On Being Reviewed

Wednesday, July 15th, 2009 | Posted by: Christopher Meeks

Part of my past includes stints as a book reviewer, first at the Los Angeles Daily News, then for the now-defunct Herald-Examiner. After that, I reviewed theatre for eight years with Daily Variety. I never saw reviewing as a sport. I wasn’t out to “get” anyone or to have fun at his or her expense. What I did was more than a report. After hooking the reader with a fact or observation, I wrote part news, part reaction, and at times part history or insight.

I also saw a well-written review as starting a dialogue. For instance, I witnessed the world premiere of Margaret Edson’s play Wit, and I was awed. I had to shout out that people had to see this play and why. Other reviewers seeing it at the same time joined in, and audiences found the play. It won the Pulitzer Prize eventually.

That’s a rare case. Most things I saw were not terrible nor fabulous but mixed. It’s hard to write a mixed review because I wanted to encourage more and better books and plays, not less. If a particular piece didn’t reach its intentions, I often wanted to encourage the writer nonetheless, celebrating what had worked and pointing out areas of concern.

When I had my first play, Suburban Anger, produced, I experienced something new: being reviewed. It opened my eyes to the experience. Some reviewers thought my play was brilliant, and one in particular thought I should be fired from CalArts because he felt the play was so bad–now that was getting personal.  Part of the deal in getting reviewed, though, is that you quietly take it unless there’s a factual error. The arts are a subjective business, not objective as in computing the math to send a rover to Mars.

The literary blogs a while back were in part burning now because of a short-lived controversy. Self-published author Jim Michael Hansen sent his new book Immortal Laws to Trish Collins at Hey Lady! Whatcha Readin’?, and Trish read it and did not like it. She wrote about the book, not cutting down the author but, as in any good essay or review, she quoted from the book to support her points. 

In detesting her review, Hansen first wrote a comment on her blog anonymously, angered by the unfairness that after he gave her a free book, sent at his expense, she turned around and panned it.  When Trish called him on such expectations and on his anonymity, he has demanded that she remove the quote and book cover art.

Having been on both sides of the fence, I can certainly understand Mr. Hansen’s feelings–but he should not have written back angrily. As I have written in another post, people who self-publish tend to shoot themselves in the feet right off the bat by not hiring a professional editor to go through the manuscript. Maybe that’s what happened with Mr. Hansen’s book and why it feels choppy. That shouldn’t have slipped by an editor. Self-published books have to compete with the quality from the major publishers–and if self-published books get reviewed, they’re under the same critical gaze as books from Random House.

Still, I feel for Mr. Hansen because I’ve experienced negative reviews with three plays and three books out there.  I’m happy to say I’ve received more positive than negative, but I tend to be detail-oriented, looking at my own work at some point as the reviewer I once was.  While my last short story collection, Months and Seasons, has received very good if not great reviews, not all reviewers necessarily are clear, quote from the work to prove their points, or are as enamored as other reviewers.  Yes, all authors want stellar reviews, but you can’t go into it expecting that.

I doubt, in fact, there’s a single book out there where every single person loves it. Two of my graduate students last fall commented negatively on The Great Gatsby, which I and most of the other students loved. An author can’t expect roses all the time.

I feel for Ms. Collins, too.  As much as I wrote balanced reviews and felt utterly fair, I’ve come across certain playwrights over the years who were able to quote verbatim the critical things I had written in my published reviews. The playwrights did not quote the positive things I also wrote. Writers are an odd bunch, frankly, and I’ve run into some hotheads in my time.

I’ve also done a lot of interviewing as a journalist, and I had the pleasure to interview theatre and opera director Peter Sellars, who premiered Nixon in China and The Death of Klinghoffer. He told me that as long as the reviews are passionate, even if in disgust, it shows you touched a nerve. Sellars said he worried about mild reviews–then he wasn’t doing something right. So I guess I was doing something right–and maybe Mr. Hansen is.

I’m not sure I’d review my first play well at this point. Still, it was a good place to start.  Mr. Hansen, too, I hope is growing as a writer, and may this controversy be a mere hiccup in a good career.

I have a few emails to reviewers in Ireland and England right now that’s similar to what Mr. Hansen may have written Ms. Collins: “Have you had a chance to read my book yet? Might it still be considered for review?” I can’t expect bouquets, however.  Sometimes you get brickbats.

On the positive side, the reviewers who’ve approached my two books of fiction have started a dialogue, and I like that. I feel part of a bigger community.

—

You can read Ms. Collin’s original review & comments here: http://trishsdiary.wordpress.com/2008/11/10/review-immortal-laws-by-jim-…

Rebecca Schinsky, a particularly great blogger and reviewer who first brought this controversy to my attention, wrote a response here: http://rjsbooklady.wordpress.com/2008/11/12/on-blogging-book-reviews/

Another blogger wrote her thoughts here: http://botheyes.wordpress.com/2008/11/12/let-the-receiver-beware/