Hmm.

Yeah, I'm not gonna engage in any discussion about my hate for Gabaldon's latest book or my uttern scorn of Foley or about readers vs. writers or what constitutes a fair review or blah blah blah. Mostly because the whole topic just makes me tired. But I have realized something about myself in the realm of reading and talking about books that I think is pretty far from the generally accepted guidelines out there. Ready for it?

I think talking about books in any capacity should be personal. There's that whole "talk about the writing, not the writer" school of wisdom, and I realize I don't subscribe to it.

Look, when I read a book, I am allowing someone to speak to me. In many cases, I am PAYING them to speak to me. I am letting them into my head to show me the world they're creating. The writer, generally, has put huge hunks of him/herself into it. We are both putting aside one of our most precious commodities - time - to communicate with one another and connect on the primal level known as storytelling. How on EARTH can that relationship be anything other than personal?

That's why I really am constantly (and I mean constantly) miffed when anyone calls my book-talk a "review". It's not that I can't review, it's just that a review has very little use to me as a form of expression. I have, many times, written up clear and concise criticisms of writing - and then I give that to the writer. Not to a fellow reader. A measured, thought-out detailing of the good/bad things in a written piece is several miles away from telling you about the book I just read.

I bitch. I gush. I kvetch and cajole and castigate and plead and praise. I talk; I don't review. Reviewing requires a disconnect that I cannot feel toward anything to which I voluntarily (and downright eagerly) gave more than 10 minutes of my time and attention. I think readers have every right to be as shit-mouthed as they want to be. I think writers have every right to accuse said readers of shit-mouthery (though I do think it's way better to stay mum about it, most always). I think that it's perfectly okay to say "you are an absolutely worthless writer", but that it's better than okay if you say "you are an absolutely worthless writer because you have failed to prove your worth in the following ways."

I know damn well that it would hurt unbelievably if someone whose good opinion I craved said such a thing to me, and that I'd likely drink myself into an oblivion that I might not crawl out of for several years. Heck, I think many people have said it about this here blog. (Not that blog-hate hurts me at all, since this is just talking and not anything I particularly want anyone to really like.) But I also know that the reason for the strong comment and the resultant strong reaction are the same: emotional and intellectual investment on the part of both the reader and the writer.

I get angry when a writer ruins something I loved to distraction (Gabaldon). I get angry when a genre features worse-than-mediocre writing as a matter of course, and when said writing gets praised by all and sundry (Foley). I am sick of clichés and I'm sick of the mentality that "oh it's only genre, so don't judge it by strict standards of literary quality" and, in short, I'm sick of hacks making assloads of money whilst not giving a damn about the craft. I want writing I can love, and when it makes me nauseous instead? Of COURSE I take it personally. Reading books has changed my life from the moment I learned the alphabet. Those words on the page have shaped my life - my thinking, my character, my beliefs, some of the very deepest parts of me - and defined me in ways that cannot in any way be defined as impersonal.

Writing and reading are very personal. Period.

Just let me note here, that though I can be really mean (seriously, and the blog is only the sharp tip of that verbal switchblade), I do have lines. I consider it appalling when anyone pulls a writer's personal life into anything. And by that, I mean I could never say "No wonder she made her heroine fat, have you seen how much weight she's put on?" or "They got divorced because his wife cheated on him, so maybe that's why his latest book is about a guy who can't get bring a woman to orgasm." And also note that I do often speak to writing friends in exactly the same blunt way (if I think they can handle it, that is). I've said things to Snookie like "holy crap, if you switch POV one more time in this scene, I swear I will throw up on the pages just so I don't have to read it anymore." I've returned works-in-progress to writers with: "Sorry, I tried - but around about paragraph 5 my eyes glazed over and I just can't do it." Saying "This sucks, let me tell you why I hate it" is, to me, an every day, face-to-face occurence.

But also note - I only say this to people and about things that I (a) care about, or (b) don't consider hopeless. Squandered potential pisses me off. My anger and my scorn comes from the utter conviction that whatever I'm reading could be so, so, SO much better - if only the effort were made. If only we'd stop settling. If only we were all a little less afraid of being honest. If only we could all laugh at ourselves a little more (reviewers and writers and readers, all of us) and try to speak to each other instead of turning commentary into some kind of strange hybrid of spectator sport meets performance art, except in those cases where it's forcibly detached and without heart. If only we'd be a little more personal about it.

So, ya know. There's that. I'll just go eat some cheetos now.