Laurell K. Hamilton and the “negative reader”

Ran across a reference to a blog entry by LKH about “negative readers” of her books — i.e., folks who dislike her series and comment upon it on her (and others’) forums — felt compelled both to read and to comment (not unlike my attitude toward her books).

Now, first off, there are doubtless many trolls out there in the literary world — folks who kvetch just to seem cool, or to thumb their noses directly in the faces of authors so as to make themselves feel more important. The false intimacy of the author-reader relationship (esp. if the author keeps a blog) adds to this phenominon.

That said, Hamilton is off a bit in her criticism of all “negative readers” by misattributing the same motivation to all of them.

1. To the question “so why do you keep reading the books,” the answer “because I hope they’ll get better again” may be a false hope but is also a legitimate expression of both fondness for earlier works and a desire to see something more like them again from an author once enjoyed. A schlock actor is worth only a passing comment; an actor who produces schlock but once did great things is worth grieving over. It’s even worse when there are moments that recall what you really like.
   
   So, for example, even in Incubus Dreams there were bits that I enjoyed a lot, that reminded me of the Anita Blake tales I’d enjoyed most (for the record, it was the Dolph/Zebrowski and SWAT team stuff). This parts made the wretched excesses of the other 700-odd pages all the more frustrating.
2. Dismissing criticism of how one handles characters (and plot) by simply suggesting that the “negative readers” don’t want edgy, envelope-pushing books that make them “uncomfortable” is patronizing and self-indulgent. It may be true, of course, but it may also be true that folks just find the way the characters are being manipulated and run through the story to be unconvincing, overly-scripted, and motivated more by something other than creating good tales.
   Indiana Jones being captured and raped by Nazis would be pushing things beyond the “comfort zone” of both him and many of his fans. That wouldn’t necessarily make it a good or artistic thing to do.
3. Um, it’s spelled (according to the books and the languages I recognize) “ardeur,” not “arduer.” I swear by my “diety.”
4. Dismissing a “minority” view because the books remain best sellers is a fair commercial comment, but doesn’t really address the artistic concerns of that “minority,” only the monetary concerns of the author.
5. That some “negative readers” think that something ought to be done to reduce the population of characters (and/or sex partners) for Anita doesn’t necessarily mean that they think the characters are all disposalble and trivial. I actually find most of the characters in Anita’s life interesting in various ways (except Nathaniel, who I find annoying), and having any of them die or leave the tale for long would be a shame. That said, I like different foods, too, but a successful meal is not necessarily
   one that has me consuming each of them in a twenty course session. Being unwilling to tell a good story because you care for all the characters doesn’t make for good writing — it makes for just the opposite. (That you find yourself thinking of them as real enough to buy Christmas presents for is not a good sign, either.)

It would be awful, truly, to be the author of a successful series (in terms of sales, at least) and have folks harping on all the stuff they didn’t like. If I, as someone who has enjoyed much of the AB series (and still finds, even in its greatest excesses, bits to enjoy of them) offer criticism, it’s not really to LKH to change the writing, but as a warning to those who haven’t read yet (or commiseration with those who have and who share my opinion) about something that irks me. That may strike
LKH as being pointlessly negative — but, then …

Well, let me consider the other side. If I started getting comments here from a past reader who really liked the stuff I was posting about in 2001-2002, but who had grown steadily less pleased by my works until, today, he found it a struggle to get through the vast majority of my posts on any given day … what would I say?

Well, I hope I would react with politeness. I would probably, like LKH, wonder why they were still reading here (heck, the number of blogs I’ve liked but grown disenchanted with, as they or I or both of us changed over the years, is legion). If there were specific criticisms, I would consider them, though I’d not likely change what I’m doing. More importantly, though, I wouldn’t dismiss such criticism by attributing them with motivations or emotions not established by what they’d written.
I might simply shrug and note (accurately) that there’s no accounting for taste. I might get testy if they kept coming to me to criticize, but I would probably not go out of my way to look for negative commentary out there about me, especially after the tenth or twentieth time.

Hamilton does note one other thing accurately — a lot of her most vociferous critics are fans (albeit “negative” ones), because they squawk because they care, either about the work in question or about the body of work or past volumes of same. Having now read the whole series (in paperback), there’s a lot about the AB series that’s brilliant, as well as aspects that are just goofy or unpleasant or poorly done. It’s the former I want to enjoy more of. If that weren’t so … well, I wouldn’t
be spending all this time writing this.

So … ’nuff said.