I'm not quite sure what to do here

[lliira]

Laurell K. Hamilton has been going through what seems a pretty serious illness for the last three months, and her doctors haven't been able to figure out what is wrong.  So picking apart Danse Macabre feels a little... I dunno, lacking in chivalry? (I'd use the same word if she were a man.) At the same time, she did write this book and she does have these attitudes. I don't like the idea that we can't criticize someone who's going through rough stuff or is disabled; I feel that is condescending. That I'm in lots of pain all the time doesn't mean people can't criticize what I write.

So... okay, I think I've talked myself into continuing with Danse Macabre. But I'd welcome any thoughts on the subject.

ETA: She's doing an AMA on Reddit now on which she's being a self-absorbed liar. Guilt gone.

Comments

[blueinkedfrost]

I agree with you. Criticising someone who's dead is also okay, and criticising someone who's currently well doesn't mean they won't become ill in the future. Maybe you could make a practice of always using the book as the subject of criticism, such as cursing it for being bad rather than making the author the subject of the sentence. That would have a distancing effect between the person who wrote a bad book (who's probably lovely and kind to her friends in real life) and the bad, horrible book.

And they say that any publicity is good publicity... I think analysis of bad books can also actually motivate people to read them just to follow on, or sometimes even attract fans who are interested in deconstruction.

[lliira]

I don't think I can stop using the author as the subject of sentences. That's been how I've been taught to write about books since middle school. And when there are misogynistic, etc. attitudes consistently throughout the text, that does show what the author's attitudes are. With LKH, we have another reference in her blogs to show that yes, she really does think this way. But I will try harder to not make it too personal.