Readercon: The Bad and the Ugly

That title comes from a post by Genevieve Valentine. Have you heard about this? It's one of those stories that's ripping around sff fandom at the moment.

I love Readercon. Every time I miss one (which I've had to do several times the last few years) I'm bummed. But they're not perfect...

The issue Genevieve is writing about is sexual harassment. I know Genevieve. She's very cool, and I've no doubt about taking her word on this. If she says this guy was crossing the line, again and again, then I'm sure he was. I don't know what the appropriate actions are in response. (I mean, I don't know the Con's actions necessarily should be. My own actions, had I been there... those I can well imagine. Anyway...)

It does seem to me to be a problem when the conference has a stated policy of zero tolerance for harassment, when they've banned people for life in the past, but then... in the case of an influential member of the community they veer from their own policy to give a much lighter response.

I'm no expert on any of this. I wasn't there. If you're interested, google the topic. There are plenty of people writing intelligently about this. Or go to Genevieve herself. She has three post about it:

The initial one.

A follow up.

And a final one after the conference committee took action. (Kind of.)

So bad, I'm posting a review...

Hiya. I've been pretty quiet here for awhile. That's because I was away teaching at the Stonecoast MFA Program's Winter Residency. Awesome program. Low-residency. High-quality. And yes, if you're wondering, I do get to teach genre writing there. Check the program out if you've ever wondered what an MFA has to offer - or if you've ever been interested in an MFA but worried that your sci-fi or fantasy or crime or horror or romance or historical stuff wouldn't be accepted. It is at Stonecoast, and I'm right proud of that.

But that's over. I'm home again, and I'll try to be a bit more present here. I'll start with a random rant that I see I left in my draft box: So bad, I'm posting a review...

The title of this post comes from an Amazon.com reader review of Richard K Morgan's most recent novel, The Cold Commands. I haven't read the book yet, but I will, and I'll enjoy it. I always do with Morgan. The guy can write. Even if I have issues with him sometimes, the guy can write. There's a lot more thought and thematic weight going on in his work than many of his readers seem to be aware of.

I'm not actually here to talk Morgan, though. I just felt like pointing out how lame that reviewer was. How much a waste of space. His review is short, vague, mostly about claiming that he had liked Morgan's work before but this book was so bad he couldn't even recommend others now. No specifics. Just unsupported statements.

It's that title that got me, though.

"So bad, I'm posting a review."

Does that mean he only posts reviews when books are bad? Apparently, because I clicked through and he's only ever posted one review, this poorly written one star review. I find that annoying. He read (so he claims) and enjoyed other Morgan books. Did he review them and say nice things? Acknowledge work well done? Nope. Did he spread the word about any other authors he enjoyed? Naw. Did he thank any author for writing stories that entertained him? Not a chance. The only time he's chosen to speak is when he wants to tear an author down, and to retrospectively diss earlier works.

What, I ask you, is the use of that?

Friends, I'm all for you expressing yourselves if you don't enjoy a work, but I encourage you to balance that with also expressing yourself when you do. Negativity without balance doesn't do anyone any good, in my opinion.

I Do Give Quarter - To Most People, That Is

I know. An author shouldn't give much thought to negative reviews, but sometimes people say things so stupid I can't resist. Take, for example, my latest three star review of The Other Lands (Acacia, Book 2) on Amazon. It's not very in-depth or anything, but I can't help shaking my head at this line:

"Durham picks up like the names and events might be as familiar as if the reader finished reading the first book the day before, and he gives no quarter to the fact that his readers might need a refresher on the story and characters."

Really? I give "no quarter" that a reader might "need a refresher"?

Ah... How about the fact that the book begins with a five page synopsis of the major characters and plot points of the first book? It's titled They Story So Far, with the subtitle As related in Acacia, the first book of the trilogy... I wrote it exactly because I thought readers might appreciate a refresher, exactly because I wanted them to be able to enter the story with things fresh in their minds. I've had lots of readers mention to me how much they appreciated it when they began the book. That's been gratifying.

Anyway... that's the fact of the matter. This particular reviewer skipped it, ignored it, lied about it, or just didn't really read the book. He was mistaken, or stupid, or malicious. That's often the case, but it never stops me from being surprised by it...