Thursday, April 2, 2015

The Reviewer's dilemmna

Writers are very defensive of their works so why are reviewers surprised when authors go off on them for what they perceive to be 'unflattering' reviews of their works? (Which begs the question;why do most authors refuse to review the work of others? (because it is a totally thankless task... unless you write flattering puffery which aids no-one. And we've all read those reviews too...worse, we bought the product and asked ourselves afterwards what book did knothead read because it certainly bears no resemblance the one you have in your hands!)

Authors are correct, the reviewer (often) doesn't understand what the author is trying to communicate, but who's fault is that?

If the author had done a better job of explaining themselves, mayhaps the reviewer would have been kinder...or maybe not because dreck is dreck. You can't put lipstick on a pig, thereby magically turning it into art!

Don't misunderstand, it is possible to breathe new life into old stories but simply re-hashing badly over-trodden ground serves no-one.

Unsurprisingly, many fall short of the mark...and succeed despite the lack of logic (plot holes large enough to fly commercial airliners through) so perhaps that is why some authors write drivel and expect to be heaped with praise, sort of a self-inflicted wound, the talentless bilking the clueless is one of the oldest cons there is.

So I've got this here sharp stick, now, who wants it right in the ol' eyeball?

No comments:

Post a Comment