be better than the nasty

I'm still digging out from under a heap of post-holiday mess, travel, and, unfortunately, sickness. woof. But now that I'm finally plugged back into the internet (the break was lovely, but reality calls), I've watched with curiosity some drama playing out on a popular book-ish site.

I don't want to comment on any one situation in particular, but rather the nature of "review" in general. As it pertains to writing, sure, but also the way it pertains to well, life.

So, you write a book or a direct/act in a movie/ create a sculpture/ design a building/ complete a project for work or heck, decide to run for office. The moment you take a step toward putting your work or yourself "out there" for a public's consumption is the moment you no longer "own" your work. You are, by definition, seeking comment, asking people to engage with this thing, whatever it is, that you've created. Chances are you love it or you wouldn't put it forth. But that doesn't mean everyone else will. People might applaud or they might (want) to pelt you with tomatoes. In either case that is their right as consumers of this good. You kick the tires when you buy a new car, why wouldn't you keep a critical eye when reading a book or watching a film? It is a viewer's right-- no, I'd argue obligation-- to engage with a medium, not passively consume it. That's what reality TV is for.

A terrifying thought: living in a world where our opinions are dictated for us. Where there is one correct way to think. To feel. To respond. To engage.

And if that doesn't make you want to run screaming for the hills you've probably recently had a lobotomy. 

People will react in any manner of ways. And THANK GOD for that!

As an (as yet) unpublished novelist, I have very little patience for authors who bemoan negative reviews because here's the thing: someone read your book. Let me say that again, SOMEONE READ YOUR BOOK. They took 3 or 4 hours of their one wild and precious life to engage with something YOU created. Of course, you hope they'll love it. But it is their right not to. This is a subjective business, after all.

Should a reviewer get personal and nasty? No. They shouldn't. But welcome to the internet. A quick peek at the comment thread of ANY news article will demonstrate that people on the internet are capable of all times of nasty (my hypothesis is that the internet affords a certain level of anonymity-- you might not say that to someone's face, but from behind the firewall of your network, it's different).

If those types of reviews influence someone away from your book, well that would be sad face inducing, sure. But odds are they aren't the type of reader you covet anyway. Especially if you are in this for the long haul-- looking to build relationships with readers for years to come. Easy come, easy go, right?

The nature of "creation" is that you have to take risks. I mean, anyone remember Apple's "Macintosh Portable?" Weighing in at 16 lbs, the thing was a behemoth and it failed miserably.

Safe to say, Steve Jobs failed with that one and Macintosh got raked over the coals a bit. Does that make him or his company a failure? Um. Heck to the NO.

And you know what? If it weren't for the Portable, we wouldn't have the Powerbook or the Macbook Pro today. Which means I wouldn't have a machine on which to type up this very post. 

My advice is this: be better than the nasty. This goes both ways-- if you're commenting upon a work OR if you're the one who created it and may be getting less than glowing reviews. Just be better than that, because you are. You totally are.