| The vexing question of reviews ... |
[Aug. 3rd, 2007|03:37 pm] |
Since tumbling headlong into love with the new Doctor Who (about which more, anon) I went bumbling around in cyberspace to see what websites there were devoted to the show. As you do. (Because once a fangirl, always a fangirl, yanno?) And in my bumbling, I stumbled across a site doubtless well-known to existing Who fans, called Gallifrey One. It can be found at http://www.gallifreyone.com.
One of this site's excellent features is an enormous archive of fan reviews. And so a little while ago I sat myself down in front of the computer and started reading the reviews of the new Who episodes I'd already seen, just to compare and contrast my feelings and reactions to the show with those of other fans. The first thing I noticed was the amazing preponderence of male reviewers. Almost none of the reviews, as far as I could tell, had been written by female fans. Now, coming in from other fandoms where the vast majority of the vocal, active fans have been women, I was surprised. I've been told that Who is traditionally a male-dominated fandom, but since I've never been a fan I can't confirm or deny that. But the person who told me is a rock solid source.
(So ... here's where I apologise for this not being behind a cut, btw. Just tried to do one, can't make it work. I'll do the cutting thing when I can figure it out. Please don't point me to the FAQ page or give me instructions -- I am a Technocretin and need someone beside me as I do this stuff!)
Anyhow. As I read the reviews, the many, many, reviews, I was forcibly struck by the unbelievable disparity between what many of the reviewers had seen while watching an episode, and what *I* had seen, and responded to. So much so that there were times when I was saying, out loud, 'What show were you watching??? Were you even watching Doctor Who????'
I'm thinking this might have something to do with the overwhelming *maleness* of the audience, and maybe it does, but that's not what I'm here to discuss. What happened is that the reading of the reviews led me to reflect on the nature of reviews in general ... because, as a published author, I am now in the position of being reviewed. And being reviewed is, for the most part, a nerve-wracking affair. It leaves you feeling naked and vulnerable and prey to all kinds of morbid imaginings. Sometimes I don't know which is worse -- not being reviewed at all, or being reviewed by someone who didn't get your work and who leaves you shouting, 'Which book did you read, because it's not the one I bloody wrote!!!!!'
Reading the new Who episode reviews really clarified something important for me. It smacked me over the head, hard, with the understanding that reviews are completely and utterly subjective. That in almost every case, a review isn't about what's being reviewed, it's about the reviewer and the filters through which he or she receives the world. Which means I really don't have any control, at all, over how my work is received by a reviewer -- or indeed, any reader. I can sweat blood and tears over my prose, I can agonise over the snappiness of my dialogue, I can weep and rend my garments over the originality of my world-building ... but if I have done something that collides with a reviewer's filter -- that presses a reviewer's hot button -- then they are not going to like my work and nothing I say or do can change that. No more than me cooking the most superlative spaghetti bolognaise is going to make a bolognaise-hater change their palate.
In the Who episode reviews, I read opinions lambasting things that I loved, praising things that I felt didn't work, and totally ignoring things that I thought were of monumental importance. Did that mean those reviewers were wrong? No. Of course not. What it means is that those reviewers and I possess completely different filters. Our subjective experiences don't intersect. We are looking at the world with eyes that can't see the same things.
This has really helped me come to terms with the experience of being reviewed. I've had some wonderfully positive reviews. I've had reviews that have been grudgingly complimentary. I've had reviews that tell me, basically, I suck. But now, thanks to Doctor Who, I've found a place of peace and acceptance in the midst of review madness. That's not to say that a snarky review doesn't sting, because it does. But not as hard, and not for as long. Because it's all about perceptions, and filters ... and there's no point stressing over what can't be controlled.
Recently I've been involved in an interesting discussion with some other writers, about the personal impact of reviews, especially poor ones. Some of the people taking part are luminaries in the field, writers who'd perhaps you'd think are loftily above the mundanity of paying attention to a snarky review. It's not so. Writers are people, and people have feelings, and sometimes reviews spill blood. Sometimes reviewers write to hurt. Not usually, but sometimes. And that's sad. It's unnecessary. It lowers the tone of the conversation, and that shouldn't happen. Honest disagreements can be had without wounding and bloodshed.
So if you're a reviewer, think about your filters. See if you can put them aside while reading, or at least be aware of their impact on you. And if you're a writer in pain over a harsh review? Remember the filters, and take heart. Sometimes it's true: people don't always read the book you wrote. |
|
|
![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
karenmiller's journal
chipper