I guess I'm just looking at it from the point of view of someone who had an author come and respond to a review very negatively and didn't even bother to consider whether maybe she HAD written something that was (however unintentionally) really hurtful.
But you know, that's a shortcoming on the author's part, not in the writing, but in the reacting. Because if an author is going to take the road of "I'm the author, I can write what I want," they have to be willing to accept that the reader has the same right to be able to read it how they want.
Which is different from the conceit that some readers have that once they've bought the book, they have some ownership in it-- they don't. They have ownership in how they interpret it and the writer can't do squat about it other than engage in meaningful dialogue and that's where that author fell short. She chose to attack you for reading the book in your fashion rather than accept that you had as much right to read it the way you wanted as she had freedom and right to write it the way she wanted.
no subject
But you know, that's a shortcoming on the author's part, not in the writing, but in the reacting. Because if an author is going to take the road of "I'm the author, I can write what I want," they have to be willing to accept that the reader has the same right to be able to read it how they want.
Which is different from the conceit that some readers have that once they've bought the book, they have some ownership in it-- they don't. They have ownership in how they interpret it and the writer can't do squat about it other than engage in meaningful dialogue and that's where that author fell short. She chose to attack you for reading the book in your fashion rather than accept that you had as much right to read it the way you wanted as she had freedom and right to write it the way she wanted.