I Can See You: Being in the Public Eye
Over the last few days my 3 Green Fish email has suddenly come under a deluge of spam. Where it used to get only about 66% of the number of junk messages that my other spam-filled account got, that number just ballooned to almost 200%. While some of that might have been a gradual shift that I didn’t really notice, it’s still a pretty shocking change.
Wondering if something I’d done recently had resulted in the posting of my email address online, I did a little search for 3greenfish.net. What I found shed no light whatsoever on my spam issue, but it brought up some other interesting results.
Apparently people I don’t know have found my website. Oh, sure, most of them are things like a Korean site’s mirroring of Google results, or the automated web sites that troll the internet and aggregate links to every page that talks about Heroes or Waitress. My reviews have ended up linked to from several of them, most of them now gone.
Once you set all those aside, two things really stand out:
The first is from Kathryn Lang’s blog, The Peculiar Club. She linked to my Seven Steps for Writing a Novel post. This is very special — it’s the first time that I’m aware of that someone has linked to a post of mine and recommended it to their own readers without knowing me already. That’s pretty awesome, to use a decidedly uncreative word.
The second leaves me trembling, with goosebumps and butterflies and whatnot. Someone on the Lois McMaster Bujold Mailing List linked to my review of The Sharing Knife, Book 1. Actually, scratch that — if I’m reading this page right, that’s Lois McMaster Bujold herself who read my review. Ye gods. I’m used as an example of a skiffy (science fiction fan, I think) who reads the book from a SF perspective and views the “personal stuff as Unimportant,” not really getting the romance side of the book. And then someone went ahead and reviewed the reviewers — but I’ll get to that in a minute.
My first response to this is to want to defend my review. “No no,” I want to say, “you’re not getting it at all. That’s not what I meant.” I want to go back and rewrite the review, so that Bujold, a writer I respect, can see exactly what I think and not feel like I’m dissing her book (’cause I’m not). The thing is, she’s probably right — I don’t have the background reading romance and I don’t really get the conventions of it. I could go on and on about how I felt the book started off with one kind of story and ended with another and how the plot never seemed to get to high stakes again … but that’s only my opinion, and perhaps if I’d been reading it differently I’d have come to a different conclusion. Perhaps not reading romance novels has left me too connected with my own background when it comes to relationships — I don’t see disapproving families being threatening, because I know my own family would ultimately support me even if I ended up with someone they disapproved of. If that was what I truly wanted, they’d try to help me make it work (of course, I’m happy to say that’s not an issue). On top of that, I haven’t been exposed to the right stories, so yes, almost being eaten by a horrific monster does seem to overshadow worries over what one’s family will think.
So no, I’m not going to rewrite my review. I’ll let it stand. I’m new to the whole review thing anyway, and this has been something of a learning experience. I no longer feel like I’m writing entirely in a vacuum, with only close friends and family ever seeing my reviews. I always thought that other people might run across my site, but without links or comments I never knew about them. It kind of shifts my paradigm. Lois McMaster Bujold, if you ever read this, I’m sorry for not getting your book. I’ll try to do better next time.
Which brings me at last to my final point. Victoria on the Bujold list reviewed the reviewers (I was one of four linked to), and she had this to say about me:
Reader’s Agenda: All action requires combat or physical struggle. All
conflict requires action. Likes good world building, good characterization,
humor, and easy-to-read writing.
This is, on the one hand, scarily accurate. The last half especially describes what I often look for in a book. While I have space in my heart for the hard-to-read works (hey, I read Chaucer in the Middle English), I do love a book that I can just open up and let the words and sentences flow over me, and almost forget that I’m reading. Interesting worlds, good characters, humor? Yeah, I dig those. And the rest, the bit about all action requiring physical struggle? Five years ago, that was me spot on. There was a long time where I didn’t understand how it could work to have the conflict be non-physical; perhaps I’ve seen too many action movies and cartoons. I once started to write a story about an immortal man, who gets cursed to never be able to die, no matter what, and I very quickly ran into a stumbling block the size of Jupiter: how can I put this character in danger when he can never really be harmed? I was a lot younger then, so I set it aside. Now I see it clearly: just because you can’t be hurt doesn’t mean you’re going to be happy. For the story to work, it needs to revolve around his psychology, his happiness. “Not getting what you want” doesn’t have to mean “death” (possible exception: holding up a bank while wearing dynamite trousers). It’s a realization that sounds so obvious now, but wasn’t back then. I’m only now starting to explore this in depth with my own work. So, perhaps I didn’t read Bujold’s book with as clear of a gaze as I should have, or even as I thought I did.
The irony, after all the angst I went through? Looking back at that review, I see I gave the book a good score: 8.5 out of 10.
November 15th, 2007 at 12:59 am
Holy cow - Lois McMaster Bujold READ YOUR REVIEW OF HER BOOK!!!!!!!! That’s crazy (crazy enough that I linked back to larger discussion to figure out whether that was really truly her, and it was!). I think you should go over there and post a reply.
Interestingly, though, I remember thinking something along those lines when I read your review. I don’t think I ever said anything about it, because I didn’t have the time. But to me, the book totally rose in stakes throughout, because in the beginning, both characters were kind of wandering, and by the end, they both knew what they wanted, but it was obviously going to be a battle to acquire it. So I don’t know if your reading of it is drawn from your background, because I have the same background as you do, and avoid reading romance novels as much as you do. I think I’d come down pretty hard on the skiffy (yes, skiffy=sci fi, I think like if you pronounce sci-fi with a hard ‘c’ and short ‘i’s) side of things, except that I *love* characterization and relationships. I think I just don’t like empty relationships, which is what romance novels seem to represent to me (okay, based on the 1 book and perhaps 3 excerpts that I’ve read).
I kind of wonder if it’s more just a personality thing. A lot of people go see movies where a bunch of stuff gets blown up at that’s the main point. Me, I enjoy stuff getting blown up, but really only if there’s an underlying character-driven story behind it.
I still can’t believe LOIS MCMASTER BUJOLD read your review of her book…
November 15th, 2007 at 5:15 am
Thanks for the nod and keep up the good work. I’ve been peeking at your site, and I appreciate the time and effort you put into what you are doing. Now I know where to go when I want the real truth about a movie or book.
November 15th, 2007 at 10:10 am
First order of business: Congratulations! You’ve broken into the blogging big leagues, at least for a short while.
Second major point: I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. Use Akismet. Since installing, I’ve had two spam messages make it as far as my moderation queue. The other 3,933 (to date)? Stopped cold in their tracks. And the number of legitimate messages trapped? Zero. Unless you really like wading through comment and pingback spam, I recommend it. I wouldn’t want to deal with the 50 or so spam attempts I get per day.
Third: This is why it’s prudent not to use your full name on your website, lest it come back to haunt you.
Fourth: Good for you for standing your ground. Bujold might be a famous author (although I’ve never heard of her), but she’s just human. That means two things: her ego is just as vulnerable as yours or mine, and her word is worth just as much. So, she read your review and got her panties all twisted up because you didn’t fall over it, and she lashed out at you somewhat. And so what? You don’t have to like her book, and you don’t have to take her response as the Word of God. She’s just a person, and just one writer. Maybe not as good a writer as you, even. But that remains to be seen.
November 15th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
c1: Well, I did think about posting a response on the message board, but there’s a problem with that. I’m not really sure what I’d say, and I had a hard enough time trying to write this post without becoming all defensive about what I’d written (you’ll notice that I didn’t entirely succeed there, either). It would be quite easy to go there and start making an ass of myself saying “you don’t understand me at all!!!” or something, and I really don’t want to do that. So maybe in a week or two when I can present a more level response. I’m still a little jittery from the whole “Lois McMaster Bujold read my review of her book” thing!
Kathryn: I’m not sure I deserve such praise, but thanks for the compliment! I’m glad you like the site.
Jacob: Sorry man, but I think you missed the ball here on a couple points. My comment spam has reduced almost to nil without any action. What I’m talking about here is my email spam. You know, the “enlarge your member, refinance your home, and get free psychotropic medication while you’re at it!” kind of spam. In my inbox. So Akismet isn’t really going to help.
Honestly, the whole Bujold thing? I’d wager that all the angst is in my own head. She didn’t really attack my review, just used it as an example of a review that focused on the “skiffy” side of things, rather than the romantic aspect. It wasn’t exactly like she lashed out at me. All the drama pretty much came from my reaction to realizing that she’d actually read it. I’m leaving the review as it is not because I feel it’s a way to stand up to her, but because I have to be honest and really say what’s on my mind any time I write a review. That’s the problem with writing reviews as a non-professional: while I’m learning, I don’t have the experience to always see things from their intended perspectives. I’m going to miss things. Case in point: My Halo 3 review. That game wasn’t made for people like me, who really like single-player games and strong storylines — it was made for the people who will log hundreds of hours online in multiplayer matches. I’m never going to be the perfect reviewer, but my intention has always been to simply present my opinion as a semi-normal person. All things considered, when you look at the other “skiffy” reviews mine seems the most reasonable (and positive) of the bunch.
As for your final comment… well, let’s just say that while there are authors whose books I’ve picked up and thought, “I could write better than that,” Bujold has never been one of them.
November 15th, 2007 at 6:49 pm
Missing balls is nothing new for me. On the other hand, having to prove or disprove normal group coset isomorphisms in cyclic subgroups is. Now that we’ve shown the trivial case, the the legitimacy of that excuse is left as an exercise for the reader.*
*:This is what we call “humor” in mathematics.
November 16th, 2007 at 12:11 am
It’s true - you don’t want to go into a new discussion board all defensive-like. Not good manners.
And you’re right, Bujold just used your review as an example of a skiffy-as-opposed-to-a-romance-novel-reader review, which is indeed what you are. I was thinking it might be more interesting to post on that board in an effort to start a discussion, rather than defend your review. Meaning, you go in and say, this was a really interesting point (because the comparison really was), and it got you to thinking about why you read the book the way you did, and maybe compare it to your reactions upon reading some of her non-romance books. I don’t know - it just seems like it would be cool to have a discussion with her. 
Jacob: Bujold is one of those writers whose books you can pick up to start, and before you know it, it’s 3 o’clock in the morning and you’ve read the entire thing through without looking up because you get so immersed in the story. Poor writing (or even mediocre writing) pulls me out of the story and makes me notice the language being used. With Bujold’s books, I have to actively think about noticing the writing to see how she does it, because it flows so well I hardly even notice I’m reading. She’s one of my very favorite authors, and I’ve read books by a lot of people.
Go forth and try! (Curtis or I could point you in the right direction for where to start, if you are actually interested)
November 16th, 2007 at 12:12 am
(I use too many smiley faces)
November 16th, 2007 at 7:50 am
I am interested, but I should warn you, even books I’m interested in go on the “to read” list for a while. I’m still working on books I started almost a decade ago. What can I say? Forced reading of thousands of pages every quarter makes me want to do anything but during my free time if it even begins to feel like an obligation.
November 16th, 2007 at 9:38 am
Google search, for writers, has much the same effect as mirrors do on unicorns. Captures their attention… I trust my wandering through here won’t prove too scary. It’s not meant to be.
Let me reassure you, your review was just fine; I merely linked it because it was an especially clear example of one of the two reading-stances the books were trying to blend. (The one of _Legacy_ from, iirc, Coffeetime was an especially clear example of the other extreme.) I’m not up for a long essay this morning, but some of “What the heck was she thinking?” may be found in this interview:
http://www.sffchronicles.co.uk/forum/41673-chronicles-interview-with-lois-mcmaster-bujold.html
Main point I want to make is that with _Beguilement_, you’ve only read half the book. _Legacy_ starts with, effectively, Ch. 20 of the book-as-a-whole. TSK won’t turn into a Miles book no matter how long you keep reading, but you really do need to read both halves before deciding whether it works for you or not as either romance or fantasy (or both, or neither).
Carry on…
bests, Lois.
November 16th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
Lois: Thanks for the reassurance! Honestly, more than anything else this whole experience has been a fascinating window into the inner workings of my own mind. It’s not often that I get to see my own thinking processes and convoluted logic laid out so clearly in front of me, and it’s always interesting to see how one’s mind can blow things completely out of proportion.
While I’m a little embarrassed to admit that before Beguilement I’d only ever read your Miles universe books, I really wasn’t expecting Beguilement to be one. It has its own flavor and characters, and those are good things. I can become just as attached to certain characters as the next guy, but I like to see authors branch out in new directions and offer up new characters to enjoy.
It’s interesting to learn that you really consider the duology “one book” — I had an inkling of that when I read the first one. Legacy is on my reading stack right now, and I’m looking forward to it.
November 18th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
Jacob: I totally understand the feeling. I just returned two books to my grandfather that I’d borrowed from him to read about a decade ago. I would never have thought that having too much assigned reading would make me less interested in fun reading, but it happens! Fortunately, reading in my academic life has slowed down just enough that I do have the urge to read fun things, and sometimes even have the time.
Anyway, for that time in your life several years from now when you have time to try out Bujold books, I recommend the Vorkosigan series. Everyone in my family read them in the order she wrote them, which I personally think is a fun way to take in the story in the same sequence she felt the need to create it. This means that until the later books, they’re not actually in chronological order in terms of the story (but it really doesn’t matter). So I would start with “Shards of Honor,” then “The Warrior’s Apprentice,” which actually *are* in chronological order, and which get you to Miles, who much of the rest of the series focuses on (and who is one of those memorable and fabulous characters that you can’t get enough of). If you like those, then I can fill you in on the rest.
So put ‘em on your list, and someday let us know what you think.
December 1st, 2007 at 10:04 pm
My two cents: I loved this duology of Bujold’s and thought it was a wonderful confluence of the two genres. I am looking forward to your review of the second book. Now it’s time to review one of Jack McDevitt’s books and one of Carl Hiaasen and maybe they will visit your site! ~ love MOM