A Scathing Review is Better than No Review
- The Web: Writing
Sarah Lacy doesn't care for the recent New York Times review of her book, and is turning lose the hounds of blogging hell on the article author, Katie Hafner. Without, of course, linking to the article in question, which the egalitarian elite of Silicon Valley never do when peeved.
Lacy believes the review is overly personal, seemingly because to her, criticizing her book is somehow equivalent to criticizing her, as a person. However, the review is focused on the book, including issues of writing style, such as Lacy's use of incomplete sentences.
The writing is, at best, informal. For instance, the last time I checked the American Heritage Dictionary, in spite of how computer trade journalists might choose to use the word, “architect” was not recognized as a verb, to say nothing of “rearchitect.” And Lacy’s fifth-grade teacher would no doubt wince at the profusion of incomplete sentences. (“Probably a good thing few women work there.” And “The time Jay and Marc were chatting when Sumner Redstone sauntered up.”) Then again, everything happens so quickly in Silicon Valley that perhaps there is no time to write a proper sentence.
Whatever anecdotal information is included in the review is all focused on the book, including the reference to the article that originally inspired the book, as well as Lacy's seeming familiarity with the people she interviewed.
Though my books aren't the Big Deal that books like Lacy's are, negative reviews are just as painful, and I can understand Lacy's unhappiness with the review. However, letting loose her fans on the review author is, to me, a tacky, rather childish action; especially since Lacy's book has received primarily positive reviews. Did she seriously think everyone would like it? Lacy would do better to appreciate the fact that her book was reviewed in the New York Times—a negative review is better than no review at all, especially in a prestigious publication like the NY Times.
The worst thing that can happen to a book, and a book author, is no one caring about the book enough to write any review, positive or negative. Probably one of the most important points Randy Pausch made in his "Last Lecture", linked in an earlier post, was the following:
when you see yourself doing something badly and nobody's bothering to tell you anymore, that's a bad place to be. Your critics are the ones telling you they still love you and care.
Comments
It's nice to see the spirit of Oscar Wilde ("the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about") alive and well :)
The funny thing is, it's not that negative a review. Hafner has some good things to say about the book.
I didn't think it was an excessively negative review, though the reviewer did make some statements that would make me wince if they had been directed to me.
I wanted to add something useful to this discussion, so I looked up her name and I couldn't think of anything. She is just not so interesting.
Sorry.
And therein lies the "indifference" ;-)
Hmm, lots of items:
1) “architect” was not recognized as a verb
But other sources DO recognize it as a verb, see the discussion in e.g.
http://blog.simonshea.com/2005/09/architect-is-not-verb.html
Language evolves.
2) Without, of course, linking to the article in question,
Of course not. Links are currency in the attention economy, remember?
3) criticizing her book is somehow equivalent to criticizing her, as a person.
Well, half and half. The review's criticism of the book does have an aspect that it was written by someone too close and too flacky to the interviewees - e.g. "With the stance of an insider given unparalleled access to her subjects, the starry-eyed Lacy ..."
4) "Your critics are the ones telling you they still love you and care"
Blithering nonsense. I've heard that sentiment a lot. It's ENTIRELY possible that your critics hate your guts and will take great joy in causing you as much misery as they possibly can. They may "care" about you only in the sense that a bully kicking a dog cares it got in their way.
Replace "love" with passion, or even interest, and the saying has a lot of sense. This book hit the NYT radar, ie generated enough interest, to rate a review. If the Times was indifferent about the book or the topic, or the author, you wouldn't waste the energy to do a review. In particular, I felt that this reviewer thought Lacy could do better, which is why she specifically made some of the comments she did.
Think of your own writing, Seth. You don't write about topics that don't interest you; you only write on topics that interest you, though you may loath whatever it is you're writing about.
Dr. Paucsh just strikes me that he had few (or no) enemies, and so to him, criticism would come from someone who "loved" him, or at least, who liked him.
But "love" is a very positive word, while "interest" covers a lot more territory. You can be of "interest" to someone because you're in their way, or a safe target on which to take out their frustrations, or can serve as fodder for their demagoguery, etc. To be a "person of interest" is often quite negative.
Saying that some harsh-sounding criticism can be meant to be constructive is true. Saying that all such criticism is meant that way is utterly ridiculous.
Actually, I do think of my own writings. The stuff I write about Lessig's corruption studies is very very touchy, because while I do mean it in terms of helping him do better, if he doesn't take it that way, it's not good for me. inversely, I've been trashed from "on-high" many times and had my censorware research derailed and destroyed by lawyers and journalists who had no "love" for me at all, and had very self-"interested" motives to smear me.
The point that Dr. Pausch is making is that sometimes people who care for us are going to say things we're not going to like. Or that hurt us. And that rather than react negatively, and push the people away, we need to think about what they're saying, and why. Because when the don't have anything to say, at all, it may be because they just don't care anymore.
I used Dr. Pausch's quote in relation to this book because book reviews are constructive, even if they may be negative in tone. My Learning JavaScript book, the first edition, got trashed, and it was painful as hell...but I learned what not to do with the second edition based on the negative reviews.
The thing is, the negative reviews of my book were "criticism". The lawyers and journalists who trash your studies? All they're doing is "trashing" they're not criticizing, because they're not giving you anything on which to build. At the same time, could the fact that they were able to derail your work be useful in ensuring that future work is not so easily destabilized?
If I say you're a fat doo doo head, I'm not criticizing you, I'm attacking you, insulting you, slamming you, or some variation of all three. However, if I say to you, Seth you have a lot going for you, but..., well, you may not like what follows, but chances are what follows will be criticism, and not gratuitous insults. You may not agree, and I may be wrong, but it's no different than your attempts to criticize Lessig's corruption studies, or my own criticism of Lessig's consideration of political office (not to mention Creative Commons).
But ".. that sometimes people who care for us are going to say things we're not going to like" is very different from the idea people who say things we're not going to like are ALWAYS doing it because they care about us. Quite often, they have very destructive agendas. Moreover, someone with a destructive agenda can always claim they're trying to "help", which makes it even more complicated. Which is one reason why I find Randy Pausch's homilies to be less than helpful.
Trashing can always be claimed to be criticism. I've gone through this a lot. Attackers rarely say their goal is outright destruction of someone else, in order to serve their own interests. And while I'm not offended, do you see the problem of, when someone is deeply wronged by malicious opponents, the cliche of calling it a learning experience? (my phrasing there)
Regarding "but chances are what follows will be criticism, and not gratuitous insults" - depending on the context or motives, it may not be "gratuitous", but something which serves *you* instead of *me*. Hypothetically: "Randy, you're too ambitious. You should be happy to work in my lab as a postdoc for the next decade". Or maybe "Seth, your concern over being sued is overwrought. You should just let it pass when I, prominent lawyer, throw some mud on you, that's just politics, part of the game."
And there are certainly many people who do not have Lessig's best interests at heart (in any reasonable sense of the term) when they criticize him.
BTW, a side note. There might be multiple contexts to what Pausch was saying. At CMU, every dissertation defense was opportunity for a rough and tumble debate, every guest lecture, every seminar of any type. It was sort of survival of the fittest, and a lot of people failed. How do you set yourself up mentally for that? How do you take it day in and day out?
Pausch might have been giving a quick lesson in reframing for mental survival rather than a statement of reality. There were a lot of students in that audience.
Yes, it's a bad review. Based on the review, I'd be unlikely to read the book. (I almost never buy books; that's what the library is for.) But except for the first paragraph (sorta), it doesn't read as a personal slam, at least not any more than any other critique of someone's writing. (Writing is a very personal process, in my experience.)
And there's plenty that a humble writer could learn from: it sounds like when Lacy writes in a professional style, she's clear and accessible. I would be curious to read her description of how venture capital works, for example. But that as her style becomes less formal, and presumably as she gets closer and more personal with her subjects, the quality of her writing suffers.
Of course, if it were me, I'd rather hear that from my old writer's group before I heard it from the NYT. But I think that's what's meant by "critics" -- not people who hate what you do, but people who can -- and want to -- think critically about what you do. That's what makes critique useful. It hurts like f'ing hell sometimes, but it makes you a better writer.
(I miss my writer's group.)
When you're a professional writer, you have to learn to live with the criticism, or get out of the game. If you get little response to a book, then you definitely have to consider getting out of the game.
I think you have to be careful with writing groups. If the people in your group don't have any particular ability to be a good critic, they can do more harm than good. You may end up so confused about how to write that you just give up.
In Lacy's case, I don't think her editor did the best of jobs. Either that or they had a hard time establishing the book's audience.