[ SECRET POST #3267 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3267 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05. [repeat]


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________


11.


__________________________________________________



12.













Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 050 secrets from Secret Submission Post #467.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 - random advertisement for porcelain doves ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[fscom]

02. http://i.imgur.com/WOxaaws.png

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, I mean, that might not be perfectly fair, but I think it's understandable.

semi-related: I once bought a book b/c it had a glowing review from an author I liked. The book sucked. I haven't been able to look at the author the same way sense.

[(Anonymous)]

Authors are sent many, many ARCs for blurbs. For example, here's a tall stack of books (http://whatever.scalzi.com/2015/12/11/new-books-and-arcs-121115/) John Scalzi* received; he posts a stack like this almost every week.

And I know for a fact that they do not read everything they do give quotes for. Someone I know who is a prominent author (ie, a notable enough name that their books have had a couple secrets made about them here, but not big enough that their works have media adaptations) barely ever does. A lot of the time that blurb is really from their spouse, who operated on a rough 60-40 ratio of reading and skimming.

*For the record, Scalzi is not the person in question. I have no idea if he really reads everything, I just posted his stack o' ARCs because it is consistent with what this person receives all the time.

[(Anonymous)]

Scalzi doesn't read every ARC he's sent, no. But he absolutely will not blurb a book without reading it AND genuinely liking it, which means he doesn't do a lot of blurbs.

[a_potato]

I can partially understand this, because I'll fully admit that my immediate internal reaction to seeing Orson Scott Card's name is...unpleasant.

However, his liking a work, or an author, does not change the content of the work or the character of the author (I get the feeling you realize this, or this wouldn't be a secret, but I still think it's worth saying).

[(Anonymous)]

An awful person liking something doesn't make that thing awful, no. But the publicists deciding that that's the review they want to promote their stuff with is a bit of a red flag.

[a_potato]

Not necessarily. Orson Scott Card is still a famous author whose works continue to sell well, so I think it's more of a pragmatic decision that an ideological one. A lot of readers aren't concerned with what Card thinks so much as with the fact that he's the guy who wrote 'Ender's Game,' and a positive review from him makes them more likely to buy.

[(Anonymous)]

Don't be silly, a red flag how? The people who make these decisions don't choose who gets a quote based on politics or the past behavior of an author. They base it on popularity and who sells books. Like him or hate him, Orson Scott Card is a huge name in SF and continues to be. Very few editors or publicists would turn down a blurb from him based on his fame alone.

[feotakahari]

If nothing else, there's the question of when Card said that. Resnick's been writing longer than Card, and early Card was way different from later Card.

[(Anonymous)]

That's fine. I also stay away from books if they are recommended by authors I don't like.

[gobbledigook]

Eh, it's fine, I do this too from time to time. Besides, if the content being reviewed interested you enough you'd search for other opinions or try to make your own. It weeds out the stuff you're not really willing to put an effort to know.

[(Anonymous)]

I just wish that if people are gonna color code their secrets, they do it consistently.

[silverr]

The underline and the word "his" seem to be be same brown — what's the inconsistency?

[ceebeegee]

Really? Not in my browser, they seem distinctly different.

[(Anonymous)]

Yes, because the writer has complete control over who blurbs their books and that's not something the publisher sets up at all.

I mean, sometimes you do (I did, but my publisher is awesome), but if you're published by one of the Big Six, not so much. So yay for punishing the writer for something completely beyond their control, I guess.

[(Anonymous)]

Mike Resnick is not a wet behind the ears newbie with no control over his work. While he's not as famous as Card, Resnick is has been a very well known SF writer for decades and if he didn't want a blurb from Orson Scott Card on his book, the publishing company probably wouldn't force him.

That said, I'm under the impression that his politics aren't too different from Card's and he would be unlikely to turn down a blurb from OSC for those reasons.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, but the OP of the secret said they bounced off any book blurbed by Card. That just seems like a pathological intolerance to me, especially since most authors are not Mike Resnick and Card has plenty of stature in SFF circles.

But, hey, I know plenty of writers who won't sub to Intergalactic Medicine Show because Card's name is on the masthead. He's polarizing, no doubt, but. Less competition for me, I guess.

[(Anonymous)]

I dislike Card as a person and find his attitudes towards gay people disgusting (especially since I'm gay) but too many people treat his work as a pariah. The man is a damn fine author and his liking something means it's likely good. I will never pay for his work because I won't support his efforts against me, but I can still respect and even recommend his work. Because libraries.

Also, it's not fair to punish an author because of someone else's opinion.

[(Anonymous)]

i don't know man the description sounds pretty promising on the unintentionally hilarious scale