One of the best books I read in 2006 was Infoquake, by David Louis Edelman. I had a chance to interview him recently. He's a nice guy, and a smart guy, and one hell of a writer in my opinion.
But as always happens, not everyone agrees with that last assertion.
David has recently posted a radical new thought in handling negative reviews that has been adopted by some authors. Rather than emphasize only the good reviews, showcase the bad as well. Here's his rationale:
Imagine you’re sitting in the Coliseum in ancient Rome and two gladiators come out of the pen. One of them’s slick and unblemished with hardly a mark on him. The other guy’s got scars all over his arms and he’s missing a few teeth. Which one are you gonna bet on? I’m betting on the guy with the scars. Why? Because a scar is evidence of a tough fight that you came out of alive. It’s a mark of experience. And when we see the clean and unmarked gladiator, we just don’t believe that this guy has gone through fight after fight without making a single mistake. We figure that he’s just too young and green to have earned his scars yet.
The entire post is helpful to any and all writer who will (not may) face comments which aren't the most glowing. Worth a read!
Speak Your Mind