Speaking of The Wild Swans

[pegkerr]

I haven't looked at the reviews on Amazon for a while. I'd missed this one, which was posted in January, 2007 and is, uh, rather scorching. It sums things up thusly:

"I would have never picked up this book if I had known what the subject material was. I was expecting a nice Swan story. So if you are looking for a happy book, look elsewhere."

I will admit that I did want The Wild Swans to be sort of a stealth book, which would be picked up by mistake by at least some people who never would have touched a book with THAT subject matter. But it appears, based on the reviewer's comments about the "self-righteous, selfish, lying clergy with their foaming at the mouth followers," that she sorta missed the point.

No. No, put the onus where it belongs, Peg. Instead it's more accurate to say that I simply didn't succeed at what I set out to do. With this particular reader.

*shudder*

Comments

[kijjohnson.livejournal.com]

There's always one or more who Just Don't Get It. You can try to sneak up on them or seduce them or mug them, and it's not going to work, no matter what. I have a couple like that, myself.

[kijjohnson.livejournal.com]

Oh god, now I went and read mine, and there's someone who disliked Fudoki quite a lot. Bleah. I hate negative reviews.

[http://users.livejournal.com/anam_cara_/]

I think that given so many other people DID get the point, it's a matter that she didn't, not that you didn't succeed.

And you know what? When I picked up the book, it was a bit of stealthy, I was simply expecting a retelling of a fairytale, but was surprised to have gotten so much more than that :)

[jenett]

Reading the book description as posted on Amazon, it's not like most of her complaints aren't covered: the description makes it clear there's 2 storylines, and an overview of what's involved. The back cover of the paperback sitting on my shelf is even more so. (Also, the professional reviews on Amazon also make the 2 story lines clear.)

The reader is responsible for their choice: if they choose not to make use of the really obvious tools, then that's their call, but it's not the author's fault for not giving them the book they created out of thin air in their head.

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

I don't see how a book could possible reach every reader; people are different. (Remember, Tolkien didn't succeed at what he set out to do. With me.)

[airemay.livejournal.com]

*facepalm* Wow. That reader just did not get it! But she is just one reader! There are hoards more who loved it. :)

[wintersweet.livejournal.com]

There's always someone who doesn't get it, and it's probably her problem, not yours! Every time I see the totally bizarre things that get written down on teacher reviews I'm reminded of this. Some people just live in a different universe, and unfortunately there's no way to screen for them before letting them post to Amazon or Yelp or RateMyProf or whatever. I suspect it's more accurate to say that *there was no way to succeed at what you set out to do,* with that particular reader.

[huladavid.livejournal.com]

Lemme at 'er!

Nobody gets to be mean to my nieces or nephews. (No matter if said nieces or nephews are human, canine or literary... ;-) )

[wild-patience.livejournal.com]

I thought the novel was just stunning. I enjoyed the resonances between the two story lines. I did the "Yes!" hand-pumping thing on the fairy tale part -- it's so seldom that I see in fiction a character who lives in a time and place where Church is a big part of daily living who is actually shown praying when not in church.

The AIDS story line was hard and cathartic both for me. I lost several dear friends to AIDS -- we were all in music at San Jose State in the 1970s. A bunch of the gay guys used to go up to San Francisco to the bath houses before AIDS became part of our vocabulary. A bunch of them died.

Many of these young men were also devout Christians, attending the gay-friendly Metropolitan Community Church. They loved God so much that only someone who didn't know them could suggest that they're burning in hell.

[pameladean]

Sometimes there's just a mismatch with a reader; the chemistry is off. I usually tell myself that it's the same thing that made a book succeed with some people that make it impossible to succeed with others. That certainly is the case with Tam Lin. And remember Tolkien, musing in the introduction to the Ballantine paperback edition of LoTR that the very same aspects of the book pointed out as blemishes by some were by others specially approved.

P.

[greatsword.livejournal.com]

There are always reviews that are, essentially "This is not the book I would have written with that title." Those can be safely ignored.

I haven't read this book yet - not for lack of looking for it, by the way. This review, if anything, makes me want to read it more. Obviously it's got enough complexity to be interesting.

[papersky.livejournal.com]

Ah, you also get reviews saying your books have too many gay people in!

[owldaughter.livejournal.com]

Peg, no. No, no,no.

If there's one thing I had to learn, it was that I only do half of the work. The reader does the other half. (To be more accurate, it's some/some, with percentages vague and nebulous and probably overlapping, but you know what I mean.) The onus does not lie upon you. It is a co-operative affair, and a reader has to take responsibility as well.

Of course, this rarely happens; readers are very quick to blame the author for a less than satisfactory experience. I've had people criticize my books for not being what they expected them to be. And as another commenter says above, when the summaries and cover copy clearly outline the storyline, theme, and thrust of the book... well, a reader who misses the point is refusing to admit that s/he has any responsibility in the relationship. And if a reader denies that, then in my opinion s/he gives up the point in reading anything. Whether it be that she made a mistake choosing it, or perhaps misread the book, she is seeking to shift blame, which is unfair.

(And for what it's worth, I love The Wild Swans. I read it in ARC, and hand-sold it to many people over my years working in a F/SF shop. Not one of them came back to me with a complaint.)

[penmage.livejournal.com]

The Wild Swans was a stealth book for me. I bought it sight unseen because I loved Emerald House Rising, and I liked fairy tales. It wasn't that I wouldn't have picked up THAT kind of book ever--it was that I was sort of a sheltered teenager, and I don't think I would have naturally gravitated towards it.

I loved it. It opened my eyes. It wasn't what I was expecting, but it was deeper and more powerful than that.

You didn't succeed with her, but you succeeded with me.

[qwyneth.livejournal.com]

This was exactly my experience, except I hadn't read Emerald House Rising first. (I did later.) I picked it up because I loved the swan legend, and got so much more.

Some people you will never be able to succeed with, because they don't want their world to be opened.

Reader responses

[(Anonymous)]

I really don't know why so many readers don't "get it" with this book. I do think that there are readers who mainly "got" it, but still didn't think it was as good as I did (or Wild Patience, who was in the same "discussion group" as I was at the time). But, the really interesting question for me is why so many don't see the connections between the stories, often these are readers who can be good readers in many cases, too. Some of these have later changed their minds upon rereading. It's really a book that rewards a second (or third) reading. I am particularly annoyed by another reader who dismisses the book as an atttempt to retell the mythic elements in earlier swan stories, l like Deirdre. She dismisses the reference to Hans Christian Andersen, too. I rather wish that Avon would've included an HCA tranlation as well, because the book truly is a retelling of HCA's story, as rereading that would reveal. And he added plenty to the story. I'm still mulling over this vexing question. --David Lenander

[kk1raven.livejournal.com]

No. No, put the onus where it belongs, Peg. Instead it's more accurate to say that I simply didn't succeed at what I set out to do. With this particular reader.

Remember that "with this particular reader" is a very important part of that paragraph. If you expect to succeed in having every reader experience a book the way you intend them too, you're setting yourself up for failure. Everybody brings different experiences and different opinions and ways of thinking to their reading and you can't account for all of that in your writing. Some people are going to be too biased and unaccepting of the message to be able to get it.