If your book can stand, let it.

If publishing a book is like having a child, author Alice Hoffman this week played the playground mom who interrupts a classic and voluntary game of "tag" to punch out the child playing "IT" for the crime of chasing her child. I was never any damn good at tag, nor have I published a book, but I get the feeling neither should involve real or virtual punching.

Hoffman, a popular novelist best known for PRACTICAL MAGIC, got a negative review for her latest book THE STORY SISTERS from Roberta Silman of the Boston Globe, who said it "lacks the spark of the earlier work" although deeper into it her "heart lifted" and there were "wonderful passages." The author counter-attacked on Twitter (@AliceHof, since deleted), attacking Silman's credentials ("any idiot can be a critic"), Boston and anyone telling her to be quiet, before posting Silman's phone number and e-mail address. Oops!

Even though she was clearly upset, Hoffman would probably not agree that no book reviews ever should be negative -- just not hers. But the old argument about grade inflation applies: If I give every book an A, then an A is meaningless. (Conversely, as in "Men on Film," every book getting a "Hated it!" would make the phrase meaningless; that's what separates us from Dale Peck.) A hateful review is not "a love letter," as Hoffman's straw man alleges; not every piece of mail is a love letter, which is what makes love letters all the more unique.*

Hoffman can say "Silman's opinion means nothing to me," and welcome she is to it, but she shouldn't have threatened Silman's ability to do her work in this bizarre display of hackle-raising. I'll give Silman the benefit of the doubt and assume that she read THE STORY SISTERS hoping for it to be good; I certainly do with every book I read professionally. (Personally, I sometimes need to exorcise my demons by reviewing a book I expect to hate, but at least I'm honest!) I know they won't all be The Best Book Of The Year, but I want to be informed or entertained (or both), and I owe it to readers to determine when those things don't happen.

This actually happened to me a few years ago over a mostly positive review of a book by an author I'll call Ernest Hmmmingway, who contacted me directly about it. The message contained several points, began as a correction of something I had legitimately got wrong (sorry, Mr. Hmmmingway) and devolved into a list of phrases I had used with question marks after them, as if their error required no explanation; the passive-aggressive CC was also deployed in the hope my editor on the piece** would give me what-for. What-for was not given; my review was factually corrected but otherwise unchanged. I wouldn't go out of my way not to review a book by Hmmmingway again, but I might not specifically request it; overall, I felt that I had been used as a vent for other things that weren't my concern.***

In publishing her book, Hoffman made her case; she doesn't need to follow it around with a pep band because that's what Shaye Areheart's publicity department is for. Silman did the best thing she could do, which was not respond; Hoffman should have accepted by now (as she would undoubtedly advise a first-time author, who might have even more stake in reviews) that sometimes you're IT, and sometimes you're not.

*Oh look, the inner Luddite came out to play.
**I wanted to refer to my editor here as Maxwell Smirkins, but that would technically be Hmmmingway's editor [uninvolved in this exchange], not mine. Such a shame when a pun goes to waste.
***"For indeed a book critic may be used as a Vent, in that he is often turned sideways, offering Aire, but for his purpose see that you ask him not to become detached." Hey, I went to see "Twelfth Night" last week, and I'm a huge nerd!