Cross-posted on Readerling
I am here today, friends, to talk about author behavior. And also this book. But because of the recent, sometimes ugly, and wholly passionate conversation going on here on Goodreads (and the bookish Internets in general) about the relationship between authors and readers and reviewers, I came to read this book. I don't want to get too far down into this rabbit hole, but even dividing writers from reviewers from readers is a little weird. Of course
writers are readers too, and sometimes reviewers. (This is leaving aside the strange species of author who does not read, which must exist.) Of course
reviewers are readers. (Except for the strange animal who does not read but reviews anyway. Which is not to say I have any problem with DNF reviews, just that I've seen at least one example of the kind of reviewer who starts into a book with a critical stance in mind, and then deep-sixes the book when it fails to conform to that vision.) Of course
reviewers are writers too, though I certainly understand that writing a largely unedited essay while sitting on the back porch is quantitatively different than writing, editing, and publishing a novel. Of course
it's all a messy mess of varying personalities and aesthetics.
I guess what I'm trying to say that so much of this fighting comes down to warring ideas about the place of criticism layered onto the strange posture of identity and Internet identity. I had this really interesting conversation with my friend Emily yesterday about the movie "Heckler". A couple people had recommended it to me because, honestly I don't know why. Because they said it made them not hate Jamie Kennedy as much as they had before. It's a documentary by Mr. Kennedy about hecklers in comedy shows. I watched about half of it before I lost my crap and had to turn it off. So much of it sent me up the freaking wall - the way hecklers were equated with the entire critical enterprise, the way negative was equated with some sort of jealousy, the fact that more than one person said "Until you have made a movie, you can't say anything about making movies." I reject that with both hands and a foot up your ass. I've been reading, watching movies, consuming fiction in all of its forms since I before could form a godamn sentence. And sure, there have been times when I have gotten my hate on in a serious way about books/movies/whatever, my negative assessments aren't coming from some some lonely pit of jealousy and despair. Oh how I wish I had produced this piece of art I hate!
Which is when I realized I was taking it personally.
I, as a critic, am not exempt from criticism. It's a form of writing, in its own weird way, and Emily was absolutely right when she pointed out the performance of the heckler, and that of the critic, are going to be assessed in some ways by the power of the performance. The heckler seeks to disrupt, to pull attention - any performer does. Some people seek to go as bloodlessly academic in their reviews as possible - and mazel tov to you - but every single time the top lists are brought up, people bemoan how those who do don't get the attention they deserve, etc. I had to really really resist putting scare quotes on that last phrase - none of us deserve anything
for what we write, from authors down to the unwashed reviewers. Sure, it's a crying shame when a writer bleeds out and no one notices - reviewer or author. It's a crying shame when intelligent writing is trampled over to get to some godamn thing full of .gifs and misspellings up the ass. But there's no A for effort. I can sit looking at this cursor for hours, pouring out my soul, and that and about two bucks will get me a cup of coffee. I don't deserve anything.
No writer does, not critics, not authors, not nobody.
But people use the term "popularity contest" like it's a bad thing, when ultimately, it is what it is. A popularity contest measures popularity, and acting like a popularity contest should be a meritocracy does a disservice to both merit and popularity. Because what it comes down to is that Goodreads is a Frankenstein's monster of social network and critical platform, and if it bugs you that the top reviews are all of severely popular books in genres you despise and don't credit, then the problem is you. People like stuff I hate all day every day, in forms I hate, for reasons I hate. All day. That doesn't make them wrong, or me right. It doesn't make my aesthetic judgement any better. It just makes it sometimes at odds with what a large group of people think. And I don't get a gold star for being some kind of iconoclast, because I'm pretty sure I'm not; I'm just an individual who doesn't reside exactly in the golden mean. Which pretty much everyone is - average taste is a mathematical concept, not an identity.
Anyway. Fuck. What was I talking about before I slipped into ranting? Oh yeah. Heckler. One of the things that super bugged me about Heckler was the section which dealt with all the racist shit comics say on stage. Like when Michael Richards freaked and screamed the n-bomb a hundred times (when reacting to a heckler, interestingly) whenever that was. Or the scads of ethnic jokes clipped in the documentary. When those audiences reacted negatively, they weren't heckling for its own sake, because they were "jealous" of Kennedy's "popularity" - it was because he just said some racist ass shit. Maybe it's an aesthetic judgement to find racist ass shit unfunny, and react to said racist ass shit negatively, but I don't actually think so. That's a question of identity and worldview. That's an articulatable position - your comedy is racist, and therefore unfunny - which is a step above "your shit is just unfunny to me because of taste" on the critical hierarchy. Taste can't be argued. Whether your shit is racist or not, and whether that makes it unfunny or not, that can. That's the difference between heckling and the critical process, motherfucker.
I'm not so far gone that I can't see that there is a world of overlap between heckling - or as I think we might call it on teh interntetz here, trolling - and the critical process. All writers - critics and authors - ae writing as hard as they can, trying to reach as many as they can. I've seen this happen a couple of times recently, where someone comes onto a review and says "this review sucks" and than get all miffy when they're called out on it - what the hell are you trying to accomplish? "This review sucks" is nothing but a statement of taste. Same as "this book sucks" if you don't back it up with something other than your subjective taste, or you don't articulate your subjective taste. Both statements of suckitude are valid, I think, but I'm not personally going to credit criticism of any form that can't back itself up. The book sucks, the review sucks, for reasons
. Maybe those reasons are weird and person to you - say it out loud. Articulate those reasons or go home. I disagree because I liked it - I disagree because I didn't like it - those are bland statements, not opinions. Or maybe they are opinions, but they aren't interesting ones. They are not discussable, disappearing into the black box of subjective taste, the non-overlapping magisteria of readerly pleasure or disgust. I guess what I'm looking for in criticism is an opening for conversation, and pointing out something sucks is just saying stuff to be heard. There's no listen. There's no opportunity for listen.
So. Whatever. I feel like I'm so far from the point I wanted to make that it's notable even for me. I've been watching the various controversies unfold on Goodreads and elsewhere with an almost obsessive fervor. If you haven't been following too closely, a site which I will not name came online month or two ago, which published the private information of several Goodreads reviewers, in some cases down to where these reviewers lunched. While they themselves hid under anonymity. This site was unhappy with negative reviews, referring to these reviewers as bullies, and hoped to give them a "taste of their own medicine" by, what, having them killed by Internet loonies? Jesus Christ. They scrubbed their site of the most offensive and possibly legally actionable content
just in time to have their bullshit
published on HuffPo, after which HuffPo delivered the absolute weakest apology
for their total lack of journalistic due diligence. Anyway, point being, in all of this, I saw post
after post by an author who was smart, well spoken, and angry
about how these reviewers were being treated. Who was funny and witty and cool
. That author, my friends, was Stacia Kane. (And, for the record, there are a bunch of writers I noticed speaking intelligently during this mess - Foz Meadows, John Scalzi, and a couple others I can't think of right now.)
I do maintain a probably-not shelf, which is mostly for weird shit that I won't read just because it's weird, and I don't want it on my to-read. In most of all this shouting about authors and reviewers, the books in question by authors-behaving-badly would have gone unread by me anyway, just because of my total lack of interest in the subject or genre. So probably-not-ing them has no meaning. But I decided to turn the frown upside down and read something by an author-behaving-goodly. If Ms. Kane's book was half as smart and funny as her posts, it's not like I could go wrong. And I dabble in urban fantasy, so it's not like it's a stretch, even if my reading interests tend more strongly in other directions.
So, yeah, this book was fun as hell. It's an alternate history where there was a ghostocalypse in 1997 - something about how the murderous undead appear and tried to kill everyone? And succeeded with, like 2/3 of the population of the Earth? But not, like, zombies or whatever? I admit, the backstory is a little hazy, but that's not the godamn point. You're thrown into the story with Chess Putnam, who is some kind of Church-licensed ghostbuster, but also a total addict and fuckup. The plot is Scooby Doo all the way, in the best way, where there are three plots - one relating to Church business, and another two dealing with various dealers that Chess is in deep with in one way or another - that start converging into a giant clusterfuck of epic proportions.
God, I loved watching this unfold. The book is not surprising, really; this isn't going to blow your post-modernist skirt up or give you shit about the meaning of life, but it is going to knock about and snort speed and talk in a street dialect that manages to be fucking cool without being racist. I usually get all tense and pissy about dialect, because it tends to be used racistly - I have christened this an acceptable adverb - subtly telling the reader that certain characters (usually the brown ones) are stupid or ignorant. The dialect here was more street talk, used by anyone on the corner, and the fact that Chess speaks in more standard English was more a function of her half-status on the street - her feet in two worlds - than her betterment of anyone. That's how you use dialect. Amen.
And man, I loves me the fuckups. I feel like they are relatively rare out there in urban fantasy, and even more so in romance. I feel like every time I crack a book about werewolves or steamships or vampires or whatever genre stuff, I find these virginal ingenues who can't find their sexuality with both hands and a flashlight. Who never dream of being bad until they find that one guy who unlocks their honey-oven with his manroot, and then ye gads! sex kitten emerges. But only, like, because of love and whatnot. Chess is not this, and it felt fresh as the nicotine hitting the blood on that first hard inhale. You kinda want to puke because it's so dirty and transgressive, but you also want to do it again
. Rarr. And speaking of rarrr, there's a dude here, one of those muscle-buses that I'm on record as making fun of - though I would not kick Jericho Barrons out of bed for eating crackers - who totally worked for me. Big, ugly, nasty enforcer for a drug dealer who can, like, read and stuff. Because literacy is sexy, baby.
Though, the fuckup protagonist is a little more common in detective or Noir stories - probably Harry Dresden falls into this a little, though he irritates me greatly - so it's not like Chess is wholly unusual. I don't have a ton of background in urban fantasy series, which is probably a saving grace for my enjoyment, when I get right down to it. I kept holding Chess and her world up to the characters and places I do
know - Mac & Fever, Ward's vamps, Dresden, Sookie, Kitty the Werewolf - measuring them in relation to one another. This is on solid genre ground, and probably the more versed in the genre you are, the more similarities might bug you. But it is on solid ground.
So, I don't know. What's the point of reviewing, ultimately? I don't mean that rhetorically - I'm asking with my bowl out. I'm not in this game to get people to read shit I like if they're not going to like it. I don't want that to happen. I don't actually believe in the "constructive review" - I'm not arrogant enough to think that my shit-talk or praise is going to influence - or should influence - how someone writes. Presumably they have people they trust for beta readers, and it's not like whatever I read isn't a done deal anyway. I'm not here to sell books or sink them, not that I think that I could anyway. I've had a lot of somewhat bullshit existential twisting about what it is I'm doing here on Goodreads - wondering what the point of it all is - and even though I keep deciding not to review anything anymore, I keep coming back. Reading is a sullen art, and I like saying it out loud, I guess. Maybe that's all it is. Maybe that's all the critical process ever is.