And there again, you may have the indie who won’t engage because they may feel it’s unseemly or unprofessional–but you wouldn’t know because the author hasn’t said WHY they aren’t engaging.

True, and if the author isn’t interested in chatting, obviously I don’t push it. I just mean that when I read/review indie-published works, I almost always end up having some email contact with the author.

I think it’s just that writers naturally want feedback, so they’re more likely to want to discuss their book with me if my review is one of, say, five reviews than if it’s one of five thousand.

indie-published authors are actually interested in my critique and will engage in a discussion about various points, whereas the big shots won’t even bother to read my review,

And there again, you may have the indie who won’t engage because they may feel it’s unseemly or unprofessional–but you wouldn’t know because the author hasn’t said WHY they aren’t engaging.

Unless something is factually incorrect or I am asked direct questions by the blogger/reviewer or a commenter on the review (i.e., it’s clear that a conversation is desired), I won’t comment on a review of my work.

As for thanking a reviewer/blogger for the review, I prefer to do that in email, but MMV.

My goal for my blog is to write something that will be interesting for my readers. Book reviews can be fun in and of themselves, even if you read only a fraction of the reviewed books. In a book review, what I pride myself on (there’s that word! ;) ) is finding and describing something that’s interesting and unique about the work so that readers will get an idea of whether they’d like to pick up the book or not.

On your list, you might think I fall into trap #2 of only reviewing work by friends. One thing to note, however, is that of my entire list of reviews, there are only a couple cases where I knew the author first and the review came later. For the overwhelming majority, if I’m (virtually) friends with the author now, it’s because I met him/her by reviewing his/her book. And there’s nothing cliquish about it — if anyone sends me a manuscript or a review copy, I’ll read it and give feedback, and possibly also review it. (Actually, I’ve got two on my pile right now, which I think I’ll start on now that I’ve finished my big deadline on my tech/professional project.)

I’ve also posted quite a lot of reviews of national/mainstream-published works, but I prefer reviewing the indie stuff for three reasons: (1) I want the stuff on my blog to be original and unusual — not just things people could read anywhere, (2) indie-published authors are actually interested in my critique and will engage in a discussion about various points, whereas the big shots won’t even bother to read my review, and (3) national commercial works are often so polished that all of the interesting and unusual bits are polished off, making them less fun to analyze.

Sorry if #3 sounds like pride. Note that in that one I’m not talking about literary fiction — I generally leave that stuff to the pros.

The best solution, I think, is the one Zoe (#4) mentions: that is, taking the review as an entry point into genuine discourse. That becomes problematic, though, when reviews are mean-spirited or done with the intent (as Jack, #9, mentions) of showing off one’s intellectual or critical chops. Reviews written in an antagonistic spirit make it harder for any response from the writer to be viewed as anything other than antagonistic in turn. It takes considerable care on both parts, I think, to avoid this happening in the case of negative reviews.

More problematic still is the long-term grudges and chips on one’s shoulders that can carry over from one reviewing experience to another. It’s all too easy to reading someone’s comments in light of previous interactions, or find oneself still trying to prove a point from a previous conversation. This is particularly problematic when we are, in fact, one fairly small community.

As humans, I think we find it easier in some ways to classify those who have offended us (or vice versa) as strangers and/or enemies, so that thereafter we have no obligation to interact with them in any other way or at all. This, of course, is exactly what Jesus told us we aren’t supposed to do. It’s hardly surprising that we find this just as hard to do in the realm of writing/criticism as anywhere else – especially for those of us who have chosen to make storytelling an important part of our lives.

My first “ouch” rule is: never write or respond out of anger. Whenever I have done this – whether it’s hot, immediate anger or a more long-held anger of offended pride – I have regretted it later. Which maybe speaks to the truth of Pres. Benson’s comment about pride arising out of enmity…

It is *definitely* harder to avoid the problems when one has become both an author and a critic. This is particularly the case in a small, close-knit community such as that of Mormon letters.

In response (partly) to MoJo (#5): William said that all four patterns he was describing “can” arise out of pride. I take this as meaning that all four can also arise out of other sources as well. Maybe it’s not so much a matter of there being a correct way of responding, as the necessity of trying to put ourselves right first.

The best reviews, in my opinion, include not only a discussion of the book but also – as an extension of discussing who might and might not enjoy the book – a kind of cultural criticism as well. If anything, however, this expands the potential territory for giving and taking offense. It also is a reason why I think negative reviews can be an important thing.

Sorry. This is kind of disconnected…

In response to William (3) and Mojo (5) and in contrast with myself (1):

Back to President Benson, it becomes pride when it is fueled by enmity. Others’ view of our motivations is one thing, our view of our motivations is another, our actual motivations may well be a third. But it is the third that ultimately matters.