J K Rowling’s latest book – her first for adults, The Casual Vacancy, has reportedly been slammed by critics.
I am intrigued at the way books are sometimes attacked by reviewers in papers and magazines. In New Zealand it happens mainly because the field is so small that reviewers are often authors themselves, or in debate with the authors they are reviewing. The anger of those who feel their private territory has been invaded – or that one of their sacred cows has been tipped – is vicious, emotional and usually couched in a veneer of intellectualised justification.
The usual technique pivots on the ‘straw man’ – deliberately defining ‘right’ as something a book was obviously never written to do, then using that construction to ‘prove’ the book is worthless. The techniques are the same every time. Usually the critic will wring unintended meaning out of the title or jacket blurb, then ridicule the content on the basis that it fails to present what the critic insists was promised. Or they will look for questions the author poses in the introduction and deny they were answered. Frequently the vengeful critic will trawl for anything they can twist into an alleged ’error’, authenticated only by their own assertions. Or they will ridicule the sources, thus denying the scholarship of their target author. Sometimes all these techniques are deployed – arguments as hollow as they are specious. But because the review is apparently ‘fair’ assessment – where editors back reviewers’ indignant assertions of ‘professionalism’ - it is difficult for the target to respond.
I find myself targeted by one or two strangers wallowing in this froth of self-righteous hostility virtually every time I publish a book. These people, without exception, have their own competing interests. They never contact me – I learn about them from the newspapers. I am not the only one it happens to, of course. But it’s poor. If someone has a problem with my existence to this extent, I reasonably expect them to have the integrity to approach me first. It’s courteous. It’s ethical. What are they afraid of?
The real question is why. I suspect the problem stems from a conflation of self-worth with expectations of status in the field of personal interest; in this view, other work – by existing, or by questioning something they believe true - becomes a personal attack that must be avenged. If everybody else is smashed, the victor becomes the only one owning the topic. The fact that this destroys the worth of the field along the way is less crucial, it seems, than exclusive ownership of the crumbs.
It has a lot to do with self-validation. Humanity has an unerring ability to rationalise and intellectualise what are, in fact, selfish emotional needs.
Needless to say, I think there are better ways. Kindness and inclusion always work, particularly in writing where the ‘pie’ grows with its contributors. Everybody has something of their own to add, and should be encouraged and helped to do so. The way to get ahead, in short, is to make that ‘pie’ better all round - to welcome and help everybody. And guess what, you rise with them, and you’ll have trusted friends who support you, just as you support them. Everybody wins.
I also think people have the power to change themselves for the better. If they want to.
What do you think? Have you ever had experiences like this? Do you write reviews yourself – and how do you approach them? I’d love to hear from you.
Copyright © Matthew Wright 2012
I think you nailed it when you said, “It has a lot to do with self-validation. Humanity has an unerring ability to rationalise and intellectualise what are, in fact, selfish emotional needs.”
Recently I’ve been reading “The Denial of Death” by Ernest Becker and one quote really jumped out at me. “One of the ironies of the creative process is that it partly cripples itself in order to function. I mean that, usually, in order to turn out a piece of work the author has to exaggerate the emphasis of it, to oppose it in a forcefully competitive way to other versions of the truth; and he gets carried away by his own exaggeration, as his distinctive image is built on it”.
It seems that when people’s creative or academic works become a key part of their sense of worth, or an extension of their identity then often there is a lot more at stake than just the work itself. I see this a lot in creative industries. One excellent strategy to beating it is the ability to not just have one or two good ideas, but many.
Very true! My take is that academia in particular seems to attract people who identify themselves with their topic – and nurture them. When I was at VUW, way back when, the history department was in a state of open warfare with itself, all couched around intellectualised invalidations but in reality involving deep hatred between the staff over – well, in any real world sense, nothing. What followed was, in the psychological sense, a pernicious form of game-playing. Norman Dixon wrote an interesting book suggesting that the military attract certain archetypes; and while his specific thesis is debatable, I think in general it’s true for most occupations, one way or another.
Given your opening para, you might like this: http://www.theage.com.au/lifestyle/-26fr5.html
Hope the link works, I am on the iPad and used The Age app.
I have no experience of being reviewed …. yet. So I can’t comment from experience. I can say I see your words as something to remember when I get there.
Thanks, I’ll have a look. Most reviews are OK. But occasionally there’s the kind I describe above – an intellectualised assault on repute by a rival author thirsting for revenge at your unknowing intrusion into their personal territory. I get them every so often – and so do most Kiwi authors. I wouldn’t mind if the people doing it had the guts to approach me first, like adults, but they don’t.
I do write review, but I’m always careful to point out who the intended audience is. If I”m reviewing a book for young adults, I expect a different type of writing than a psychological thriller aimed at 30-somethings.
If I get stuck reading and reviewing a book I really didn’t enjoy, I still attempt to find good things about it. I will at that point also offer suggestions. Often simply having a second editor would have improved some of the books I’ve read enough to make them enjoyable.
I was never a publisher, but I am a writer, and have worked as an editor for many years. Whether in the field of journalism, or literature, I think there’s a lot more to writing a book or a news article than just words. I completely agree that there’s a team in play, and that play should and does often include reviewers. There can be so many positive outcomes from a review, it’s too bad the ‘bad reviews’ get all the attention sometimes.
There are some books though, that I’ve been offered copies of, and will probably never review – simply because I can’t get through the syntax which is unfortunate. (My mother always said If you can’t say anything nice, at least try to be constructive.)
I agree. Stephen Fry made the same point in one of his autobiographies – he just couldn’t bring himself to write a ‘stinker’ review (as he called it) – positive comment was part of the deal. And the fact is that most books do have something positive in them. But it’s an unfortunate reality, especially in narrow academic circles, that a review is often looked on as a device for territorial assertion, with the behaviours I’ve noted above usually following. It’s endemic in New Zealand, alas. Problem of being a small country, I suspect.
It’s a lot like that here from what I understand. Peer reviewed journals (especially in Music and History) seem to be strife with scholars lambasting one another. Usually, as you’ve pointed out there’s a personal agenda. I think while Canada may be geographically large, it’s by comparison small population plays a role as well.
Common human problem! The worst of it is, most of these arguments are about nothing – it’s all to do with status assertion within the very narrow parameters defined by academia, and doesn’t add anything much to the real world. What I object to is when, as a commercial author, I get the same treatment from these people in public media. It damages my income, but they still get their salaries (at my expense, as taxpayer).
Enjoyed your writing. Glad that I stumbled across your blog. I write reviews too. Not great transforming ones. But I still do. You might want to check them at http://bookishdesires.wordpress.com/ and http://ashaseth.wordpress.com/…
-Asha
Have you read Sebastian Faulks, ‘A Week in December’? There’s an interesting portrayal of a reviewer with a chip on his shoulder and it makes for interesting reading. I think the extremely critical reviews either sound like the person has a problem they are not owning up to or a distinct lack of equanimity.
And its clear why they would never contact you (in answer to your question), because it would be impossible to be so critical once acquainted with the human being behind the writing when given explanations, help and a personal link. That would give you great rebuttal if it actually did happen though.
I think they don’t try hard enough to form a comment or criticism in a way that doesn’t stoop to negativity, personal attack or unprofessionalism – its not easy being constructive and honest without seeming bland or afraid to tackle the difficult task of analysing in a coherent and communicative way something they feel doesn’t quite work and being able to distinguish whether it is personal or something all readers are likely to experience.
I actually have met several of the people who perform this way, post-fact on every occasion, and every one of them writers with their own competing interests in the field. I gave them polite opportunity to stand by the allegations they had published from behind the fiction of a ‘review’, to my face, in person. None did so. I would have expected better. I have the courage and integrity to stand by what I say. Why can’t these people? Well, I do know why, of course.
The problem, ultimately, is that the whole issue is emotional; these are people with low self-worth who assauge and define their validity through their imagined status in their field of interest. They see somebody else in ‘their’ field and see red, without necessarily knowing why. Their commentary on the competing work that follows, irrespective of how it is intellectualised, is purely intended to damage as a way of avenging that imagined hurt. To me, it should not be mistaken for any genuine attempt to critique, and I draw distinction between that sort of behaviour and the balanced reviews written by professionals with no vested interest in their subject.
A superiority complex, a fascinating subject for fiction, not so pleasant in real life. Refusing to respond in the same manner and only ever acting with integrity will always win over, even if it is a slower paced race. These kind of responses are red flag wavers, to be noted and call us all to attention, take the lesson and meditate on it is about all I could suggest. It’s tough out there .
Hi Matthew,
I have had a number of my academic papers reviewed over the years. The vast majority were fair and decent (positive and/or constructive), but unfortunately there will always be vicious creatures that troll ‘their areas of expertise’ and jealousy try to shove and push others out of ‘their territory’.
For example, I once had an academic paper trashed by a journal Editor with a review of about 7 words. It said ‘The author did not include the ‘XXXX’ model.’ That was it, for a rejection of an entire academic paper. Low and behold, the name of the model matched the surname of the Editor. It doesn’t take a genius to realize that he was clearly trying to blackmail me into adding the name of his model into my paper if I wanted to get published in his journal. Needless to say, I withdrew my paper and got it published in another journal, a much better one and with no bother at all. (I have never used or referred to this man’s model and never will on principle now). The whole situation was ridiculous.
Those that trash another person’s work are often jealous and rather pathetic when you think about it. They have dubious talents and low morals. A reviewer of merit will always have something positive and constructive to say. A viewer not worth spit will just trash your work or blackmail you by one means or another into kissing their feet. However, such creatures often make the mistake of exposing themselves. People that read vitriolic reviews often do so with a raised eyebrow and recognize the mischief that is behind them.
I absolutely agree on all counts! And yes, this academic bullying happens in all fields. As I’ve noted in a comment above, the problem I have is when it is applied not to my academic work, but to commercial books which are meant to earn me money – this sort of conduct does serve to damage sales, unjustly.
That’s terrible. The people who do it are most definitely your competitors. It’s unfortunately the age old sin of greed and envy at play. I hope you find a way of exposing them.