Psychology of a Writer's Mind

First, let me state that I'm not making any claims about writer instability or anything like that. I'm mostly indulging my own curiosity and looking for input into a question that has been eating me up since the Guardian article ran.

One more disclaimer, I am using the phrase 'negative review' to mean anything critical even though that's not really the way I look at them. It's shorthand, though I think we need a better term.

When we hear about author-on-reviewer misconduct of any kind, the first thing you think(after OMG, is the reviewer okay!?) is:

What in the world was that author THINKING?

So down that rabbit hole I went. I want to understand... well,everything, but especially things I could never see myself doing. (I also am fascinated by serial killer and true crime documentaries... But that's another post.)

Everyone tells authors not to read reviews, which I do understand. Baby writers(and probably writers who are all grown up too) have muses that are like turtles: They retreat into their shells when anything startles or scares them. A muse that's in full-on turtle mode makes it harder to write your next book well. Or in a timely manner. Or at all. So as a muse-prophylactic, not reading your reviews makes excellent sense. 

But personally, I do read my reviews. (At least for now, it doesn't take much time to read them, there aren't that many.) And sometimes while eating chocolate.

I don't do it because I want to hear that I'm awesome (When people say that? I never believe them anyway.).

I don't do this because I can't stand not knowing (Though I do have an epic case of InstantGratification-itis, and basically want to know/do/be everything right NOW.).

I do it because I want to improve my craft.

Not so much the way I write. Not structure, or really anything to do with the mechanics of writing. I do it because I want to know what story elements, plots, and characters resonate the most with people who read my genre(category romance, medical series).

I fully accept that my books are a product. And without writing another whole post on why I don't think it's selling out to say this: I want to give the customer what they want. Or at least understand so I can make that coincide with my own desires to give others that happy sigh at the end of a book.

But even though I like to think I have a pretty good understanding of reader expectations, I'm probably more like 80/20 than 100% on the understanding. Reviews, especially negative reviews, offer insight and help me become not just a better writer, but to build the career I want to have.

So that's my goal when I read my own reviews. And it probably matters that I go into reading them with that mindset(Years of art school taught me how to take a critique too, but that is yet another post).

But I'm still stuck on: What was that(or that, or THAT...) author thinking!?

And more specifically: What in that particular review started them down the yellow brick road to Crazytown?

Obviously, in the case of Kathleen Hale, one review stuck with her(that book has loads of 1star reviews, and only one reviewer was terrorized that we know of). So it must have triggered some kind of emotional response. That's not Miss Harris's fault or responsibility, but something about her words earwigged into Hale's brain, and I want to understand. Not to excuse--I'm still horrified by the situation--but just to comprehend the thought processes on that downward spiral.

As I only have myself to compare with(and I've never hunted down a reviewer... that I know of o.O) , the questions I asked myself when pursuing that elusive understanding:

• What negative review stung the most?
• What ones didn't bother me? 
• When I was bothered, how exactly did the review bother?
• What made the difference between this 2-star review and that 2-star review...

The conclusion I've come to?

Negative reviews that actually stung, were the reviews that 

said something I secretly agreed with/feared...

So that's my Q to other authors out there. With negative reviews you've gotten, have there been equally written/snarky negative reviews that didn't bother you, but the one that did said something true about your book/writing/whatever that you just really don't want to think about in order to keep your muse turtle-free?

 

Other theories are welcome too. This reasoning might just be particular to my own special neuroses.

Star Wars and Storytelling Choices

I know, I've been gone. I tend to do that, like a cat that suddenly decides it has to be in another room RIGHT NOW and flees. I'd like to claim that I'm back and steady now, but I know that's probably not true. But, in my defense, I have been writing up a storm in my absence! If I'm productive here, I'm not productive with my projects and it looks like the opposite is true as well: if I'm productive with projects, I fall off the face of the blogosphere. Need to work on that.

Anyway.... So, first, what's new with me:

• I am currently in revision process on my medical romance with Harlequin. Dunno if it will turn into a sale, but I'm working with an editor to try and make it publishable with them. We'll see how that goes, but I'm actually loving the revision process. Learning heaptons as I go through the editor's notes. 
• Wrote and subbed a 30K novella in July, still out with another publisher but I'm hoping something it will return something good even if it's just a contact.

The past few days, I've been trying to figure out what story I want to work on next. I have three options, but before I pick one, I decided to explore a setting that's been tempting for me a two years. I couldn't imagine where I'd send this story in 2010 when the idea bloomed, but there are now options to send it and today I decided to explore the idea in my plotbook! Ideally, this story would take place over many years, not necessarily a family-saga, but kinda like that. And while deciding what story to start with, I started thinking about Star Wars and all the many episodes... which brings me to my questions:

• Do people who have experienced these movies from the standpoint of beginning with current Episode IV have the same experience as folks for whom Episode I is where they start watching? Is it the same story for them? Does it illicit the same emotions? 
• Are current-Episodes I-III as compelling as they are for those who first saw current-Episodes IV-VI and then really wanted to know how Vader became a bad guy? 
• Do you feel like with the addition of the new first three stories, that the whole of the six stories became more a chronicle of Vader's life or that it subjugated Luke's story some? I don't think I felt that way before the new three, but now that there is a chronicle of Vader-puppy thru to his 5 minutes of redemption and death... and the stories END there... it sure does feel like Vader-chronicles to me. 
• If these stories always existed for Lucas(even if initially as backstory), why did he choose to start the movies with current-Episode IV? Could he not have hooked his audience as well if he started with current-Episode I?