If you search the web for author’s views on reviewing, you’ll find numerous admonitions to review the book, not the author
. In today’s editorial, I want to explore that…
First, a little bit of literary theory. Don’t worry, this isn’t going to be too deep. I can look at books one of several ways. I can look at a book as independent of its author and everything else. All the meaning of the book can be read in the text. Another view is that the real book is what the author intended it to be. Or it could be viewed as owned by society, whatever the consensus is on the book is what it really means. Or the real book is completely in my head as an individual reader.
Before I jump in with my take on it, here’s why it matters to the discussion on ad hominem
. If the book is inseparable from the author, where the author holds all moral rights to the story, then there’s no question in my mind that a reviewer must review the author. Some authors hold that view, that the work is theirs. If all the meaning is inherent in the text, I shouldn’t even care what name is on the book at all when reviewing. An author’s name is only a marketing trademark in that case. If all I need to know about the book is in my head, then I also probably shouldn’t consider the author. It’s my experience and I’m reviewing me. Get where I’m going with all this?
But I don’t think the answer is any one of those. All of us have a part in a giant feedback loop as to what a book means. Even people who’ve never read the book play a part. I do think the largest part of a book comes from my relationship to it. But all the influences intertwine, recursively and chaotically. An author intends for a character to represent a political faction in a satire. After a book is published another author claims one of the characters is gay when it was never mentioned in the book. I read and enjoy a book for it’s adventure, unaware that the characters could have unwritten motives. A century after a story is published, we look at a story more as an artifact of daily life of the times rather than a story of lovers.
I don’t know what the true and proper way to look at a story really is. I doubt we’ll ever find a scientific law that tells us once and for all.
I do believe a large part of what a book is comes from within me. Which is why I like to write very personal book reviews. Frequently you’ll find out more about me than you will the book. I know that isn’t always the most useful of things. If I had a better idea of what the average reader was and was getting paid to do this (so I had the incentive to figure out what the average reader wanted), I might make my reviews less personal and more about how other people might react, but that’s just a side thought.
I believe the author is fair game. While I don’t believe authors hold final ownership of their book once they’ve released it into the wild, authors are enormously influential in how I understand what I read. A sequel might make me re-read and re-evaluate the first book. An author interview gives me an epiphany. I don’t believe the string connecting an author and his/her work can be effectively severed.
On occasion I think it’s highly worthwhile to look at an author’s life, influences, and views and see how they affect my interpretation. I don’t think I’ve ever read a Harlan Ellison book, though I’m sure I’ve read a short story or two in past years. But knowing he’s stood on stage and groped someone inappropriately will get me to scrutinize his treatment of women in his books. On a positive side, knowing David Anthony Durham researched and wrote historical fiction or that Mary Doria Russell’s background is in anthropology means I can look at their works for historical and cultural authenticity.
On a more prosaic note, an author’s views are extremely within bounds. Celebrities, or even regular people, use the reputation they acquire to expand their influence. My name is my brand. Science fiction authors use their supposed skills as futurists to convince the U.S. government to listen to their prognostications. Charles Barkley’s opinions on politics make it to C.N.N. because of his basketball prowess. Because their influence depends (just a little bit) on my choice and opinion, they get to spread their opinion just a bit more widely. To re-word in a clearer manner, you don’t get to get in the newspaper and influence opinion based (just a little bit) on my purchase and praise of your novel without me getting to criticize the big picture. The author uses it as one big amorphous blob, so will I. I damn well do get to say don’t spend your money on this book because the author will use it against you.
I also think it’s fair to review based on who/what the author is because that’s how publishers sell books. I saw that a short vampire story in the last Year’s Best Fantasy and Horror anthology I read had been first published in an all female author
anthology. But the author was actually a man using a pseudonym. I think it’s perfectly fair to point that sort of bullshit out.
By all this reasoning, I think it’s totally fair to criticize me and my reviews based to whatever extent you want on what you know (or think you know) of me, my life, and my behavior. The fact that I leave cranky, not always well thought out or researched, and sometimes inconsitent comments on other people blogs might just tell you something about my reviews! I totally understand if someone never reads a review of mine or develops an opinion of them from my commentary elsewhere. That I’m a liberal Naderite (well, former Naderite) should give you insight into my writing, even my stories should they ever get published.
And all this discussion leads to my final point. An ad hominem review
of Orson Scott Card. I don’t think folks should spend money on his books because he turns around and uses that money and notoriety to work against his own readers by publishing hateful screeds attacking gays and lesbians. If we hadn’t embraced Ender’s Game he’d have been a nobody influencing a lot fewer people. I was used. Besides, even if I do just review the book,
he hasn’t written anything decent in years. As he’s become more notorious for his conservative bullshit, his writing quality has taken a nosedive. Connection? I say hell yeah!
