realthog | pissy review of The Dragons of Manhattan

Most often when I get a mediocre review I treat it on the basis -- well, at least after Pam's persuaded me to stop blubbing and unlock the lavatory door and come out -- that, well, yer wins a few and yer loses a few. But there are some that really piss me off.

They're the ones that are bad bits of reviewing. (Do note that I've been known to get upset, although obviously I keep it to myself in such instances, when I get a rave review that I regard as an incompetent piece of reviewing.)

The art of reviewing is a lot more than just reproducing the kind of guff you might exchange at the pub after seeing a movie ("Woo, blimey, you should see Julia Roberts's bum in that one"), yet it seems fewer and fewer self-styled reviewers are aware of this. There are certain pretty goddam obvious dos and don'ts, foremost among them being that you review the book (or movie, or story, whatever) that's in front of you, not the one you think the author should have written.

This particular review starts:

John Grant wanted to highlight the human tendency to affix blame everywhere but upon themselves for misdeeds, errors and misjudgment. He chose dragons to be humanity’s scapegoat . . .

and it ends:

While an entertaining and somewhat engaging story with a fascinating inspiration point, this fails as a cohesive satire of human nature.

Some of the intervening criticisms I'm prepared to take on board (well, not really, but I know I should display magnanimity here), but what incenses me is that I didn't set out with the intent of "highlight[ing] the human tendency to affix blame everywhere but upon themselves for misdeeds", etc. Yes, that was a small part of the original setup, as it were -- part of the swill of ideas that got me going -- but it was nothing more than that.

To present it as a primary objective is simply false, an invention of the reviewer. What I wanted to do was to put the boot into the Bush Administration and the society that allowed it to happen as hard as I fucking well could while being as (nastily) funny as I could manage. Rick Kleffel, in The Agony Column, put his finger on it precisely when he described the text as "illuminated fury". I was aiming for Jonathan Swift (or even Philip Roth in Our Gang, and certainly my friend John Brunner [but with jokes]), not Anita Shreve.

This makes the reviewer's self-induced conclusion -- "this fails as a cohesive satire of human nature" -- a complete nonsense. I had no notion of anything as grand (or as twee) as satirizing human nature, let alone cohesively; I was more concerned with lampooning people like Il Buce, Darth Cheney, Alberto Gonzo and the rest as the moronic sociopaths they are.

I'm further puzzled as to why the reviewer didn't realize that this ostentatiously slapstick political satire was, well, an ostentatiously slapstick political satire. The publisher's strapline on the front cover says:

The fierily satirical, bitingly funny political fantasy!

That's I think accurate, and it does seem -- with its focus on "political" -- quite a long way from the Jane Austenish "cohesive satire of human nature", which is something I never thought to attempt. Maybe I should, one day.

(Hm. Perhaps the reviewer's a wingnut who thinks Il Buce is True Fab and dislikes my centrist politics? That's possible too. And maybe I should critique the review on the entirely unproven basis that this is so. "This wingnut reviewer set out to . . .")

As I say, I get fed up when bad reviewers give me good reviews; obviously I'm grateful for any sales that might accrue, but I feel more than slightly dishonest about accepting the praise. (I've had a few rave reviews since joining LJ that I've not posted about here on exactly this basis.) I get very pissed off when reviewers try to make themselves seem interesting by reviewing books they've invented rather than the books I've actually written. It's shoddy work. They should learn better.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Satire of human nature? Ye gods, you certainly weren't doing that (though you did try to satirise some American foibles, but you haven't lived in the States long enough to get the music quite right). You were clearly taking aim at the Bushies, and you hit them between the eyes, and very funnily.

"you haven't lived in the States long enough to get the music quite right"

Fair crit: it was back about 2002 or 2003 I wrote the book. I'd been here only three or so years.

"you hit them between the eyes, and very funnily"

Thanks! That was my humble aim. None of this hifalutin "satire of human nature" stuff.

The reviewer seems to narrow down basic human nature to that of the microcosmic American collective. It's obvious that The Dragons of Manhattan is a specific social-political satire, not a generalized statement about human behavior.

The world is full of obtuse people. Some of them read, then take themselves way too seriously for having done so. Pay them no heed. They simply don't matter.

Most reviewers are intellectually myopic. But you know this already, P.

I'd better not say anything coz I'll just get myself into trouble -- not with you all, but um, some powers that pee on us all.

Love, C.

You mean . . . you're the reviewer??!!??!?

I mean no such thing, Sir.

And I disemble that remark.

Drafts at 20 paces at, um, no, not dawn. Um -- midnight?

Love, C.

Well, what was your enigmatical remark all about, then? You can't just leave us all in suspense like this!

You could always e-mail me, if you wanted to be confidential. :)

That is one of basic the pitfalls of reviewing, assuming that what you read in a story is what the author intended to put there. I can't remember if I've fallen foul of it myself (I probably have), but I do recall one instance where (after reading a particular phrase) I was sure that a particular interpretation I had was correct -- but, when I asked the author about it, it seemed I was wrong (I say 'seemed' because I didn't go on to ask him about him about the specific phrase in the book). Better to stick, in my opinion, to what a review should be about: a personal interpretation, supported by argument.

"what a review should be about: a personal interpretation, supported by argument"

Precisely.

Yes, it's fun when a reviewer tells you what you meant to do, then notes how far short you fell of this thing you clearly intended to do. Sigh.

It's not a fair way of reviewing someone else's fiction.

When my first book was published (The Termination Node), 90% of people I encountered ASSUMED that the main character was ME. Not so. Then I wrote three YA adventure sff books, and the publisher decided that my theme was that kids can survive the tactics of bullies at school. I really didn't have that in mind at all when I wrote the books - the stories were meant to be entertaining, helpful for kids who are in single parent households, not very well off, shy but smart. Sure, the books featured a bully and his pals, but in my mind, the bullying wasn't the main aspect of the novels at all.

"It's not a fair way of reviewing someone else's fiction."

Yet it happens far too often.

"When my first book was published (The Termination Node), 90% of people I encountered ASSUMED that the main character was ME."

Been there, done that. It's a bit of a clue to the dimmer readers when my protagonists are, say, female, or of a different race than I am, or both; but far too many people fall into the trap of thinking my white male narrators are (an idealized version of) me.

"the publisher decided that my theme was that"

Yep. My second solo fantasy novel was published as a sequel to the first, when in fact it's a companion volume. It was also published as a standard genre fantasy, when in fact it starts off that way and becomes something quite a lot different. I'm sure there were plenty of readers confused and disappointed there . . . plus, of course, the book wasn't reaching the readers I wanted it to reach!

"When my first book was published (The Termination Node)"

Oh, so that's who you are! I haven't liked to ask . . .

That sounds ominous. If you've actually heard of the book, well, I'd frankly be stunned.

Well, it was easy enough to search the book's title on Amazon. And then I gave a cry of "Oh, that's who Sci'o is!"

Not ominous at all! Give my regards to RW when you speak to him. When I was running Paper Tiger he and I talked vaguely about doing something with his Bio Dict of SF/F Artists, but for some reason the notion petered out; I gather Jane Frank (whom I saw just a couple of weeks ago) had his help on her own equivalent.

Small world, etc.

I met Jane & Howard Frank numerous times, but it's been awhile. Howard gave us a really cool blurb for the cover of Node. I wouldn't mind seeing their collection - or any good collection, as far as that goes. It's been ages since I've been able to see great sff original art. Somewhere, I think that I have the book that Jane & Howard published of their art collection some 5-10 years ago.

"it's fun when a reviewer tells you what you meant to do, then notes how far short you fell of this thing you clearly intended to do"

Mr Carroll should have realized that without orcs his tale is worthless . . .

You know, sometimes the reviewer is so drastically off, not merely in "getting" what was it a writer intend, but in fact not even relating to their baseline worldview, that it appears they live on a different planet than you do. In which case, it's best to just laugh and ignore it completely. :-)

pissy review of The Dragons of Manhattan

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject