Reading this I just had this awesome vision of Ray with a super model on each arm singing Harry Chapin's Mr. Tanner with a big sh!t eating grin.
On Jul 16, 2012, at 9:19 PM, Raymond Feist <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Jul 16, 2012, at 5:43 PM, Dan Henby wrote: > >> >>> Well, criticism is pointless, for a start. As David Gerrold is fond of >>> telling readers and want to be writers at workshops, "Where the hell were >>> you at 3 am the week before deadline when I needed a better idea?" It's >>> always in process, so if you want to praise or condemn a work I finished >>> over a year and a half ago, it's your prerogative. Either way I ignore it >>> because it does me personally no good regarding the craft. See, if you >>> think quality has fallen off, I've got readers sending me notes and e-mails >>> saying they like the new stuff better than anything I did back in the day. >>> So, who am I to listen to? The guy who thinks Magician is the best ever or >>> the guy who thinks Kingdom Besieged is the best ever? Best advice my dad >>> ever gave me was "If you believe the good reviews, then you've got to >>> believe the bad one's too. So best to not believe any of them." The first >>> big time review I got was above the fold in the Sunday Book Section of the >>> Washington Post, two columns and the guy liked Magician better than my mom >>> did. One week later the book reviewer at the Charlotte Observer pretty >>> much said I should be shot for writing in the English language and everyone >>> at Doubleday should be fired for publishing Magician. I think my ex-wife >>> put those two side by side in a scrapbook she made for me. She always had >>> a quaint sense of humor. >>> >>> My opinion is you're catching flak not because you liked Magician better >>> than Besieged, but because you characterized the work as falling off >>> because I'm bored with the world. We've never met; you don't know me. You >>> and I have never had a conversation about how my process works, what my >>> overall vision is, or any other meaningful aspect of the story arc, to the >>> best of my knowledge, yet you presume to characterize it as an aspect of my >>> respect or lack thereof for the material and my readership. >>> >>> Me, I don't care. You're free to like what you like. But apparently some >>> of the others on this board took umbrage. >>> >>> And I don't debate my work with anyone (save my editor) because the work >>> must speak for itself. Which is one of the points I stress with want to be >>> writers at workshops, i.e. "If you're telling me what you're doing in >>> chapter 4, put it in chapter 4 because you're not going to be standing in >>> every bookshop on the planet explaining to the buyer what you're doing in >>> chapter 4." >>> >>> I'll take about pretty much anything that interests me, but I'll never >>> debate the work. >>> >>> Best, R.E.F. >>> >>> ---- >>> www.crydee.com >>> >>> Never attribute to malice what can satisfactorily be explained away by >>> stupidity. >>> >>> >> Ray, I've heard your above story before, and it tells the tale precisely. >> Most people want to hear the good reviews and don't want to believe in the >> bad ones. But when you have an audience of several million (or whatever) >> you're going to find people who love you and who hate you. I prefer the >> audience of one. >> >> And .....really? Shot for writing in the English language? Wow, that is the >> harshest thing I've ever read that has been published. Fire an entire >> department for your book. >> > > Well, I exaggerated that a bit . . . Never let the truth get in the way of a > good story. > >> I wonder if that reviewer is still working? It would be funny to go back to >> them and see if their opinion has changed. > > I have no idea. It was 30 years ago, after all. > >> >> Thanks agin for your hard work. >> > > You're welcome. > > Best, R.E.F. > > ---- > www.crydee.com > > Never attribute to malice what can satisfactorily be explained away by > stupidity. > > > > >
