Okay, so I don’t usually recommend that authors respond to negative reviews. (I probably shouldn’t even be responding to this one, but when did I ever take my own advice? DO AS I SAY NOT AS I DO, KIDS.) Authors don’t have much to gain from highlighting negative reviews, though sometimes negative reviews are themselves incentivizing in terms of selling the book for you (“I hate how every time I open the book it dispenses free liquor and cookies and I hate liquor and cookies!”) I mean, reviewers have every right to not like a book for whatever reason. Even if that reason seems ‘wrong’ to the author, hey, whatever. This isn’t academic criticism. This is the Internet. Open to whomever to say whatever.
And even the review I’m about to showcase — which is a review for my upcoming YA, Under the Empyrean Sky — is a review that the reviewer has every right to maintain. This person doesn’t like certain things, hey, so be it.
Oh, also, as a caveat, this is not not not a winking nudgey unspoken suggestion for you to go all Internet Crusade on this reviewer. Author-led pitchfork mobs are creepy and constitute a kind of low-grade bullying and I’m not a fan — I just think this review offers up some stuff I wanna talk about. Please don’t go and respond or start shit with this reviewer. Kay? Kay.
So, the review:
“I was totally looking forward to this book as the plot sounded very interesting with the genetically modified corn angle. I almost stopped reading after just a few pages because I found the language extremely offensive. The teen lingo used by Cael and friends ruined this book for me. It wasn’t just a word here or there but very extensive in the first part. It does ease up as the book progresses but yuck! Could’ve been cleaned up and then very enjoyable as the plot is good.
The teen sexual content I also found offensive and with the language and sexual content I can’t recommend this book to anyone unless they especially are looking for that flavor of writing. This is the kind of book that kids read and think… well everyone’s doing it…. when they’re NOT. Not talking like that and not the other stuff as well.
[cutting one sentence due to a very light spoiler]
If 4% of the population is truly gay, I find it very contrived to find so many gay characters appearing all of a sudden. It’s only unique for the first how many times?”
So.
Let’s talk a little bit about this book.
It has some profanity in it. Some of this profanity is of the “made-up” variety. Like, there’s a parlance these characters use in this world — they might say “Lord and Lady,” or “Jeezum Crow,” for instance. But they also use some mild profanity — crap, piss, ass, shit. (I don’t recall if I drop the f-bomb in here, but let’s all remember that PG-13 movies let you get away with one good f-bomb per film, by gosh and by golly.)
It has some sex in it. Mostly sex by suggestion — I’m not writing hardcore teen orgies. It’s sex painted by negative margins — more about what’s inferred rather than what’s explicitly described.
Further, the “gay character” thing. Yeah. I don’t know what the percentage of gay people in the world is, and in this case, I don’t much care — I think it helps to make sure that writers are thinking about characters who don’t all live on Heteronormative White Dude Mountain, and I wanted this character to be gay and it made sense to have that in the world and to make it reflect a part of the world (boys and girls in my sunny dustbowl dystopia are forcibly married off at the age of 17, and purely in heterosexual couplings).
Thing is, I think young adult books should reflect what it’s like to be a young adult.
I remember being a teenager. It was fucked up.
That time is frequently painted with this rosy kind of nostalgic glow (“These are the best times of your life”), but dude, dude, that’s so not true. It’s hard. Your brain is a cocktail of anger and sadness and lurching sexual need and confusion and fear and freedom and giddy anarchic expression. You’re still half-kid but now you’re also half-adult and nobody knows how to treat you — more kid or more adult? And just when they treat you like an adult you still prove you’re half-kid and when they treat you like a kid you show them how you’re capable of being an adult.
Throw that all into the context of an agricultural dystopia and… well.
Just a head’s up, Parents Who Think Their Kids Are Chaste Little Angels —
Teens have sex. Teens curse.
And that’s reflected in the book.
It’s a book I want adults to like, but it’s a book I want teens to read. And that means speaking all that pesky “teen lingo” (?!). YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED, PRUDISH HUMANS.
Anyway!
A few more quick tidbits on the book —
The book has a new tagline:
FEAR THE CORN. And everything that floats above it.
It also has a Booklist review:
The first book in Wendig’s Heartland trilogy sets the stage. Flotillas, peopled by the wealthy Empyreans, float above the Heartland, allowing the lowly Heartlanders to grow only Hiram’s Golden Prolific corn. This monstrous crop has taken over everything, leaving deformed, malnourished farmers and their families to survive on the government’s stingy handouts. Eighteen-year-old Cael and his longtime enemy Boyland and their crews are constantly pitted against one another, striving to earn the title of best scavengers. When Cael discovers an amazing row of real garden fruits and vegetables, he unearths not only a possible death sentence for him and his friends but also torture for his family and other Heartlander citizens. It’s a tense dystopian tale made more strange and terrifying by its present-day implications. The Heartland teens understand that they are pawns in the hands of the powerful, fed an insidious combination of hope and coercion to keep them all under Empyrean control. Escape only brings retribution to their families and friends. Cael has two more books to conquer this perversity, and it will be interesting to see how he does it.
Finally, I don’t think I listed this blurb the last time I talked about the book, but —
“Wendig brilliantly tackles the big stuff—class, economics, identity, love, and social change—in a fast-paced tale that never once loses its grip on pure storytelling excitement. Well-played, Wendig. Well-played.” —Libba Bray, author of the Gemma Doyle Trilogy, Going Bovine, and The Diviners
(Holy crap! Libba Bray! If you have not read The Diviners, holy shit, fix that, stat.)
The book comes out July 30th.
Preorder: Amazon / B&N / Indiebound
Molly Dugger Brennan says:
I got stuck at the reader being interested in the book because of “the genetically modified corn angle.” WTF?
July 6, 2013 — 11:48 AM
Pabkins says:
First I have to say – you have the best reviewers ever! I get just as much of a kick our of reading all the comments as I do from reading your post itself. Like calls to like I guess. It’s crazy how some adults want to shelter their teens from everything they are already experiencing. Case in point I had a family member who asked that I read all the books unnamed teen wanted to read since I read so fast/much – because she’d gotten a hold of books with “sexy parts” in them and she didn’t want her reading that and nothing with LGBT because she was in harsh denial of the fact that hey, the teen was very much LGBT. So what did she try to do? Squash it from her life in every aspect she could. Sad that people have that reaction and aren’t more accepting of who their teen is. That will always be the case though.
In regards to the reviewer though – I’m sure that review might help keep other people of a similar mind as hers away from the book, and that’s definitely for the best – because who wants more critical, poorly thought out reviews anyway. Excellent response Chuck!
July 6, 2013 — 12:23 PM
Carter Gillies says:
The criticism seems so unrealistic for any consideration of theme. 4% only matters in the abstract. In actual slice of life living you never get purely statistically representative quotas. How can you talk about anything, DO anything, without bringing certain non-distributed details into prominence? Especially when you are making shit up. A story about cyberzombies couldn’t be written if we stick to some mythology of only writing to the percentages…. Particular cases exhibit this amazing capacity for difference. You are talking about some-thing, not everything. And if you are at fault for writing about only particular things, then the reviewer is at fault for only reviewing that one book. Statistically that one book is only X% of the books out there, so the reviewer is as much at fault for being specific and non-representational as you the author. That’s my two cents worth, at least….
July 6, 2013 — 12:29 PM
deadlyeverafter says:
I have a problem with people who can’t handle that there is a not so rosy side to young adult life, and even more of a problem with people who can’t handle that in an adult novel. Your issue is not be whether or not it’s offensive, it should be if it’s realistic or not. Also, grow up, assholes.
–Julie
July 6, 2013 — 2:49 PM
RobertGrayWolverine says:
I teach 8th grade English in a community full of people like this reviewer. The worst part is that they dismiss the “kids already do it” argument by saying it’s just giving in to bad behavior. That yes kids curse and have sex, but that’s all the more reason why we should be giving them better role models. Thus totally missing the point and failing to see that what they are really asking for is to negate the teen experience and deprive teens of authentic characters.
Fuck that. Just because they lack years on this planet does not mean kids aren’t incredibly complex and fully-formed people who deserve to have their stories told. Not to mention that just because a book might not be right for every kid, doesn’t mean that it’s wrong for kids.
My all-time favorite response on the topic is this one: http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2011/06/09/why-the-best-kids-books-are-written-in-blood/
Sing it, Mr. Alexie.
Thanks for standing up for authentic teen voices. Empyrean is moving to the top of my NetGalley pile. I work in the southwest Washington corn belt (yes, there is one). I predict FEAR THE CORN will be a big hit.
July 7, 2013 — 3:25 AM
Laura W. says:
I read that post and loved it…it’s actually something I also cite whenever this ages-old, fucking stupid argument about “bad stuff” in YA books comes up.
July 7, 2013 — 9:40 PM
Tracie Stewart says:
Are you sure you’re not a doctor? You have two books–TWO BOOKS–based on this quote alone:
“That time is frequently painted with this rosy kind of nostalgic glow (“These are the best times of your life”), but dude, dude, that’s so not true. It’s hard. Your brain is a cocktail of anger and sadness and lurching sexual need and confusion and fear and freedom and giddy anarchic expression. You’re still half-kid but now you’re also half-adult and nobody knows how to treat you — more kid or more adult? And just when they treat you like an adult you still prove you’re half-kid and when they treat you like a kid you show them how you’re capable of being an adult.”
Book 1 title – “What in the Hell is Happening to my 15 Year-Old? (and what to do about it)”
Book 2 (working) title – “A Trip Down Memory Lane. Shit that Happened to YOU (yes, you!) but you’re OLD now and your Memory Ain’t What it Used to be”
Thanks for prompting me to remember my first cocktail, although I’ll take a nice glass of Jameson now (neat, please).
Dude, dude, your words are so true….
July 7, 2013 — 7:32 AM
Steph Train says:
I really appreciated the review.
Has cussing: check.
Has sex: check
Has gay people: check
Pisses off conservative asswipe: SCORE!
July 7, 2013 — 1:05 PM
shannon hale says:
I think that saying “Teens have sex. Teens curse” can sound as limiting and untrue as “Teens don’t have sex. Teens don’t curse.” I think the point of YA lit is not to try to definitively show how all teens are but to show some teens and tell as true a story as possible. What’s true for us as the writer won’t be true for every reader. I hope that readers who read about experiences different than their own don’t shut off and say, “But that’s never true because it wasn’t true for me!” And I hope the same in reverse for the writers.
July 7, 2013 — 2:23 PM
terribleminds says:
Totally true. The point is more that teens sometimes DO exhibit these behaviors and that kind of language and as such, one should not be surprised to find those things sometimes reflected in the fiction that represents said teenagers.
— c.
July 7, 2013 — 5:17 PM
Lisa Spangenberg (@LisaSpangenberg) says:
There’s an article by Paul Fussell from 1982 on The Author’s Big Mistake (http://thepmi.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/fussell-1982.pdf). The ABM is to respond to a review.
Don’t. Reviews aren’t for author’s, they’re for readers. They aren’t our business—I say this as someone who has received horrible reviews from reviewers who start by saying they haven’t read the book.
Just move on. Don’t correct, respond, or do more than link to them or tweet them.
It’s lose-lose for the author.
July 7, 2013 — 2:53 PM
terribleminds says:
I actually think responding to this review has been win-win.
First, nobody got riled up.
Second, nobody got out the pitchforks.
Third, I was able to draw attention to an issue that pops up when folks discuss books — and in particular, YA books.
Fourth, I was able to talk about my book in that context. Bonus: I ostensibly am able to focus the market for the book — “If you are concerned by teens curing and having sex, don’t buy this book / if you’re comfortable with that, maybe buy the book.”
Fifth, I was able to quietly suggest that my book dispenses free liquor and cookies. (Sadly, it doesn’t.)
I don’t think there’s any harm at all in discussing reviews if it generates interesting discussion and helps talk about the book. I think it gets fuzzier when you actually *respond* to the reviewer, which isn’t what’s going on here.
I mean, in general, I agree — reviewers are a no-no, a do-not-touch, a brightly-colored poison frog. But here I saw value in the chat, so I went for it. I think it worked out, though your mileage may vary.
— c.
July 7, 2013 — 5:16 PM
dtkrippene says:
Kudos on the Libba Bray review. A great voice in the YA world. I just did a post: “Need a Few Good Men in YA Fiction,” of which I almost titled “Have Romance Writers Taken over YA?”, but I didn’t want to piss off good friends who write romance. I get the marketing numbers that state the genre is read by mostly females, but YA could use a few more male protags and a little less emotional boyfriend fever. I give you high marks for braving a genre staunchly guarded by MAPM (mothers against potty mouth). And you’re right, being a teen is one of life’s more difficult periods. I ought to know, I was a card carrying geek nimrod before they even knew what the term meant. Charge on, my friend. I’ve got your book on my TBR list.
July 7, 2013 — 4:33 PM
Janet says:
Going to agree with Jeff Xilon here. Your response, Chuck, was okay – a little narrow-minded in its own right because not every teen swears like a sailor or fucks every time they turn around, and those who didn’t were lambasted every which way from Sunday. Being a teen is tough, but so is being expected to be raunchy and randy just because you are a teen.
But I’m also more disturbed by the mindset of some of the commenters. The review was an opinion and the reviewer has every right to give it. If people don’t agree with the opinion, they could, as intelligent adults, discuss what they didn’t like about the review without the personal attacks on the reviewer. Whether they’re grabbing the pitchforks here or elsewhere (and let’s face it – you have a huge audience so it’s not like an isolated blog), those are still pitchforks.
Not cool.
July 7, 2013 — 4:45 PM
terribleminds says:
@Janet:
To be clear, I’m not saying ALL teens are sweary sex-mongers. I am however saying that teens in general do those things and it’s not uncommon and so, to be surprised to see teens doing or saying those things (in reality or in fiction) is more than a little myopic.
I can’t speak for some of the commenters — though I don’t see many pitchforks here, nor has anyone attacked the reviewer at Amazon. No mob mentality to be seen. You’re totally right that the reviewer has the right to an opinion, regardless of the whiff of toxicity it seems to possess — just the same, others have the right to an opinion about that review, as well, right?
— c.
July 7, 2013 — 5:12 PM
A. M. Pillsworth says:
Piss and crap are naughty words? Shit, I’m fucked, then.
July 7, 2013 — 5:40 PM
Laura W. says:
Dystopian as a genre, not just in YA, tends to be “older” and contain more mature themes anyway. Kids who like that stuff usually gravitate towards that stuff. Kids who hate that stuff usually get halfway into a book like yours and put it down. Contrary to popular adult belief, young adults DO have the power to self-censor. When I was 13 or so, I read some books that were definitely a bit “old” for me. I skipped the romance because it made me uncomfortable. A few years later, I picked up the same books specifically for those scenes because hey, what’s this thing called sex again? And isn’t it better to read about sex and the issues attached to it than going out, getting pregnant, and finding out the hard way? My parents and the school system sure as hell weren’t going to tell me anything useful. Books can be influential, sure, but they’re not going to turn your chaste little angel into a hard-drinking swearing gay-sex-having rebel overnight.
Honestly, it’s the reviewer’s objection to the gay character that bothers me the most. Sure, the statistic might be 4%, but the percent in YA literature is probably even lower. That’s something that needs to change.
July 7, 2013 — 9:56 PM
Charlotte Grubbs (@literary_lottie) says:
What really gets me is the “4%” quote. The rest is just your standard, pearl-clutching “o tempore, o mores!” wank, but that “only 4% of people in the world is gay (and therefore only 4% of fictional characters should be gay)” is ignorant to a detrimental degree.
First of all, I’ve never heard the four-percent figure. Ever. I’m pretty sure the reviewer just pulled that number out of their ass. The most commonly cited figure I hear is ten-percent (or, one in ten for men and one in sixteen for women) but those people are pulling that number out of their ass as well because hey, sexual attraction occurs on a spectrum and there are no hard and fast rules when it comes to sexual identity. Sexuality is not a zero-sum, binary “check A or B but not both and no changing your answer” kind of thing.
But what really pisses me off is the intimation that there can only be a certain number of gay characters in a book, and that the number must correspond to real life demographics. That just reeks of tokenism. I don’t write gay characters because I’m trying to fulfill some diversity quota, I write gay characters because their sexuality means something to them, because it informs their needs and desires, because it builds on their character arc, because it emphasizes their struggles. Sexuality isn’t some box on a character sheet to be ticked off. It’s not some some writerly cheap-trick to make a character “unique.” It’s part of a character’s very self-concept and identity. You don’t just go “okay, Bobby-Sue’s best friend is a total carpet-muncher, check mark, yay diversity achieved!” Fuck that noise. That’s just as bigoted as the “no gay characters in YA ever” preference.
As for “not realistic” – well, I probably attended high school more recently than this reviewer (class of ’07), and guess what? I knew a LOT of gay, bisexual, and transgender kids. I was fortunate to go to a school that had an open, accepting environment, and in which students felt comfortable coming out, but I’m willing to bet that it would be roughly the same percentage of GLBT students at other schools, out or not. I find idea that there can’t possibly be so many gay characters because then the gay characters aren’t “unique” to be pretty fucking offensive on behalf of all the GLBT students I knew in school. Sorry our existence is too “contrived” for this reviewer; we didn’t realize we were supposed to be as rare (and fabulous!) as unicorns. We’ll go back to being a tiny minority living on the fringe of society post-haste, so as not to challenge people’s delicate world-views.
In summary: What the fuck ever, reviewer from Heteronormative White Dude Mountain. Eyeroll, poop noise, et cetera, et cetera.
(Oh, and if we’re following the reviewer’s logic, then 4% of YA books should have a gay protagonist. Anybody know if that’s the case? Because I’m thinking…not. And I’m thinking the reviewer would probably consider that many gay protags to be “contrived.”)
July 8, 2013 — 3:08 AM
Janet says:
“I actually think responding to this review has been win-win.”
Well, don’t all authors who respond to reviews? They think they win – either because they could refute the reviewer or because they get their fans to gang up on the reviewer. But as someone who was a fan of yours, Chuck, I can say that you’ve dropped quite a bit lower on my scale of “This guy knows what he’s talking about.”. You could have spoken generally about the gay thing, or about the teenage behavior thing, without mentioning that review at all. So where you think you’ve got a win-win, instead you have a “I think I won-LOSE” situation, because you’ve lost respect of many of your non-rabid-Wendig-is-my-god followers.
July 8, 2013 — 11:22 AM
Jeff Xilon says:
Though I always appreciate being agreed with as you did earlier, Janet, I guess I’m landing in the “rabid-Wendig-is-my-god follower” end of the spectrum from your perspective, because I think there is nothing wrong with posts like this. As someone who hopes to one day have published material that others review I have a lot of trouble understanding the idea that authors must never respond to reviewers. I’d be on board with authors should not attack reviewers, but the idea that authors can’t discuss the issues brought up by reviewers seems ludicrous to me. Frankly, it seems like something created by some reviewers to appoint themselves as the only acceptable controllers of conversations about books backed up with self-fulfilling prophecies of doom. “Never respond to reviews!” “Why not?” “People will be angry with you!” “Who?” “All of us who say don’t respond to reviews.”
I’ll stand by my point that I don’t like people being angry with this person for having written their review, but I think everyone, including Chuck, has a right to talk about the issues the reviewer brought up and to express their disagreement with the idea that these topics don’t belong in YA.
July 8, 2013 — 12:02 PM
Tammy Sparks says:
I completely agree with you, Jeff. As a book review blogger, I find it weird that some bloggers are hateful towards authors who respond to negative reviews. They claim that the author is shooting himself in the foot and ruining his career because he/she isn’t being “professional.” I think everyone has a right to an opinion, as long as it’s friendly.
July 8, 2013 — 12:12 PM
terribleminds says:
@Janet —
We’re just going to have to disagree, here. I think this was a productive discussion. I’m sorry you don’t. The review, in my mind, wasn’t merely a negative review — it was a review with some toxic stuff attached to it, and further, some perhaps troubling assumptions about YA.
I’m also sorry this one post somehow dropped your opinion of me, but if it did that, then I sadly suspect I wasn’t all that regarded in your view in the first place.
Your tone is a little concerning given that you refer to my other readers as “rabid” for agreeing with me, and further suggesting that your opinion is therefore reflected in the “many.”
I’m comfortable if you disagree with my choices here in this post, but I’m far less comfortable with the attitude you’re putting forward.
— Chuck
July 8, 2013 — 2:12 PM
Janet says:
“Your tone is a little concerning given that you refer to my other readers as “rabid” for agreeing with me, and further suggesting that your opinion is therefore reflected in the “many.””
Not all your other readers, but certainly those who think that your words and actions should rarely, if ever, be questioned. And I was a great fan of yours, pointing out your blog to others, quoting you, including links – but you stepped into it this round. Why couldn’t you have discussed those “toxic” issues separate from the review? Was it the issues that were so important or was it pointing out how wrong the reviewer had it?
But yeah, agree to disagree and all that…
July 8, 2013 — 7:38 PM
terribleminds says:
The reason I bring the review in is because it’s evidence for the argument. Otherwise, it’s just me trying to get you to believe that these concerns and/or problems exist without actually offering a demonstration of their existence. The fact that it ties into my book directly was all the more meaningful to me personally.
Like I said, discussing this was a positive experience for me and my book. I think I was even-handed, I don’t think I was mean or nasty about it. You’re free to disagree, of course, but I’m not concerned with how I conducted myself here in this post or in the comments.
— c.
July 8, 2013 — 8:17 PM
Janet says:
“I’ll stand by my point that I don’t like people being angry with this person for having written their review, but I think everyone, including Chuck, has a right to talk about the issues the reviewer brought up and to express their disagreement with the idea that these topics don’t belong in YA.”
If the discussion were only about the concepts brought up in the review, I would agree. But if that were the case here, why bring the review in at all? And certainly there are comments here that speak against the reviewer instead of/along with the review. When authors respond to reviews and reviewers, it makes them look petty. When authors respond to ideas, it makes them look like adults. And I’m not ‘hateful’ of authors who respond to negative reviews – I just lose respect for them. Especially those who, in the past, have said authors shouldn’t do it. What’s good for the goose, ya know.
July 8, 2013 — 1:11 PM
RTAllwin says:
I don’t know what to say, except: I need this book!
July 9, 2013 — 4:51 AM
joolzj says:
Yeah, let it out, Chuck! You tell ’em! I’ve got a YA book coming out soon and a friend who used to be a reader for a prestigious publishing house, said she didn’t like the blaspheming in it e.g. ‘for God’s sake!’. I hadn’t even considered that to be swearing! I reduced the amount of swearing to an unnatural level in an attempt to offend as few folk as possible, but, well… you can’t please all of the people all of the time. And I think it’s definitely worth responding to a negative or any review if you believe there’s a modicum of a chance you may add a new dimension to a person’s way of viewing the world. We are thinkers, let’s face it, so it goes with the territory that we can sometimes help other people think who don’t think as much as we do…!
July 9, 2013 — 6:53 AM
Wesley says:
My own family alone (by blood and by marriage) is more than 4% gay.
July 19, 2013 — 7:58 PM
Ralph Pulner says:
Honestly, Chuck? I will follow you until the end of days, but…? I can’t believe this review set you off. She wasn’t outright negative in any way and I didn’t feel this was an attack.
I think her personality really becomes established by revealing the parts she was uncomfortable with. You know this person likes a certain kind of novel with new situations but a safe, very comfortable format. This person doesn’t want to read books that take him/her outside of their comfort zone. She may be misinformed but you fault her for it.
Not everyone falls into your reading demographic. Look at this way. You created a subject matter that was interesting enough to reach someone who doesn’t normally read the kinds of in game situations you sell. You bridged a gap and it shows your books are attracting a different group of people. Makes you a better author, I say.
July 22, 2013 — 12:10 AM
terribleminds says:
I don’t consider it an attack, not at all. I don’t think it was personal, and I’m not at all disagreeing with her right to have that opinion.
I just think some of the flags thrown up here (particularly about gay characters) is troubling and so too are the tropes about teens. Just felt that was worth talking about, is all.
— c.
July 22, 2013 — 6:36 AM