tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26654079.post1180534043030242577..comments2023-05-21T14:46:54.138+01:00Comments on FictionBitch: Authors and AuthorityElizabeth Baineshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17193751871434773972noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26654079.post-61181523970422845492007-12-07T14:31:00.000+00:002007-12-07T14:31:00.000+00:00I know I'm a year late in commenting, but... I agr...I know I'm a year late in commenting, but... I agree. That's a whole bunch of good stuff, well said.<BR/><BR/>Especially:<BR/><BR/>"Yet it does seem that on the whole it is the writers who have least voice in any debate about their work. One of the biggest crimes, for instance, has always been for a writer to take issue with a newspaper criticism (so undignified!)"<BR/><BR/>This has always struck me as extraordinary. Reviewers again and again misread and misrepresent books. This is understandable and forgivable, as reviewers are spending just a few hours, working to deadline, with a layered work that could have taken years to assemble, and may have been designed to be read at an entirely different speed and level of engagement by an audience radically different to that represented by the reviewer.<BR/><BR/>But the fact that there is no acceptable mechanism to get feedback from the person who best understands the book in all its complexity is quite shocking. If reviewing is meant to offer a service to readers, then authors should have an automatic right of reply. A quarter of the review section, say, should be set aside for it.<BR/><BR/>Writers wouldn't have to reply, many would never want to, but readers would benefit hugely, and books would be less damaged by the reviewing process.<BR/><BR/>(Of course, the papers would then use this system to smoke out name writers, and commission harsh reviews in order to get a response...)Julian Goughhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09617515313054085979noreply@blogger.com