I've been thinking about this recently because of a post by calico_reaction over here. She was talking about authors having a presence online, especially in regard to reviews - of their own books and of others'. I somehow came away thinking about what authors might really mean and how that can be completely misinterpreted.

Have you ever read an author interview, thought, "Wow, that sounds interesting!" and then read the book - only to discover that you did not see what the author was talking about? At all? The most distinct one that I remember is Mockingjay - I read an interview on School Library Journal (it was a great interview) and then I read the book.

To say that I was disappointed would be an understatement, especially magnified because I was expecting the book to be good.

So, to start with - how I judge a book:

• Writing - the author's prose. How well the words flow. If the book can be read aloud, and if it sounds good. If there aren't any cringingly awful phrases, and if there are any phrases that wow me.
• Pacing - the demonstration of the author's knowledge in where she wants to take the story. The sense that the author is never floundering but that the story is under control. No long expositions and then plot hastily crammed in toward the end.

(If a story has the above two, oddly enough I am more willing to forgive other faults.)

• Character - if the characters are people whom I feel I can know. If they're layered and complex and shades of gray, not cookie-cutter or black and white. If the villain is two-dimensional and evil merely to serve as the book's antagonist and not because he or she is a person whose faults, in relation to the protagonist, greatly outweigh the good points, I will probably dislike the book because the opposing force is boring and doesn't feel like a legitimate force demanding contention. (That sentence, heh. Also: I will use a lot of parentheses. It's how I think. Parenthetically.) This is not to say that I want villains to have had awful pasts to justify the wrong that they do; I just dislike it when people are presented as evil for the sake of it. I can't think of any writer who pulled that off. (If you know, please tell me - I'd love to read a book like that.) I don't like characters who are solely good, either. I can't stand Lucie Manette or Little Eva or Pollyanna. Show me someone real - someone like Taylor Markham or Meg Powers or Vicky Austin or Kavi (no last name that I recall) or Seph McCauley - and I will read any book you write in the future.
• Plot - the strength of the story. The author convincing me that the events really matter. The sequence of events being plausible.
• Emotional response - here's where it starts to get tricky. Ultimately, when I read a book, I don't care what the author had in mind. I care about  what the book meant to me when I was reading it. If the author intent doesn't carry over into the book, it doesn't matter to me. Emotional responses are valid even if the reader can't back up her response with support from the writing. If there's something in the book that prompts a reaction, regardless of author intent, it matters. I think this is important because books are read by people and not by a faceless horde who drive the bestseller lists. It's individuals, with their own life experiences, who read and react to stories.
• Hype - this is another tricky one. If I dislike a book, I tend to be more vocal about my dislike if the book was on the New York Times bestseller list or if it was suggested to me by everyone I know. (See: Mockingjay, Twilight, The Time Traveler's Wife) If you ask me why I don't like (title I can't think of now), I'll tell you that I don't remember, because it was just a book I picked up. Reading it wasn't a momentous occasion, a let's-see-what-the-world-is-reading-now sort of thing.What do you think? I know I follow a bunch of authors online because I think they're entertaining or because I want news about their upcoming releases, so maybe I'm a bit of a hypocrite. I will say, though, that I only follow them after I read and respected them. And sometimes I don't like a book they've written - but my disappointment plays into the "Hype" part of my judgment. It's definitely not an insult to be compared to Patrick Rothfuss. And it doesn't mean I like their other books any less.

Interestingly, though, I read two books recently by authors I really, really like, yet I didn't really like these two. In summary - The Goblin Gate, by Hilari Bell: I loved the first book, so the sequel automatically was at a disadvantage. Also, it suffered from middle-book syndrome. To much setup, not enough execution. I will definitely read the sequel, though, because the setup was excellent - but unsatisfying. The second book is also the middle of a series - The Exiled Queen by Chinda Williams Chima. (Both these authors aren't nearly as famous as they deserve to be.) This felt unoriginal - something from which the first book in the series definitely did not suffer - not unlike The Name of the Wind in regard to setting and maybe even plot. 

These are both good books, but since my expectations were sky-high, they weren't met. (I think my expectations were the result of previous excellence, though. And now I'm worried about The Wise Man's Fear. I really talk myself into these things.)

To tie this into the original discussion (which occurred farther back than I remember, heh), authors who are vocal online or in interviews have a better chance of specifying their intentions or correcting their perceptions. If I've read what they say and agree or disagree, that will affect my reading of their books. It will probably shape my emotional reaction, in an I-like-you-so-this-will-probably-be-good (or vice versa) way.

Here's where this post came from:


I have no idea what he says further in because when I got to the 0:47 mark,  I went, "Well, I don't know if I agree with what he's going to say from a political viewpoint, but I think I need to write about author intent right now. Right now."

If you don't want to listen, this is what he says:

• "Whatever you put out, you can only control your intention - you can't control its perception or how people receive it - and you can control your execution."