[Previous entry: "I'm a Hermit!"] [Next entry: "Mississippi in the Fall"]
09/24/2004: "The Author Rebuttal--worth it?"
Pages Written: 1...plus 10 pages of revisions
So. When an author gathers scathing reviews of one of her books, does it make sense to write a scathing rebuttal in return? Is she defending herself, or alienating readers? I guess it depends on how the rebuttal is written.
There will always be people who hate your work. Just as there will always be people who love it. So will explaining your reasonings behind the novel make those who hate it suddenly change their minds? My guess is no. But apparently Anne Rice thinks so. And I'm not sure that these words of hers are helping matters any:
"If and when I can't write a book on my own, you'll know about it. And no, I have no intention of allowing any editor ever to distort, cut, or otherwise mutilate sentences that I have edited and re-edited, and organized and polished myself.
I fought a great battle to achieve a status where I did not have to put up with editors making demands on me, and I will never relinquish that status. For me, novel writing is a virtuoso performance. It is not a collaborative art."
Every author I've ever spoken with has agreed that editors are a valuable part of publishing a novel. Yes, there are horror stories, but from what I've heard, a good editor is worth their weight in gold. Am I wrong? I could be. I'm not published.
But my point is that I think that while Anne Rice has the right to defend her work, it seems pointless. And her screeching speech might actually hurt her in the long run. It doesn't seem well thought-out, but rather a knee-jerk reaction written on the spur of the moment while still running high on emotion. For example, she contradicts herself in these two paragraphs:
"Now to the book. Allow me to point out: nowhere in this text are you told that this is the last of the chronicles, nowhere are you promised curtain calls or a finale, nowhere are you told there will be a wrap- up of all the earlier material."
and...
"I'll never challenge your democratic freedom to do so, and yes, I'm answering you, but for what it's worth, be assured of the utter contempt I feel for you, especially those of you who post anonymously (and perhaps repeatedly?) and how glad I am that this book is the last one in a series that has invited your hateful and ugly responses."
Gotta love the fact that she also feels contempt for those who don't like her book.
Again, something that may be more hurtful to her career than helpful. Then again, the buzz over her Amazon.com rebuttal may send people scrambling for the book in question just to see why people have hated it.
I don't know. I think I just see her rebuttal as something she didn't need to do. I read through the reviews of Blood Canticle, and yes, there are a LOT of scathing words. But most of the negative reviews are by fans who have followed Anne through her career and are disappointed in the quality of this particular book. They admit that she's usually brilliant, but that this book is terrible--poorly written, poorly characterized, and just plain awful. Many blame it on the death of her husband. Many don't think the real Anne Rice wrote it at all.
I think that a lot of the negative reviews are a result of frustrated fans who have seen their favorite characters like Lestat turned into something different and less compelling. They feel let down, and their emotions are showing. You see it all the time in sports. The biggest fans are the biggest jerks when their teams lose. But they still keep going back to the games.
So it seems to me like there are a lot of legitimate complaints that Anne is ignoring in favor of blasting the very people who love her books--but who are angry about getting an inferior product when they are used to so much more. Personally, I liked her early books, but they began to get...weird. Not as well written. (Gee, maybe that happened around the time she insisted upon no editor???)
Anyway, it'll be interesting to see how this all plays out!
.
It's far too easy to be defensive about your own work, which is why most crit group rules include not trying to rebut any crits you don't like. Ann Rice's letter smacks of defensiveness, which means that she feels there's some hint of truth in the critic's attacks. And while I agree that my temper would urge me to do the same thing, I would hold back for that very reason. 
