
I can’t help to compare two different reactions I’ve received when I gave negative critique to two persons’ books.
The first was from Robert Hartwell Fiske when I had written some less flattering words about his book “The Dictionary of Disagreeable English”. The second was my review of “Writing Drama” of Yves Lavandier, neither this one positive.
I have no idea how Robert Hartwell Fiske found my blog, but he sent me an e-mail asking if I was interested in becoming his friend on Facebook and then receive some free classes.
Considering my negative critique, I e-mailed back, referred to what I had written and asked something like if he had given this offer to the right person.
His answer was that he had read it and I was free to feel anyway I liked about his books, but that I obviously was interested in improving my English and that was what he was offering to help me with.
Opposed to my contact at the publishing company of “Writing Drama” who told me she was disappointed with me, that I had a unique negative opinion, and even tried to prove some of my statements wrong.
Now, of course, in this last case I had been given the book for free to review it, but there had been no obligations to give a positive review.
I don’t know how Robert Hartwell Fiske felt about my plump “like it was written by a grumpy and bitter old man”-statement, but he let me have my rights to my own views; he didn’t try to tell me that I thought wrong.
And that I think is vital. For both parts.
If I tell someone that he or she perceived the wrong things, I deny that person the rights to his/hers whole personality. Because the reason that he/she perceived it the way he/she did is based on this unique persons whole life.
I also deny myself the opportunity to get some valuable feedback. Because, in the end, if someone is to blame for the “wrong” view, it is me, the writer, never the reader.


















.png)

