Q&A with Josh Lanyon discussion

I still sound a little irate, don't I?

I am.

Josh wrote: "I still sound a little irate, don't I?

I am."


You get 'im, tiger!!

:-D

But I did keep a couple of people from posting unkind comments, so in that respect, I'm fairly restrained.

**Let me add that while I appreciate how loyal my readers are, I also pride myself on the fact that my supporters are the smart, civilized bunch. I would never want to see angry, ugly comments in my defense. For one thing, I don't need it. For another, I don't want to think that's who I attract.

Josh wrote: "Jeez, I could care less about what this guy thinks about my writing. I totally agree that this stuff is subjective. I started whatever his Dreamspinner title is and I couldn't make it through the f..."

This is why critiquing fellow writers is a bad bad idea...

Josh wrote: There's nothing more pathetic than a pretender in a fedora.

Good Lord, yes!! I actually had to force myself to finish this review after the second typo...

I read it twice and I am still trying to comprehend what his point was, yes these characters provoke delicious reminiscing of Nick Charles and Philip Marlowe, yes the story is full of stuff that seemed like good memories, the plot is the stuff of what the good old stuff is made of...Wasn't that the point though??

I'm sure he intended to make a point, guess I just missed it.

For the record, I am not critiquing Josh's reaction. I am just saying that if the reviewer's an author, he shouldn't formally critiquing other author's work. There are too much conflict of interests.

I'm with LA, I dn't think I got the point the reviewer was trying to make. One of the things I liked in this book is that it felt different living the story through Neil's or Brett's eyes, but if I'm not reading it wrong, the reviewer makes it look like something negative. And I also didn't understand "the Oriental" remark. Either you're faithful to the period or not? I'm a bit confused.

Well, I don't care, I liked this book and thinking about Neil and Brett just makes me feel funny inside. Funny good, I mean.

Josh wrote: ":-D

But I did keep a couple of people from posting unkind comments, so in that respect, I'm fairly restrained."

Regardless of how irate you may be, and rightly so, you have always presented your thoughts in a calm and reasonable manner even with all the emotion behind them.

Cleon wrote: "For the record, I am not critiquing Josh's reaction. I am just saying that if the reviewer's an author, he shouldn't formally critiquing other author's work. There are too much conflict of interests."

Yep. I keep saying this over and over. What it looks like -- no matter how innocent -- is one writer trying to make promotional capital off another. When it comes from a less successful, less popular writer it looks like envy and resentment and frustration.

And that's how it feels on the receiving end of it.

It breeds the unworthy desire to offer the same back. Especially if you've already resisted the temptation to say negative things about the other writer's work.

Emanuela ~Zstyx~ wrote:"the Oriental" remark. Either you're faithful to the period or not? I'm a bit confused.

Thank you!!! I read that and was like the he just seriously point that out?

And likewise Neil and Brett made me happy and warm and fuzzy inside and they are lovely :O)

Noir or not noir, that is the question.

Why should everything be put in a box anyway? Well, there is a box, that is M/M romance. And books that are claimed by the authors as historical should be as true to the facts as possible.

Outside of that, I couldn't have cared less as long as the book is enjoyable.

Lauraadriana wrote: "Emanuela ~Zstyx~ wrote:"the Oriental" remark. Either you're faithful to the period or not? I'm a bit confused.

That is truly an ignorant comment. (Not yours!) "Oriental" is the least offensive term that could be used and still be historically accurate. Like I didn't give that careful thought?

What's the implication there? That I don't know better? That this is a term *I* would use?

Talk about offensive. The implication that I would carelessly use a racial epithet is beyond offensive.

Josh wrote: "Lauraadriana wrote: "Emanuela ~Zstyx~ wrote:"the Oriental" remark. Either you're faithful to the period or not? I'm a bit confused.

That is truly an ignorant comment. (Not yours!) "Oriental" i..."

I am a Chinese and I am not in any way offended by the term Oriental. As you said, it's the kindest term to describe East Asian people, especially in that era.

Josh wrote: "Lauraadriana wrote: "Emanuela ~Zstyx~ wrote:"the Oriental" remark. Either you're faithful to the period or not? I'm a bit confused.

That is truly an ignorant comment. (Not yours!) "Oriental" i..."

Well, I'm an oriental living in a western country and can assure you that there's nothing offensive about the term "oriental"... In fact, it's still widely used in England, as the term Asian in UK does not include Chinese...

My grandparents use to use the term "Oriental." They also used less pleasant terms, but they honestly meant no offense. They were the least prejudiced people you would find. But they were of a certain generation and not particularly well-educated and this is how they spoke.

I so despise the modern desire to whitewash the past, to change history so that it all feels comfortable and cozy for everyone. How the hell do you learn from the past if you're afraid to look at it openly and objectively?

Josh wrote:What's the implication there? That I don't know better? That this is a term *I* would use?

Talk about offensive. The implication that I would carelessly use a racial epithet is beyond offensive.
"

Exactly!!! I mean if you're gonna go there why not call PETA cause the oriental kept a pet monkey...seriously...just yeah...seriously...

And it's not like I'm insensitive. The fact that Wave herself has a problem with certain racial epithets has made them off-limits to me even when I know they would be more culturally and historically accurate. Why? Because I know someone who would be hurt by them.

So in that case I sacrifice scholarship for friendship. Frankly, I shouldn't.

Sometimes I have the feeling that extreme PC is just as bad as racism *sigh*

Emanuela ~Zstyx~ wrote: "Sometimes I have the feeling that extreme PC is just as bad as racism *sigh*"

Holly Hell yes!

Emanuela ~Zstyx~ wrote: "Sometimes I have the feeling that extreme PC is just as bas as racism *sigh*"

It is if it prevents us dealing with the real problems. If we're pretending the problems don't exist -- never existed -- by ignoring them, sticking our head in the sand, then that's whitewash not solution.

I know there are two schools of thought on this, and I realize that some terms can be used gratuitously but...that was obviously a knee-jerk response from someone looking for stuff to criticize.

Lauraadriana wrote: "Emanuela ~Zstyx~ wrote: "Sometimes I have the feeling that extreme PC is just as bad as racism *sigh*"

Holly Hell yes!"

I couldn't agree more.

On the other note, forgive my curiosity, Josh. If the review were exactly the same, but the reviewer were not an author himself, would you be as irate? Or does the fact that he's an author makes you madder?

Cleon wrote: " but the reviewer were not an author himself, would you be as irate? Or does the fact that he's an author makes you madder? ..."

I'd be pretty harsh about pretending to be an expert in noir and not knowing his stuff. You have to understand that the hardboiled crime fiction gang is a very tough crowd. I mean, *I'm* afraid to open my mouth on most of those lists. Those dudes are fanatics. There is zero tolerance for fools (or even dissenting opinions). They'll go to the mat over such subjects as Chandler's mommy fixation and whether Hellman wrote her own work. And don't get them started on whether any of Chandler can be considered noir or whether Hammett wrote anything of note after MF. And the vast majority of them are not even writers.

I will tolerate almost any foolishness from a reader. Even a hostile reader.

But a fellow author? What it looks like -- what it cannot help but look like (in particular when it comes from an aspiring or less successful writer) -- is sour grapes. It looks like jealousy. It looks like frustration. It looks like someone hoping to make a little career traction over someone else's body.

A successful writing career is built partially on networking and connection. So why would you go out of your way, simply for the sake of fifteen seconds of promo, to turn a potential ally into an enemy? Merely for the sake of shooting your mouth off and venting your momentary irritation with a book that didn't reach your subjective and arbitrary expectation?

Why would you do that?

So, yes, you're right. I'd have cut him a lot more slack if he wasn't a fellow writer.

Ok, went for a peek at the review. In a word: ew. Why on earth was it so blessed looooooooooooooooooooong? Or maybe it just felt that way. Whatever, annoyed the crap out of me. Not so much what the reviewer said (though my own rating for TRM was much higher so I obviously disagreed on every point), but how he said it. Trying to be amusing & actually being amusing are two very different things. One produces a grin. One makes you want to rip your own arm off to beat yourself into a coma with it just to make it stop. Did. Not. Like.

Kari wrote: "Ok, went for a peek at the review. In a word: ew. Why on earth was it so blessed looooooooooooooooooooong? Or maybe it just felt that way. Whatever, annoyed the crap out of me. Not so much what the..."

It's a review about the reviewer rather than the book. It's about...see how much I know!! See how funny I am!! See what a good writer I am!! It's a review that is, in fact, a promo for the reviewer. Which in some cases can work very well.

But rarely when it's at the expense of the subject.

But rarely when it's at the expense of the subject.

Or, more precisely, rarely when the subject is still living, breathing, and part of your general circle of colleagues.

Had it been a serious or respectful critical review, well that's different. I don't love every m/m writer's work either. None of us loves everything written in this genre. We have some very frank discussions here in our group. But that kind of showing off on the monkey bars stuff is just...no. Not if you've got any sense.

I haven't read this book yet so I only skimmed over the reviews because I hate being spoiled. It's probably unfair, but I just have trouble believing in Jeff Pearce impartiality & fairness as he was the author that was involved in a great big brouhaha with some readers online here a few months ago.

A reader on goodreads wrote a review that was not favorable to one of his books and he responded in a very harsh manner. There was a lot of name calling involved on his part (he called her bitchy among other things) & he eventually deleted his responses because none of it was making him look good & it was being discussed on Twitter, Amazon & other places. He even quit Goodreads for a while after this. So I find it ironic that he ends his review saying "don't sweat this review, buddy." I may still read one of his books one day, but I don't find him very credible as a reviewer.

Yvonne wrote: "I haven't read this book yet so I only skimmed over the reviews because I hate being spoiled. It's probably unfair, but I just have trouble believing in Jeff Pearce impartiality & fairness as he w..."

DUDE!

That was him? OMG, I vaguely remember that and now that you mention it...

Oh lord, I am evil. Too, too evil. Must stop snickering.

Lol!

The last line was completely incomprehensible for me. Now I know it was trying to be amusing.

Emanuela ~Zstyx~ wrote: "Lol!

The last line was completely incomprehensible for me. Now I know it was trying to be amusing."

That review boggles the mind...at least this mind.

Lauraadriana wrote: "Emanuela ~Zstyx~ wrote: "Lol!

The last line was completely incomprehensible for me. Now I know it was trying to be amusing."

That review boggles the mind...at least this mind."

And I love this book. Maybe I'm clichéd, but it makes me feel.

Kari wrote: "Yvonne wrote: "I haven't read this book yet so I only skimmed over the reviews because I hate being spoiled. It's probably unfair, but I just have trouble believing in Jeff Pearce impartiality & f..."

Well, after reading both of your comment I just HAVE to find the review for myself. Even without his replies my impression is.. Um.. oh.. wow, is all I can say...

I didn't think much when I read his review, honestly. I thought it's just a matter of taste or something. I didn't get his whole references so I just thought I was not knowledgable enough in noir or something. Well, whatever.

But now... well...

Cleon wrote: "I didn't get his whole references so I just thought I was not knowledgable enough in noir or something."

I think that was rather the point. He pontificated (lookee how smart I iz!) and the tone was ridiculously condescending.

Looking at this with the perspective of time I have to say that this was just a very weird thing. There's not another review like that on the site. There is not another instance on that site where one author gleefully bashes another -- and with Wave's blessing!

Add to that the fact that I do a column for the site, it's just in incredibly bad taste.

And, indeed, *did* leave a bad taste in my mouth for Jeff, Wave, and the site itself.

Josh wrote: "Looking at this with the perspective of time I have to say that this was just a very weird thing. There's not another review like that on the site. There is not another instance on that site where ..."

I dont think she sees it as bashing, just different in opinion from 2 reviewers on the same book. There are many great authors they give low to middle rating too. People who know you will not be deterred by the reviews, and new readers can read the other review of the same book and draw their own conclusion.

It's not the review or the rating itself -- though obviously that didn't win anybody points. It's the process of letting one author promote at the expense of the other. There is NO review like that on the site. This guy isn't a regular reviewer. He's an author. At best, a guest reviewer.

The book is selling well. That's not the issue.

Anyway, I guess the fact that I'm still irate indicates the level of hurt and betrayal I feel. It also indicates my naivete in that I would find any of this surprising. Let alone shocking.

Josh wrote: "...the fact that I do a column for the site, it's just in incredibly bad taste."

Josh, have you asked Wave why she OK'd this author to review your book, or do you plan to?

Susan wrote: "Josh wrote: "...the fact that I do a column for the site, it's just in incredibly bad taste."

Josh, have you asked Wave why she OK'd this author to review your book, or do you plan to?"

She was perfectly up front in that she'd invited him to review and that it was going to be a negative review (I never did read the damn thing though I had enough of it reported that I feel comfortable in disaparaging it.) :-D

Her point was that she couldn't play favorites on the site -- and I agree with that. Not all her reviewers have loved all my books. And who cares? I'm not impressed with all the reviews I read either.

No, this was a different thing entirely. In my opinion. Which -- fair enough -- is obviously biased. This was a promo op for this author and the review was more about him than it was my book. It's just bad form to let a guest slam someone who works for free on her site. I work my ass off on those columns -- and then answering all the comments -- and it's not like I need the publicity. I do that as a favor. Just as I give away all those books as a favor. I don't do that for any other site. And I'm way past the point of needing that kind of promo. I did it because...well, largely because she asked and I have trouble saying no. :-D Which is something I need to work on.

As I suspect we've all noticed.

Anyway, the truth is it's easier to think about this, which is basically trivial, then deal with the real stuff going on right now. So...enough brooding over real or imagined wrongs and back to sorting through the actual problems.

But thank you guys for the sympathy -- or at least the tolerance.

Josh wrote: "...thank you guys for the sympathy -- or at least the tolerance."

Let me address the last bit first. You have written and continue to write wonderful stories that we all enjoy tremendously, plus you give us a lot of your time. No thank you's are necessary.

"I never did read the damn thing..."

Well I did, and that guy is a jerk. I keep remembering how much he stressed that there wasn't enough 'noir' in the story. As you so accurately pointed out in earlier comments, a riff on the Thin Man series is not about 'noir'. Baby stuff, indeed!

"I work my ass off on those columns --"

I concur. I read and marveled at the extent of each of those columns including the myriad of comments and all your responses that followed. However, if I am understanding correctly that you are doing this as a favor and gratis too, that's one hell of an ongoing favor. Seriously, you might want to rethink your situation; or at the very least ask for first refusal on who reviews your books in the future.

I found the review ridiculous and disrespectful and I wish you could ignore it as easily as I can.

I think Wave has no idea how much this is affecting you and how much energy this is taking. I guess to her it's just business as usual. I can imagine that you lost the appetite to put more energy in promoting her site with your columns.

Saying no gets easier with practice ;) Say yes to activities that give you energy and are really important to you. The things you do in your spare time should give you energy not take any.

btw I really like your columns, I follow everything you put out there, it's always worth the read and thought provoking.

Sylvia wrote: "I found the interview ridiculous and disrespectful and I wish you could ignore it as easily as I can.

I think Wave has no idea how much this is affecting you and how much energy this is taking. I ..."

Interview? I thought this is about a review?

Josh wrote: "It's not the review or the rating itself -- though obviously that didn't win anybody points. It's the process of letting one author promote at the expense of the other. There is NO review like that..."


I didn't read that review until you all started talking about it here... to be frank, I feel more embarrassed for the reviewer who acts like an expert on Film Noir, but most do not consider The Thin Man as noir... :O

Cleon wrote: "Sylvia wrote: "I found the interview ridiculous and disrespectful and I wish you could ignore it as easily as I can.

I think Wave has no idea how much this is affecting you and how much energy thi..."

Of course it was about a review, I rectified it.

Edina wrote: "I read the recent posts on this thread and thought: jeez, I really need to read this controversial review. And while reading it (and the comments in jessawave, then the comments on goodreads), I re..."

I think it's true that reviews at places like Goodreads and Amazon and Shelfari (which, by the way, has really cool new author tools!) the reviews are more about whether the reader enjoyed the book. There isn't the expectation that the reader will weigh the merits of the book objectively and leave personal preference out of it. Which is why you get so many literary classics with poor ratings. Or maybe people are just taking revenge on their high school English teachers. :-D

TAKE THAT, MRS. PENNYFEATHER. ONE STAR FOR MOBY DICK!

Whereas at a regular review site, you do hope for a little objectivity.

As an author I think the ideal would be to fall somewhere in the middle. I hope I write books that enough people like so that I can afford to keep writing books, but I also would like to think I write books that have *some* kind of literary merit.

Josh wrote: "Which is why you get so many literary classics with poor ratings. Or maybe people are just taking revenge on their high school English teachers. :-D
"

You've gotta admit some of them are boring as hell! Although no one made me do it, I ready Crime and Punishment by Dostoevsky and boy... almost half the book and the main conflict hasn't even started yet? This book needs an editor! lol. And Either/Or, ok stop repeating and rewriting sentences over and over again, I get it, or I don't get it, whatever. White Fangs made me bawl like a baby though, but I really have this terrible weakness for canines.

Anyway, Josh, did you get my message? I am afraid GR swallowed it.

Anyway, Josh, did you get my message? I am afraid GR swallowed it

I thought I did -- I thought I answered?

Josh wrote: "Anyway, Josh, did you get my message? I am afraid GR swallowed it

I thought I did -- I thought I answered?"

Nope, didn't get it. GRrrrrrrrrrrrr. Could you resend please?

Cleon wrote: "You've gotta admit some of them are boring as hell! Although no one made me do it, I ready Crime and Punishment by Dostoevsky and boy... almost half the book and the main conflict hasn't even started yet? This book needs an editor! "

But at the time it was published? It was contemporary, new and shiny! Hell, even reading Frankenstein in its original form is boring. There are good stories in those classics, wrapped up in prose and language no one uses in quite that way, and lets not forget the moral lesson entwined within.

Those of us who are at the cusp of babyboomerdom, and those who followed, have grown up in instant stories, where something has to keep our minds and imaginations clicking to keep us enthralled. These recent generations will be even worst - with all the movies, TV, internet and video games, books that do not wow and continue to wow will not draw like they use to.

Josh wrote: "I think it's true that reviews at places like Goodreads and Amazon and Shelfari (which, by the way, has really cool new author tools!) the reviews are more about whether the reader enjoyed the book."

This is so true. There is a reviewer on my list who gave Lord of the Flies two stars, not because of the writing, but because of the story context. Whereas I gave it a higher rating because of its social commentary.

I just finished this one and I must say, I really enjoy the stories Josh writes about years past when homosexuality was such a shameful and hidden thing. As usual, this one was graceful, subtle, and with hints of whimsical humor. Are there going to be more of these?