Also? After telling Fury that he sucked, once, he pulled the, "you have no idea how hard this is" rant. Because he was talking to me as a friend, and not whining so much as explaining, I thought it was a fair statement. I didn't know how hard it was. So I tried. I put myself in his shoes, and tried to break a story that fit in with a given arc in the season, and write it in a weekend.

See, this I don't get at all - Fury's reaction, I mean. Hard? No, that's crap, it's not a fair thing to say at all. If it's that hard, don't do it; go do something else.

My reaction to the "those who can't or aren't willing to try, endlessly criticise and deconstruct those who can and do" isn't about the difficulty. Truth to tell, I don't find writing hard; it's just something I do, so hard, easy, that stuff, it has no mental or emotional meaning for me. My whole "try it" comes from a different place. I just want to know that those who make a living off other peoples' work can do a bit of it themselves, is all.

And BTW, your reasons to Fury? That's exactly what, as a writer, I would want to see in a reader or viewer criticism. You gave him your reasons, you backed up your opinion, and damn it, he should have been glad to get it, because that's the kind of review that, for me, accomplishes the highest purpose: it helps me write better stuff.

Nah. I get him. Writing essays is both a joy and very very hard. I need you to understand how I feel, why I did that thing, and in this book, to string it together in a way that shows you how I got from point A to point B. I'm not very methodical, I'm sloppy, so that's hard.

The getting in the groove at the computer and reliving something so I can make you feel like you were sitting there behind me, pointing and laughing? That's a joy.

(lightbulb goes off)

My fault - I was being totally unclear.

I have a separation - emotional, psychospiritual, the whole nine yards - the size of the freakin' Mariannas Trench between writing non-fiction (essays, reviews, historical papers) and writing fiction. Not even on the same planet. They come from two totally different places, not only for me as a reader, but from me, as a writer.

Writing essays? Definitely hard. But Fury ranted on fiction, which is what made me blink, because my reaction to a reasoned criticism (NOT a deconstruction, which makes me reach for my "kill the pretentious asshead!" ion discombobulation weapon) of fiction? Is always a heartfelt thanks. Because it makes my stuff better, or at least has the potential to do so.

Oh, returning for a moment to Yvonne's being pissed off at the complaints on spelling, grammar, etc - if she's going to claim it's the publisher's doing? She has the simple recourse, of responding to the person giving her shit about it with "Unfortunately, once the manuscript is on the editor's desk, I have no further say in how they lay it out. Modern publishing requires the extensive use of Quark Express, which leads to typos, poor layouts, and misspellings. I am just as ticked off as you are, since it makes me look stupid and careless, and I'm forwarding this email, along with your original complaint, to my editor. Here's hoping it inspires a closer look at future layouts before rushing to press."

"those who can't or aren't willing to try, endlessly criticise and deconstruct those who can and do"

Er...? Most of the blurbs I see on novels -- especially first novels -- are from other novelists. (Some of these blurbs are terrible and foolish, but I gather they're given in all good faith and goodwill.)

Also, is it that you're pissed at idiotic twidgets on Amazon, or you don't think anyone but a novelist has the right to review a novel? Or you don't think anyone but a novelist has the right to analyze a novel? Or you don't think anyone at all has the right to analyze a novel?

I'm pissed at no one, particularly, Nutty. I think everyone and anyone on earth has the right to review anything at all. I'm the original 'hand WIP to some guy on the street and beg for feedback' writer; reviews are my friend.

As I say, this is an old conversation; what I object to are reviews that give me nothing useful as a writer. A slam is fine, if there's a reason given for the slam: tell me you couldn't follow the story, that the characters were dumb, that it fell apart in the middle, whatever. What I object to are the reviews that I cited to Allyson, above: "This storee SUX!" by SpikesLuvSlave.

Sounds selfish? Whatever. I'm approaching this stuff from the perspective, not of someone who wants to share my opinion with other readers, but rather from the perspective of the writer, who makes a living at it or tries to. I know that Betsy, for instance, writes reviews at Amazon, not because she gives a damn whether the writer gets better, but because she spent twenty bucks on a book, and she wants to share why other people should or shouldn't.

Well - OK. I follow that. But that doesn't mean I am in any obliged to agree with the practice. And as the writer? I don't agree with it. I think, and have said, and will say again (and, apparently, again) that when you choose to express an opinion in a public forum, especially in one where you know your commentary is possibly going to have a financial impact on the writer in question, it behooves you to take a little responsibility for what you post in that forum.

But I'm not preaching that, Nutty. I don't go around writing rants about it, not usually, not unless it's part of another discussion. I think Yvonne, while I understand that she's frustrated, chose to post that rant. And I think the rant was whingey.

Also, I don't know how much more clear I can be that I don't think someone writing a review or a blurb is the same thing as someone who assigns meaning to something they didn't write, after pulling said something apart. I don't think reviews and blurbs are the same thing as crit. I have mixed feelings on one; I have no mixed feelings on the other.

So while I think anyone can write a review, so long as they're willing to explain their take? Yes, I DO think only someone who can write fiction themselves should be deconstructing other peoples' fictions.

Which is why I no longer hang out in Literary.

As I say, this is an old conversation; what I object to are reviews that give me nothing useful as a writer.

FWIW, I would imagine you're disappointed in an awful lot of reviews, since the purpose of them, 98% of the time, seems to be to inform the reader, not the writer. It's fair to find nothing useful in such items; but to "object" to them is kind of strong language.

I don't think someone writing a review or a blurb is the same thing as someone who assigns meaning to something they didn't write, after pulling said something apart.

On this basic fact, we agree. (I wasn't sure if you were seeing it the same way as I, which is why I asked.) Analysis and reviewing aren't the same creatures. I understand we'll never agree on the usefulness of analysis, since we seem to approach the topic from opposite ends of the spectrum.

(My first experience of being analyzed, after many years of my being the analyzer, was brief and succinct: I sent a short story to an acquaitance to read, and she emailed me back, "Feeling betrayed much?" It was one of those laugh-in-shock moments, because she articulated something I hadn't thought out, but had somehow written into the story without knowing it.)

(So yes, I do find analysis valuable, although I've learned there are many people who don't.)

FWIW, I would imagine you're disappointed in an awful lot of reviews, since the purpose of them, 98% of the time, seems to be to inform the reader, not the writer. It's fair to find nothing useful in such items; but to "object" to them is kind of strong language.

Strong language? Why? I'm not writing back in rants, demanding that the reviewer try it themselves; I object to it on the personal level, as a writer, precisely because it gives me nothing useful, and that's five minutes of my life I'm never going to get back. I'd rather be spending those five minutes reading someone who says "in chapter three, there's a section that really seems to drag - you can almost feel her labouring over what the character ought to be doing."

But then, I think that's probably more akin to what you called the analysis from the friend who read your short story. I don't call that analysis, not even remotely. To my mind, she was giving you a slambang emotional reaction, and that? Something I not only find useful, but hope for, every time I send a piece off to beta readers for their take.

We may just have different definitions of analysis, period. Part of mine is rooted in personal arrogance; sitting in the chair of the student, I never once felt anything other than bored irritation as I wondered why I should give a damn, or respect it, when someone without a shred of creativity told me what made other writers' creativity work.

(edited for punctuation. Take THAT, Yvonne!)

We may just have different definitions of analysis, period. Part of mine is rooted in personal arrogance

This may turn out to be true. I don't make distinctions between good analysis (correctly understanding my emotional state from something which does not describe it directly) and bad analysis (insert your favorite crackpot interpretation here) -- it's all analysis to me.

A critique is a reaction to a work designed to help the writer improve. A review is a reaction to a work designed to help the potential readers in deciding whether and why to read that work. Analysis is a reaction to a work designed to help readers in thinking about the work they've already read. If you go to #2 or #3, expecting to find #1, you'd definitely be disappointed.

I'm always a little wary of defining a thing by its quality (e.g. "All analysis is bad") because, well, it's as reductive as saying "All romance is bad", and we've had that discussion before; and because a definition based on a value judgement is necessarily going to be personal in nature, so the definition will vary from person to person. And that way lies confusion, as we've demonstrated today.

Analysis is a reaction to a work designed to help readers in thinking about the work they've already read.

Then we do agree on the definitions. I just never wanted any help in thinking about my take on what I've read. I have the deep-rooted mistrust of the opposing arrogance, there: why would their take be any more valid than mine? And since I was forced to sit in the chair, and listen to them talk, and at least half the time, I thought their take was absurd? There you have the roots of my adult dislike of analysis, which is what I think of as litcrit. Half a century, and never come across a reason to feel differently. Why would I need anyone to tell me how to think or feel about someone else's creativity?

I'll reiterate, one time for Elvis, that my dislike extends to fiction only. Science, history, medicine, whatever, bring it on. I will listen to anyone's opinion, and weigh it against what I already know. If it's something about which I know nothing, I'll listen to all of, it write down the suggested sources, and then go form my own opinion.

On the other hand, if it's something about which I personally know nothing, I'm not going to stand up in front of a class full of captive audience kids and tell them how to think. Brrrr. NOT my thing.

Um, um, speaking of criticism, can someone groom my monkey? Lubricate my social?

I've been having two solid days of self-doubt, made the mistake of reading some Sarah Vowell (dear god she's good), and want to crawl under my bed and die of shame for what I've written.

If there's a spare stroke, can someone pick it up off the floor and apply it to my ego?