Ex Occidente Press

[qcrisp]

I've been reading Madder Mysteries. I've only read one Reggie Oliver story prior to this, which I thought was okay, but not outstanding. However, I've been very impressed with this collection so far (I've read as far as the end of 'The Devil's Number'). This won't be news to many here, but I believe that Mr. Oliver is a major talent. Not only that, but the volume is beautifully produced, the paper luxurious, the illustrations perfectly realised and well-judged.

On the question of whether posters here should criticise stories by writers who are members, I think there are probably no right answers to that, with this being the yet-untamed frontier of the Internet, where, in many cases, etiquette and ground rules are still to be established.

My own personal feelings are that I don't mind anyone criticising, well, say, All God's Angels, Beware! when it comes out from Ex Occidente, but, with the Internet being the interactive medium that it is, I might reply to criticism if I feel like it.

I'd hate posters to feel constrained to be merely polite, though.

Perhaps it doesn't apply so much here, where readers may largely be assumed not to be put off by the obscurity of writers being mentioned, but I think one frustration for small press writers is that Internet reviewers often do not know how to express enthusiasm, and end up making a book they might actually like sound dull and lifeless. Considering the immense competition for the attention of readers, if you have a review that vaguely mentions the book is good, but concentrates on its weaknesses, there is absolutely NO WAY that anyone is going to investigate that book. They will simply go for the more famous authors, who usually have professional reviewers who shovel on the superlatives like nobody's business: "If you only read one book in your lifetime, it has to be this one" etc., and usually for the most contemptible pabulum. So, I think a lot of small press authors get frustrated about this kind of thing.

I was very pleased, for once, not to suffer from the faint praise syndrome, here:

http://swiftywriting.blogspot.com/20...n-s-crisp.html

Particularly question 7.

[Evans]

Quote Originally Posted by qcrisp

Perhaps it doesn't apply so much here, where readers may largely be assumed not to be put off by the obscurity of writers being mentioned, but I think one frustration for small press writers is that Internet reviewers often do not know how to express enthusiasm, and end up making a book they might actually like sound dull and lifeless. Considering the immense competition for the attention of readers, if you have a review that vaguely mentions the book is good, but concentrates on its weaknesses, there is absolutely NO WAY that anyone is going to investigate that book. They will simply go for the more famous authors, who usually have professional reviewers who shovel on the superlatives like nobody's business: "If you only read one book in your lifetime, it has to be this one" etc., and usually for the most contemptible pabulum. So, I think a lot of small press authors get frustrated about this kind of thing.

I confess that I posses that particular weakness in regards to reviewing anything be it book, film or meal.

Some of the more professional reviews make deeply, deeply suspicious when they praise something too heavily. In fact any extravagantly hubritical review for an unknown author is probably more likely to put me on guard encase its some kind of joke or the reviewer has a hidden agenda.

I'm probably still labouring under the dillusion that a critic exist's to point out floors in an object in a constructive and (if you pardon the repetition) critical manner.

[Evans]

Quote Originally Posted by mark_samuels

Hmmm. I might concern myself over the adverse opinion of a critic whose work I've admired, or the adverse opinion of an author whose work I respect, but not about an adverse opinion from random horror fan "X" expressed on a messageboard, whom I don't know at all. You can't please everyone all the time, after all. Mark S.

While that does make sense, surely the kind of adverse criticism* you (the creator of the object in question) get is more important than the critic.

*If it's actually helpful in fixing a problem the creator wasn't aware of. Not the sort of two sentence long web review that amount to to either Yes or No.

[Nemonymous]

I think anyone should be able to write a review in public on the internet - as I have been doing a lot recently.

The question is who judges the judges?

Perhaps we should write reviews of reviews, as someone did recently on my review of 'Teatro Grottesco'!

[Nemonymous]

Quote Originally Posted by mark_samuels

Perhaps it's more a question of "can you who take upon yourselves to criticise do any better?" Then do so. Mark S.

Reviews are not necessarily critical but descriptive / interpretative / evaluative in that order.
Some people are made to be reviewers and have no skill in creating what they review - and some writers have not the skills to review. So I think that question may be spurious.

Of course, I am good at writing and reviewing. ;)
des

[Evans]

Quote Originally Posted by mark_samuels

Quote Originally Posted by Nemonymous The question is who judges the judges? Or who judges the judges of those who judge (et al). And so on, ad infinitum. Or perhaps not. Perhaps it's more a question of "can you who take upon yourselves to criticise do any better?" Then do so. Mark S.

In theory it should be able to go on as long as there is something constructive to be gained from evaluation. In practise it's probably going to stop once veryone gets board and wanders off. Pardon the overt cynicism.

Quote Originally Posted by Nemonymous

Of course, I am good at writing and reviewing. ;) des

Of course, where may I ask did your review of Teatro Grottesco appear?

[Evans]

Quote Originally Posted by mark_samuels

What I meant is that not everyone who posts an opinion on the internet carries the same weight as, say, an S.T. Joshi or a Mike Ashley. Voicing opinions is fine, but all too often negatives rather than positives are the end goal: meaning the internet critic gains unwarranted attention for himself. Mark S.

I agree with that, that as long as both reviews are of a decent standard. I have a slight dislike of big review coloums and the like giving extremely, short sweeping reviews without really explaining the good or bad points in any depth. If its a choice between a one of the above or a well thought out review from Random Internet Poster then I'd probably more likely to listen to Random Internet Poster's.

Quote Originally Posted by Nemonymous

I think anyone should be able to write a review in public on the internet - as I have been doing a lot recently. The question is who judges the judges? Perhaps we should write reviews of reviews, as someone did recently on my review of 'Teatro Grottesco'!

Notes on the Writing of Reviews? Reviewing reviews sound an interesting idea. I supose you could allways create a frame work for reviews on specific sites though it would limit creative discourse some what.

[qcrisp]

Quote Originally Posted by nomis

Those are good points, Quentin. You've put words to a feeling I've had for a while but couldn't explain.

Thank you.

Quote Originally Posted by Evans

I confess that I posses that particular weakness in regards to reviewing anything be it book, film or meal. Some of the more professional reviews make deeply, deeply suspicious when they praise something too heavily. In fact any extravagantly hubritical review for an unknown author is probably more likely to put me on guard encase its some kind of joke or the reviewer has a hidden agenda. I'm probably still labouring under the dillusion that a critic exist's to point out floors in an object in a constructive and (if you pardon the repetition) critical manner.

I have some sympathy with the notion that the critic is there to protect an idea of literary standards, but it seldom seems to work that way. I suppose, in the end, it's just one of the hazards of the job. You can't expect criticism always to be fair or helpful. But as a writer, I think you're within your rights to complain about it. Also, I think another part of the job of critic (especially in a 'review') is to give a very vivid idea of what the book is like, to help readers make up their own minds if they don't share the reviewer's tastes. I recall an essay in which Burroughs says that critics can lay a curse on a book by writing the review in prose that conjures up no vivid images, thereby creating an association in the mind of the reader with dullness. Having said that, these are merely message boards, and comments here are, of course, not in the way of being official reviews, so I think we should treat it more as conversation, really.

Quote Originally Posted by mark_samuels

You can't please everyone all the time, after all. .

Very true.

[nomis]

Those are good points, Quentin. You've put words to a feeling I've had for a while but couldn't explain.

Above all, critics need to be knowledgeable, opinionated and insightful. By default, such skills can only be acquired by wide-reading, passion for the subject and - within certain exceptions - a healthy mix of wisdom and maturity. Any fool or wiseacre can be a pedant; it doesn't take much talent or skill to spot a typo or split infinitive. Yet writers (whether they be poets, playwrights or novelists) continually 'break the rules' that the guardians of pedantry seek to uphold. We are "taught" (for example) that alliteration, repetition and ambiguity is "bad", and that conventions of grammar should be correctly followed. Utter nonsense. Don't the guardians know that God is Pooh bear?

A judge in a court of law is not dissimilar to a good reviewer. He or she has to carefully and knowledgeably sift through evidence and experience to arrive at a reasonable and accurate conclusion. Admittedly a reviewer has greater leniency and is permitted to judge things from a personal and opinionated subjective perspective. I'm less concerned with the length or depth of a review than I am with the following concerns:

1. Reviewer inexperience. Although any graduate is capable at 21 of highlighting grammatical failings or deviations, I don't think any reviewer under the age of thirty has sufficient experience and maturity to critique professionally.

2. Reviewer bias. I've witnessed many examples of reviewer bias. Some writers take delight in savaging their enemies; others will puff the work of a friend or crony to order, regardless of the quality of the work. For example, All Hallows, the Ghost Story Society, the BFS, Ramsey Campbell and his message board chums. Some argue that the genre is so small that it's impossible not to have conflicts-of-interests, some that there is no such thing as Incestuous Reviewer Syndrome. Well, I disagree. We are each of us responsible for our own ingerity, and the number of people who work, read, write and publish in the genre is far larger than the number of MPs sitting in the House Of Commons. There are no excuses for not being able to critique the work of our peers professionally, other than those trotted out by who benefit from the 'status quo' and wish to see it perpetuated.

3. Reviewer Laziness. Some reviewers don't familiarise themselves with the work they are reading. They read hastily and fail to undertake the same level of research that writers often engage in. Yet if they seek to judge a writer who has spent weeks working on a book, the least they can do is read the book thoughtfully and check out any facts or claims.

4. Revewer renumeration. Journals that review books should not only furnish a reviewer with a gratis copy of the book, but they should pay good reviewers as much as they pay the writers.

5. Declaration / conflict of interest. Reviewers who critique the work of friends or cronies should openly declare their interest. I remember being appalled to learn that Ramsey Campbell not only knew who 'Joe Hill' was [Stephen King's son] when giving his debut collection a massive plug in All Hallows a couple of years ago, but that he had failed to mention this in his review. As he quite probably knows Mr King Snr and - without wishing to be unkind - might wish to ingratiate himself with such an influential person in the horror genre, it casts his eulogic review in a different light. In any other line of business this would be deemed a blatant conflict of interest, yet for some reason both the reviewer and the editrice believed that it wasn't, and that their readers and potential book-buying customers didn't need to know about it. In my opinion, the best reviewers are either top quality writers themselves, or else shrewd scholars who put aside personal concerns and focus purely on the work in hand.

The reviewers I personally dislike the most are those who use a review as a platform for launching their own odd proselike tirade. I apologise again for referencing Ramsey Campbell - who I am sure has learnt from past mistakes and youthful naivety - but some of his reviews in early 70s fanzines are classic text-book examples of this. In one brash, arrogant sentence, he would dismiss the entire life's work of this or that author, and then proceed to devote a lengthy review to how better a writer he or she would have been had they only done it his way. Tonight driving home I listened to Bowie's last great album ['Scary Monsters'] which has the wonderful line 'As ugly as a teenage millionaire pretending it's a whizz-kid's world', and this could apply in this case. For example, perhaps the worst thing that ever happened to Ramsey Campbell was that he had his first collection published by Arkham House. And perhaps the worst thing that has happened to several cronies of RC's is that he has heaped praise on them which was not actually merited. Where is the balance and honesty let alone wisdom? In the long run readers will prove the best critics. Great books are often overlooked in the short term but rarely are over the course of time. In contrast many eagerly-hyped works quickly fall by the wayside, damning their champions with tainted association.

Integrity, integrity and integrity: to be respected, a reviewer should cultivate and practise integrity.

A while ago I obtained copies of papers appertaining to anthologies edited by Dorothy Sayers and Marjorie Bowen; although it was obvious that M R James was, via his publisher Edward Arnold, less than keen to grant these fine female authors permission to use his work (James preferred dealing with men), they nevertheless tenaciously ignored James' fussy prejudices, believing that his work was of such a high standard as to merit inclusion in books they were putting together. For me this is a good example of professionalism. In contrast, when I cast an eye over horror anthologies currently in print, the vast majority of contributors are cronies of the commissioning editor, and as obvious are the omissions, inclusive of many fine stories which were overlooked because of petty unprofessionalism. Personally, I never read reviews, because I don't trust reviewers. I've even heard of one case of an All Hallows reviewer being dropped because he failed to praise the fictional debut of the maqazine editor highly enough. As a consequence the only books I buy are those based upon word-of-mouth recommendations from trusted, shrewd friends.

JK