the relationship between critics and authors

Alice Hoffman the American writer was enraged with Boston Globe reviewer Roberta Silman over the way she had critiqued the novel The Story Sisters. I am sympathetic towards her protest of how the story itself was included in the review, but I feel that she had gone overboard in her too-emotional rebuttals, by way of expanding them to unjustifiable attacks on Silman's credentials, her company and city. She had blown the matter out of proportion by intruding into Silman's privacy as well and posting her personal details on the Internet. She had lost complete control of herself then. Thank goodness the people around her were more rational and harshly commented on her defences, which had culminated in such immature actions. I'm not surprised to note that her apology was not sincere enough. She probably issued it for fear of getting more backlash, but was not really repentant over what she had done to Silman. The proof is in how she felt "this whole situation has been completely blown out of proportion" by the backlash she had received. Ironically, she had first done this very thing by posting Silman's personal details for all to see, thus she actually has no right to say this of how people have viewed her actions.

Alain de Botton the pop philosopher had also made some extremely disparaging remarks on New York Times reviewer Caleb Crain. He called Crain a perverse maniac and expressed hatred towards Crain. His wish of ill will towards Crain stems of diabolical feelings, caused by extreme emotion and pride. Therefore, it is only fitting that he had to make a public apology as well, though he had fully realised what the impact of his remarks on Crain was. In my opinion, his words were more malicious than Hoffman's.

It is so difficult to be a critic, with such authors displaying the inability to graciously accept professional reviews on their works, but I guess this aspect comes with being one. I agree with Stephanie Yap that though you may be entitled as an author to respond to reviews on your works, it is better, and actually more mature, to respond in a controlled and objective manner, with the very tool you use to make a living. After all, as a literary artist, you are taught to examine things from all possible angles. At the same time, she comments on how critics should review authors' works, with understanding and consideration of how much work went into their novels. I like how she equates critics to reporters who need to write with objectivity.

Using the late John Updike's rules on reviewing, who was both a writer and a reviewer, and thus can understand both sides, she urges critics to give a positive comment in order to offset a negative comment, providing examples for both perspectives. She also stresses the importance of giving a generally positive tone to reviews. She concludes her article with the fact that writers must be prepared to have negative responses to their novels, while critics should constructively comment on novels, instead of being too biased in their reviews, to the point of giving too many negative remarks on the authors' works.