Should authors comment on reviews of their books?

James over at Speculative Horizons raises that question. He covers some incidents over the past year or so that occurred on the blogs and forums that he visits, in particular referring to two situations involving Richard Morgan and one with Peter Brett. His conclusions are in line with many that I have seen stated elsewhere recently, namely that authors probably ought to stay out of commenting on reviews of their own works.

I, however, think there are certainly situations in which it would be nice for an author to interact with the reviewer. As I've said several times over the past couple of years, I come from an academic background and I have had to review a colleague's grad research while that person was sitting there in front of me. There was then a session where we would respond to the comments, with the end result of strengthening not just my own understanding of my research, but also doing such a roundtable critique gave me greater insights into another writer/reviewer's work. While obviously things such as this have very limited applicability outside the academic world of history research, I think there could be some analogues to the peer-reviewed articles that could be done, if reviewer and author alike were agreeable to the task.

I have absolutely no problem with authors contacting me, whether here or via my email address, and discussing matters. I've even had discussions with a couple of authors about my reviews of other authors, discussions that I choose not to post here due to the private nature of the conversation. However, I will say that these were informative and that I learned quite a bit in the process.

I am not one of those reviewers who is going to be convinced that his/her point of view is immutable. I have a healthy skepticism about my own understanding of what I've read and am willing to consider alternate points. If someone with a relatively privileged point of view, say an author or someone else with a unique vantage point for the topic at hand, were to post comments highlighting their differences with my approach, I certainly would consider what they would have to say. It might even lead to a conversation, even within the review post, that would give readers more to consider than if it were just only my view alone.

Yes, sometimes things can be a bit hostile, but even that can be illuminating, if one is willing to look past the emotion and to the arguments being presented. But too often, both reviewers and authors alike tend to avoid mixing and mingling, which is a shame. Walled-off anything just leads to constraints, many of which are harmful for the free exchange of ideas.

But perhaps I'm mistaken in some of my opinions here. What would you argue on this topic?