The big gossip story today is the review of Jacqueline Howett's book on Big Al's Books and Pals. Well, not the review itself - which was not very favourable, by the way - but the author's reaction to it. She didn't take too well to the review, and I can understand her very well. Anyone who writes has at some point felt upset by feedback. But it got me thinking: why do we feel so angry at bad writing? What is it about writing that makes us so upset if what's written is not to our taste? (I rush to add that I have not read Jacqueline's book and in no way can I comment on her writing in particular at this moment.)
It isn't about the money because I have also felt angry at books I hadn't had to pay for. Is it about the time? Do I feel angry to have wasted my time reading something that wasn't worth it? Probably not. I have been known to waste my time on less important things than reading bad books. I think one of the issues here is the high expectation we place on a Writer, with a capital W, and the disappointment we feel when that expectation is not fulfilled. Maybe subconsiously we feel that the fact of writing somehow elevates the writer over the rest of us and that it is similar to a sacred ritual. Especially when it comes to published books. Self-publishing is quite a recent phenomenon and a lot of readers still feel that if something is published, it definitely deserves to be, if so many people who are involved in the process and who are specialists in their area all agreed that it does. Maybe we need to get used to the idea that not everything that gets to be in print is guaranteed to be good, just like not every TV programme is worth watching, and not every garment in the shops is of good quality.
Or is it about the service? The modern way of living is based around providing a service. When we don't get good service, say in a restaurant, or a shop, we get angry. We have hundreds of TV shows all based around the concept of being judged, or reviewed. Come Dine With Me, The X Factor, America's Next Top Model, to name just a few. So when we read a book that we think is substandard, we get upset and we voice our anger. I wonder whether this is the right way of encouraging anyone to get better at what they do. The contestants in any of the above mentioned shows don't seem to get any better after they have been 'reviewed' and who is to say that the writers that get bad reviews would get better at writing? On the other hand, in the world where anyone can now publish anything, how else would we separate the good from the bad?
For me it's the time wasted on poor or bad writing. I remember when I allowed myself to follow the hype over Dan Brown, I was utterly disappointed to find him formulaic to a fault and even worse full of spelling mistakes!
ReplyDeleteLike the character in the TV show Friends who vows to live a more fulfilling life after seeing Dead Poets Society, a film I actually really liked, not because it was a life changing film, but because she hated it.
"There's two hours of my life I'll never get back.." She Lamented.
Time is precious, such a valuable commodity, that the likes of Dan Brown, Simon Cowell and Piers Morgan should not be allowed to fill with talentless drivel! These men are the flipside to Marie Antoinette, rather than "Let them eat Cake," they prefer to feed the "general public" the worst of everything cultural. These money grabbing morons are in my opinion responsible for the degradation of British culture, along with the art critics who can't paint, film critics who can't act, literary critics who are never published or music critics who can't even whistle in tune!