Counterproductive, and yet I must make a request.

There is a thing than has been annoying me for going on two years. It is undoubtedly counterproductive of me to discuss it, yet it has come to the point where I find it more than slightly irritating when it crosses the threshold of my attention.

I want to put the question to you, dear readers. Is it a) vaguely creepy, b) more than vaguely creepy, or c) not at all creepy when an author appears to hold a public grudge over mixed review,* and continues to refer to it (directly and indirectly) at intervals as much as three years later? But I should not ask.

The review in question was posted on Tor.com in the summer of 2011. Most recently well-meaning *cough* people have drawn my attention to the fact the author still seems to be dwelling on it.

It is somewhat baffling to me, and I would like to request that well-meaning people in future not tell me these things.

*Admittedly, I did email the bloke when it happened (because people kept telling me and tweeting about I’d called him a misogynist) to point out that this was a rather hyperbolic interpretation of my words. I was a baby reviewer and did not yet know better than to let the narrative burn itself out and not to worry about people’s possible insulted feelings over exaggerated interpretations. Perhaps there is a lesson to be acquired from that.

5 thoughts on “Counterproductive, and yet I must make a request.

  1. Answer from random reader = some of A and more of B. Guessing this is the review I will paraphrase as “if this is the kind of thing you like, you’ll like it, but if not don’t bother.” It seems more than a bit odd that this particular review still sticks with the author to that degree, as it was about the book not being to your taste, which I though was the whole point of reviewing, no? Otherwise, we could have a paragraph of plot synopsis and a grade for grammar and be done with it.

  2. I’ma go with (b). Wow, that’s some serious sulk about a review he claimed (in the very comments to the review) not to care about.

  3. I’m a lurker on that forum, and the writer in question refers to your review quite often, so much so that I didn’t even realize your review was from three years ago when I first saw it mentioned. It is definitely b) super creepy.

  4. It’s creepy that the writer doesn’t realize that he’s reflecting poorly on himself by persevering about it. There have always been authors who responded angrily to less than fawning reviews, but they used to be editorially limited to a few letters to the Times. The internet gives writers new ways to be creepy on an unlimited scale. The writers whose hangers-on and sock puppets flood Amazon and other sites with glowing reviews also strike me as pretty creepy. In both cases the writer’s fragile ego and elephant’s memory for slights get made everyone else’s problem, when really they’re his and should be dealt with by him.

Comments are closed.