to the debate. Here we go…
First off, attempting to censor the internet is like trying to forbid a teenager from seeing their girlfriend/boyfriend—it only heightens the appeal. Secondly, we need to talk semantics. ‘Bad review’ is generally a misnomer because in nine out of ten reviews with that label, the reviewer has found at least one good thing to say about the book. ‘Bad review’ usually implies that the reviewer simply hated it and wants to completely trash the book and the author, which is far from the truth. A review with honest, thoughtful criticism is better than a review where the reviewer praises the book to the heavens while lying through their teeth.
And let’s not kid ourselves here. Would you trust a reviewer that only gave 4 and 5 star reviews? To me, that says they’re either lying or they love every book they read, even the ones that are truly bad.
I’m not going to apologize for giving 1 and 2 star reviews. I’m not even going to apologize for the 0.5 star review I gave once. Why? Because I wrote my honest feelings about those books and I like to think I had genuinely constructive criticism. If I didn’t publish reviews on books I didn’t like, not only would I have less content, I’d be selling myself. When I started my blog, I promised to tell only the truth about books and I have. I am not about to censor myself because one bad review might prejudice my admittedly small following against an author. And frankly, I don’t think many other bloggers would.
I don’t see many issues in black and white, but this is one of the rare cases where I do. You’re either completely for free speech or against it. You either want bloggers to put their honest opinions out there, or you want to silence them—well, parts of them. Again, let’s be honest with ourselves: Are our egos so inflated that we actually think one bad review by a blogger will ruin a new writer’s chance at gaining a following?
Of course not. One bad review is not going to hurt authors. In fact, sometimes I read reviews where the reviewer hated the book and went on to buy it because the premise actually sounded good to me. I know a lot of people who are the same. Yes, a lot of bad reviews will harm a new book, but in that case I have something thoroughly cold-hearted to say. If your book is getting a large amount of bad reviews (70% or more), it was probably meant to fail.
So what do you guys think? Should book reviewers keep it to themselves if they didn’t like a book?
Self-Publishing: An Author’s Perspective
[I asked Andrew Levkoff, the self-published author of The Other Alexander to do a guest post on self-publishing from his own perspective. This is it. For a reviewer’s perspective (my own), click here. –CS]
Carrie has asked me to offer my thoughts about self-publishing, why I chose that route for my series The Bow of Heaven, and what I think about the self-publishing industry in general.
If you were an author trying to get your novel published the old-fashioned way around 2005, but wound up instead going the self-publishing route, then it’s almost a certainty you had been rejected by every traditional agent and publisher on the planet. How do I know this? From experience. The stigma clinging to the word “self-published,” much of it warranted, was palpable.
Times changed, from the publishing industry’s perspective, almost overnight. So much so that now, I don’t think it matters what Carrie or I or anyone else thinks about the rise of self-publishing. (Back in the 1960’s and 1970’s, network television was up-in-arms over something called cable and pay-per-view. What? Pay for TV when you can get it for free? Yeah, like that will ever catch on.) There is no stopping this tidal wave of words, and ultimately, I think it’s a good thing.
My Dad used to tell me, “Look, son, I know you’re scared to pick up the phone to ask Peggy to the movies, but think of it this way: if you ask 100 girls for a date and 90% of them tell you no with a capital “Are you nuts?” you’ll still have dates with 10 different girls.” 100 girls? I knew Peggy. What was my father thinking? Plus, he was a charming cross between Ronald Reagan and Dean Martin. I was a cross between Woody Allen and another Woody Allen. You see my point: there may be tons more worthless words yakking for our attention, but there will also be more worthy, entertaining offerings of eloquence by authors who otherwise would have had the mahogany double doors of traditional publishing slammed in their faces. Continue reading
Things Authors Should Know About Bad Reviews
In the four or so months I’ve been book reviewing on this blog, I’ve given out some pretty bad reviews. As an amateur writer myself, I can understand the crushing feeling authors get when someone gives them a bad review. Although I can sympathize with writers, I would never have started a book reviewing blog if I couldn’t handle giving out bad reviews when they are deserved. So, all you writers out there, please read on and keep these things in mind when (not if) you get a bad review.
1. It’s not personal.
Unless the reviewer is a complete jerk, a bad review is never personal. They aren’t criticizing you; they’re criticizing your work. There’s a huge distinction between the two, although it doesn’t seem that way when your precious work is being trashed. Giving you a bad review is not an attack on your character, beliefs, etc. It is simply criticizing a product you have put out into the world with the expectation that people will buy it and talk about it. If you’re still convinced that bad reviews are always personal, let me ask you this: When you last criticized a product, were you personally attacking the creator of the product? Probably not. And yes, your book is a product for all intents and purposes because you are selling it. Continue reading
Accuracy in Historical Fiction
As many of you know, I have a love-hate relationship when it comes to Conn Iggulden’s books because his incessant need to mess with history is infuriating. It happens more and is more noticeable in his Emperor series, which annoys me to no end because some of the changes are not justified. So, in this article I will discuss when writers need to be accurate and when it’s okay to mess with history.
I don’t know anyone who went to see The Mummy (1999) for its historical accuracy. But that’s how cinema is so different from literature: in the former, accuracy is a bonus while people expect it in the latter. Authors should not betray the bond of trust between them and their readers or their readers (especially reviewers like myself) will eat them alive. Unlike The Mummy, a novel about the same thing would be ridiculed for having five canopic jars instead of four, giving Seti a beard and including the idiotic idea that someone can be mummified alive and survive more than the first day. Basically, if you’re going to write historical fiction be sure, if nothing else, to get the basic facts of the time period right. Continue reading