I recently lost all respect for an author whose work I enjoyed as a teenager when I witnessed him being a total asshole in an online discussion (I'll do him the service of not mentioning his name, although he really doesn't deserve such a kindness)--because of his total unprofessionalism and his "I Know Better Than You Because I'm a Published Author and Everyone Loves Me" attitude during said discussion. I will likely never read any of his work again, despite the fact that I used to enjoy it: My disgust at his behavior swamps over any and all of those positive feelings.
But I agree with you whole-heartedly; I think a person can be professional and respectful, and still deliver honest criticism; and doing so should not harm a person's chances of being published.
Personally, I would value a well thought out, well-written negative review far more than twenty vapid "OMG, YOU ARE TEH BEST WRITER EVAR!!!" reviews. I would also trust the writer of the former to write a book worth publishing infinitely more than the writer of the latter.
I try to be polite even when I didn't like a writer's work, and I try to acknowledge what a writer does well even if I didn't like the book on a whole. I think if they are serious about their writing, they deserve that much--but by the same token, they also deserve my honest opinion, because I would expect the same treatment in return.
I am serious about eventually being a published author--that is, if I died without having published anything, I would feel very unfulfilled and would probably linger around as a ghost making life hell for the living. But, seriously, I hope to actually get something published within the next year. That goal is not, however, going to prevent me from writing an honest review if I didn't like a book, because I value honesty very highly. And I do agree with Anonymous--indifference is worse than hatred.
All that aside, everyone calls Anne Rice batshit crazy because Anne Rice is batshit crazy. And I didn't love Mark Twain nearly as much before I read "Fenimore Cooper's Literary Offenses," but now he's just about my favorite person ever. Seriously, I think Mark Twain was History's First Sporker. (I think there was an earlier example of Epic Snark I read once, but now I can't remember who/what it was.)
Dumbledore--I have to say, I subscribe to the belief that Dumbledore's silence about certain things that Harry really needed to know was selfish, in that he really loved Harry (like the grandson he never had), and couldn't bring himself to say the things he knew would give Harry pain, and kept putting it off until he ran out of time. It's selfish because the fact that it would hurt Harry to know, even though he needed to know, would hurt Dumbledore to tell him. This is quite aside from the fact that not telling him was putting a whole lot of other people needlessly in danger--the "greater good" thing got kind of forgotten for awhile, supplanted by his own personal need to protect Harry.
I also think that the infamous "glint of triumph" at the end of Book 4 meant that Dumbledore, even then, knew that V's usage of Harry's blood gave Harry a defense against death, because he must have known or at least suspected, even then, that Harry had become a Horcrux. I don't think he could have told Harry, "It's okay, you have a defense against death," because Harry had to believe he was going to die fully for his sacrifice to mean anything. Maybe this is obvious to everyone else and I'm just out of the loop, but I had to throw it out there.
I think Dumbledore was being absolutely truthful when he told Harry that he hadn't told him a lot of things because he kept telling himself, "Oh, he's too young to know." It was really for his own benefit, not Harry's--he just couldn't bring himself to say it.
Honestly, though, I think that makes me appreciate Dumbles more as a character, because it makes him seem more human--in the first few books he almost seems omnipotent and incapable of failure. But he certainly did fail, in his duties towards Harry. That's my opinion on the thing, anyhow.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-02-05 01:18 pm (UTC)But I agree with you whole-heartedly; I think a person can be professional and respectful, and still deliver honest criticism; and doing so should not harm a person's chances of being published.
Personally, I would value a well thought out, well-written negative review far more than twenty vapid "OMG, YOU ARE TEH BEST WRITER EVAR!!!" reviews. I would also trust the writer of the former to write a book worth publishing infinitely more than the writer of the latter.
I try to be polite even when I didn't like a writer's work, and I try to acknowledge what a writer does well even if I didn't like the book on a whole. I think if they are serious about their writing, they deserve that much--but by the same token, they also deserve my honest opinion, because I would expect the same treatment in return.
I am serious about eventually being a published author--that is, if I died without having published anything, I would feel very unfulfilled and would probably linger around as a ghost making life hell for the living. But, seriously, I hope to actually get something published within the next year. That goal is not, however, going to prevent me from writing an honest review if I didn't like a book, because I value honesty very highly. And I do agree with Anonymous--indifference is worse than hatred.
All that aside, everyone calls Anne Rice batshit crazy because Anne Rice is batshit crazy. And I didn't love Mark Twain nearly as much before I read "Fenimore Cooper's Literary Offenses," but now he's just about my favorite person ever. Seriously, I think Mark Twain was History's First Sporker. (I think there was an earlier example of Epic Snark I read once, but now I can't remember who/what it was.)
Dumbledore--I have to say, I subscribe to the belief that Dumbledore's silence about certain things that Harry really needed to know was selfish, in that he really loved Harry (like the grandson he never had), and couldn't bring himself to say the things he knew would give Harry pain, and kept putting it off until he ran out of time. It's selfish because the fact that it would hurt Harry to know, even though he needed to know, would hurt Dumbledore to tell him. This is quite aside from the fact that not telling him was putting a whole lot of other people needlessly in danger--the "greater good" thing got kind of forgotten for awhile, supplanted by his own personal need to protect Harry.
I also think that the infamous "glint of triumph" at the end of Book 4 meant that Dumbledore, even then, knew that V's usage of Harry's blood gave Harry a defense against death, because he must have known or at least suspected, even then, that Harry had become a Horcrux. I don't think he could have told Harry, "It's okay, you have a defense against death," because Harry had to believe he was going to die fully for his sacrifice to mean anything. Maybe this is obvious to everyone else and I'm just out of the loop, but I had to throw it out there.
I think Dumbledore was being absolutely truthful when he told Harry that he hadn't told him a lot of things because he kept telling himself, "Oh, he's too young to know." It was really for his own benefit, not Harry's--he just couldn't bring himself to say it.
Honestly, though, I think that makes me appreciate Dumbles more as a character, because it makes him seem more human--in the first few books he almost seems omnipotent and incapable of failure. But he certainly did fail, in his duties towards Harry. That's my opinion on the thing, anyhow.