Negative book review sends Buzz Bissinger into a Twitter fit

Oh, I understand that criticism is part of the deal and that if you can't take it, do something else. I get all that, at least from a rational perspective, when I'm feeling calm. But Buzz has always been brutally honest and profane, and I can see where he's coming from here. I can understand why he might be upset... Especially, when comparing that review to what Moddy wrote here, there does seem to be a little of that misrepresentation Glenn is talking about.

Janet Maslin of the Times trashed my space book—effectively killing it—even though her review made it clear that she didn't know the difference between Challenger and Columbia and which one I was writing about. (She thought it was Challenger; it was Columbia.) The Times ran a correction, but that still didn't make up for the fact that she shit on my book that she pretty clearly skimmed if she read it all.

If Twitter existed back then, I'm fairly sure that I would have tweeted terrible things about her. I'm not saying that would have been right, or that I wouldn't have regretted it. But I am saying that I can see how it happened here with Buzz. It is so hard to get out what you put into a book. Again, it's years of your life. It's admirable to take criticism like a man, I envy that ability, but it's also really fucking hard.

 

Great post.

 

It was unclear from the review whether the writer had some expertise in the topic, but since he didn't disclose any, I'm assuming he did not. (And if I'm wrong about that, I apologize in advance.)

How does it benefit the readership when the target audience understands the topic better than the reviewer? Fiction, fair game. Non-fiction? If you're selling a baseball book, let a baseball writer review it. If you're dealing in science, get the opinion of a science writer. In this case, if I had interest in the topic of parenting a physically/mentally challenged child, I want the perspective of someone who can relate to the subject. I'm continually stunned by book reviews that say more about the reviewer than the book.

That said, if you really want to kill your own book, attack the reviewers. In every case it comes off as thin-skinned whinery, even when you're completely justified and your book has been shredded by someone who just didn't get it. Happens all the time. If you're fortunate enough to have a platform for response, take your best shot, calm and cool, address the factual errors and let the rest go. All you can do is hope for a better review from the next guy.

 

Maybe Buzz is like a coach working the refs. He drops enough f-bombs on this reviewer and no one wants to blow the whistle on the next one.

 

Reviewers are like readers and are often a reflection of readers. You can bet if one reviewer didn't like the book there will be a few readers out there that won't like it either. But as long as an author's positive reviews outweigh the negative ones, they'll be doing fine because they will likely have more readers that like the book that don't like it.

In any event, this dude needs to chill out!

 

I thought Alex Lemon came off as a complete pissant. I didn't see Buzz's Twitter rant, but reading that review, I felt myself getting angry for Buzz. It doesn't surprise me that Moddy reports Lemon misrepresented so much.

The review was poorly written. And the first thing that popped into my head was, "This guy has no clue about being a parent. They couldn't even get a parent to review this book?"

Now-- I have no idea if Alex Lemon is a father because he leaves it ambiguous. He raises the issue... but doesn't tell us outright.

It seems like Bissinger's book doesn't follow a script, and that makes me want to read it.

 

The way I read that review -- and I think this happens often -- is that the guy got to write the review because he is a published author.

 

Or maybe nobody reviews it at all.

 

Published authors abound, my friend. They couldn't get a published author who might have some understanding of, or connection to, parenting?

The name of the book is Fathers Day. To me that cries out for, I don't know, a father to review the book maybe? Someone with a special needs child perhaps.... somebody with some link to the topic at hand?

 

A sympathetic reviewer? Someone who, it could be said, the book might be aimed toward?

Isn't it the author's mandate to interest all readers, regardless of their own personal experiences?

 

Just my opinion, but I think books are written all the time that are really targeted to a narrow potential readership. If a wider audience becomes interested, great. But no, I don't think 'Father's Day' was meant to appeal to the single male age 18-25.

 

I agree with this. Certainly reads like either a personal attack or the writer was seeing in this book the traits that Bissinger has become known for because of rants like this. Bissinger certainly comes across as a complete ass when things like this happen, but I got the impression that the reviewer was looking for that negative vibe.