It's difficult to take this literary version of Kate and what's his name seriously; still, one must recall the most memorable line in Mel Brooks' 'History of the World, Part One'(paraphrased): then came the birth of the artist, and then the afterbirth, the critic.

This is why I hate Twitter; too many knee-jerk reactions there. Who's pissed at whom today? Great, I get it, we're a nation mired in outrage.

And isn't any publicity good publicity? If I were an Alice Hoffman fan (admittedly, I'm not), wouldn't I be spurred to read the book just by seeing she had something new published? It happens to me with Chris Bohjalian every time. Or John Irving.

I must say that the sample of Hoffman's writing in the Silman review strikes me as pretentious, sentimental and--probably the reason for the other two--lazy. Perhaps a case of resting on (or in) her laurels. But then again, Silman's writing itself is almost unreadable. I'm so glad I'm just a nobody, so no one will twitter me in indignant rage!

ROFLMAO.

What is the BEST about it is that, were she not an author, she'd be out of a job over this. She now gets to use the situation for ANOTHER book. Wheee.

I'm a nationally published author myself. I have always thought that responding to negative reviews, while one might really, really want to, is a stupid thing to do. Everyone has a different take on books, even good ones. For the author to respond in public is simply to make an ass of oneself. The book will stand as its own advocate.

(and, yes, I'm sure that will seem a complete non-sequitor to everyone but me....)

As sincerely as ever,

David Terry

www.davidterryart.com

I'm actually in the middle of this book. I'd never read anything by her, but I was intrigued by a review of it in the New York Times. I am wanting desperately to like it, but I have to agree somewhat with the Boston reviewer. Her initial descriptions of the 3 sisters do tell rather than show. I was kind of shocked by how lazy the first few pages seemed--and I am really easy to please, I swear. If anything, I tend to overpraise. Nevertheless, I hope to finish it, and it is getting more compelling (for me) as it goes along. Still, it's not as great as I expected.

I clicked on the link to the review, figuring it wouldn't give much away that I didn't already know--but it sure does! I can see why Hoffman would be upset.

And for what it's worth, I'm from BOSTON. I guess that explains my lack of taste! Also, the whole twitter thing is pretty tacky--but then again I can't stand twitter in general.

Any author who gets even a lukewarm or negative review in the NYT or Boston Globe is doing better than most and I wouldn't discount Hoffman's tweets as a publicity stunt. Look we are talking about her book, right? Sort of? Maybe we'll look at it the next time we are in the book store. I write and review and I wish there were more honest reviews--more critical reviews. Sometimes they start to sound like blurbs.

Seriously? Hoffman blew up over that review? I skimmed through it, and I actually thought it was rather flattering. Yes, it wasn't solely a glowing review and there was negative criticism, but the reviewer also pointed out several positive aspects of the novel. I can't imagine getting that upset over such a tiny bit of criticism. I mean I've had creative writing courses and I know that criticism can sting, but you'd think a veteran professional writer would just shrug it off.

This just astounds me, and frankly disappoints me. I admire and look up to writers, and I hate to think that some of them act like such spoiled teenagers.

Some people just know how to have a good time.

Maybe skip the word "prolific" next time. No need to overboard in setting her up as a hack.

you need to be a far better writer than Alice Hoffman.

If you consider "A Multitude of Sins" to be a novel, I'd conduct my next interview with RIchard Ford through a sneeze-guard.

--Michiko Kakutani years ago panned John L'Heureux's book Comedians. I went right out and bought and loved it. Her bad review made the book sound fascinating, and it was.

--I gave Richard Ford's A Mutltitude of Sins a mixed review, but we don't travel in the same circles, so I guess I'm lucky.

--The wife of a writer friend stopped him from firing off a protest to a reviewer by saying, "Do you want to be acknowledged for your craft or known as a maniac?"

--Any author feeling the urge to savage a critic should read Bech at Bay where Updike's hero goes after some of his reviewers. Sweet catharsis.

--Pope said this about reviewers: "Ten censure wrong for one who writes amiss"

Twitter is a great way to stay up to speed with your friends, make acquaintances into friends, and make new acquaintances. Twitter didn't make Hoffman act like an idiot. She came up with that all by herself.

Don't forget that Crouch also went on to brag about it on Tina Brown's show (establishing that his apology to author ZZ Packer was a lie), taking a homophobic swipe at Peck as well. I wish Peck or his friend at the time hadn't been so gracious and called the cops.

Don't forget that Crouch also went on to brag about it on Tina Brown's show (establishing that his apology to author ZZ Packer was a lie), taking a homophobic swipe at Peck as well. I wish Peck or his friend at the time hadn't been so gracious and called the cops.

Writers writing how angry they are using today's faddish tech tool. I bet she used to FAX critics her ire when faxing was the latest thing. I wonder who the first author who telegraphed their spew to the newspaper was when Morse code was all the rage.