Warning: Passive-Aggressive Facebook Rants May Result in Opportunity Returns

"The Sheltering Sky" by Paul Bowels is an agonizing 10.5-hours-long piece of existentialist fiction. The audiobook was narrated by Jennifer Connelly, so I figured that it had to be good if an actress of her caliber liked it enough to read it aloud. According to the summary, she even said of it: "Paul Bowles's writing is so extraordinary, so special. The landscapes are magical, the characters are questioning so much--it's haunting in a very beautiful way." Okay, that got my attention.

Its summary also claims that the book is "a landmark of 20th century literature, a novel of existential despair that examines the limits of humanity when it touches the unfathomable emptiness of the desert." Well, okay then. It caught my interest. And with the main characters "finding themselves adrift in the cities and deserts of North Africa after WWII," it just adds to the intrigue. For all intents and purposes, this should have been an interesting read, especially because I took an Existentialism and Phenomenology course while I was still an undergrad, and went on to minor in Philosophy (among other subjects). I thought it would be nice to slip back into the subject through fiction. A well-known philosophic writer, Milan Kundera, is always fascinating (once you get past the obsession with promiscuous women, virile men, sex, and cheating), so I figured that Paul Bowles might add a touch more plot to a story and use the philosophy as a subtle foundation. 

I settled into my car, turned on the audiobook, and fully expected to be drawn into a haunting world that would ease me into the depths of myself and leave me there, pondering.

But the book pissed me off and I cheered when I finally finished it. So what did I do afterward? I took it to Facebook, of course! 

Ok, I'm not one to rant about a book on here. Usually, one or two sentences if something is really striking. But I can't help myself this time. Paul Bowles, I hate your story of "The Sheltering Sky." Every character is deplorable and despicable. You don't understand women at all. Your novel is existential, sure, but wow... Your main female character is weak, a slut, accepts rape without much defense, and is so bipolar that she gives women everywhere a bad reputation.

Admittedly, what I did is considered to be a passive-aggressive "mini-rant." What good could possibly come from the post? At the most, I could dissuade any friends from reading it. I would even consider that to be a job well done, if it worked (turns out, a co-worker wants to read it specifically because of my rant). 

And yet! Something entirely unexpected happened. 

I should backtrack.

In any business, you often hear the phrase: "It's all about who you know." People will obtain promising opportunities based almost entirely on who they know--who can make something happen for them. In my case, it's not so much that as it is building supports for a bridge that I'd already crossed. 

I write book reviews for an online literary magazine. The site mostly posts about reviews and blogs, but it also holds poetry chapbook contests. My reviews are occasional, but they're still legitimate online publications. And it's a lot of fun to contact publishing companies, request a copy of a novel for a review, and receive it in the mail for free. Who knew? It's a bibliophile's dream.

I obtained the position of fantasy/sci-fi reviewer because I had interned for the site's umbrella company, an independent publishing house. I had already written a couple reviews for a separate, local online literary magazine, told my boss about it, and he offered to give me a shot at writing for his online review. It worked, and here I am. And we've managed to maintain a stable, professional relationship through Facebook. 

When I wrote that Facebook mini-rant, I figured that people would either agree, disagree, or not post comments at all. And when I saw that my boss liked the rant, I smirked and then thought nothing more of it. But a moment later, he messaged me. 

And here's where things really get interesting. 

His words were so wonderful, so inflating, that I almost couldn't believe they were happening. He said he loved my rant and asked if I would write a blog about it (NOT this one, of course) for the online review. He wanted me to "disembowel" Bowels. He wanted me to use the same flip, irreverent tone. He wanted me to make a "hatchetjob" of it. He said that not every book should get a positive review, that some "classics" deserve to be ripped apart. He then complimented my writing and the work that I've submitted to him, and said that he's looking forward to the blog. He also gave me until March to write it because I already have a review due to him by February 1.

And after the conversation finished, I sat back and realized how odd and unexpected it was. I mean... you post an angry rant on Facebook and you expect people to be like, "Oh... another passive-aggressive rant that does nothing." Not this time! This time, it enhanced my career. And this time, I can't just drop a hated story and be done with it. I have to mull over it and keep notes for a 1,000-word officially-published blog entry. I have to stay angry in order to maintain the right tone. This should be interesting. 

Although this event is not an indication that passive-aggressiveness is good, it is an indication that a well-written, passive-aggressive post from a book reviewer might catch the attention of an editor with whom she's friends. So, I guess it is about who I know. And it's also about making informed opinions, and taking presented opportunities.