Any reviewer who expresses rage and loathing for a novel is preposterous. He or she is like a person who has put on full armor and attacked a hot fudge sundae.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
I found out about reviews early on. They're mostly written by sad men on bad afternoons. That's probably why I'm less angry than some writers, who are so narcissistic they consider every line of every review, even a thoughtful one, as major treason.
It seems like every few years a big name author will holler something about how evil, heinous, and morally wrong fan fiction and fan fiction writers are, and then the Internet gets all upset and shocked, and then the author is shocked that people could get so upset.
The best critics do not worry about what the author might think. That would be like a detective worrying about what a suspect might think. Instead, they treat the reader as an intelligent friend, and describe the book as honestly, and as entertainingly, as possible.
Though by whim, envy, or resentment led, they damn those authors whom they never read.
You don't want to dwell on your enemies, you know. I basically feel so superior to my critics for the simple reason that they haven't done what I do. Most book reviewers haven't written 11 novels. Many of them haven't written one.
I think good books have to make a few people angry.
The trade of authorship is a violent, and indestructible obsession.
What I hate in fiction is when the author knows better than the characters what they should do.
It's with bad sentiments that one makes good novels.
I work really hard at these books, and when colleagues write nasty reviews of them, I take it very personally.
No opposing quotes found.