Because you have to see this. Too bad it's too late get a couple hundred of these sent to my home for tomorrow's festivities.
Something about glass houses and Wheaton's Law. A rant of writers nitpicking other writers. Except for an asked for critique, or doing a real review, it's not worth the trouble. Also, you know, people can sigh and moan all they want about the literary contributions of Stephen King, Stephanie Meyers, Dan Brown or JK Rowling, but they all sold a hellofalota books. Each. I'm not always one to say that economic successful = quality, often the opposite. But if the job is selling books, they win. (Grokked from Stewart Sternberg)
Just in time for the summer photo sessions… Dear Soon to be Seniors, do not do this. This is worse than a bad photo on Facebook. Really. It'll come back to haunt you. (Grokked from Dan)
On the conservative vision for the US. Just like Texas. Or at least that's what they want. (Grokked from Jay Lake)
John Lithgow performs Gingrich's press release. Brilliant!
Slactivist on the emotional fallout of the Rapture/Dispensationalist theology. (Grokked from Jay Lake)
3 comments:
Hrm. I'm not going to say I'd enjoy a bad review or someone carping about something I wrote, but I can't agree that it's something that shouldn't be done or that necessarily reflects badly on oneself. Asking how someone is a bestseller in spite of their literary deficits may be a completely valid point; it might even be a useful question and not merely a rant. It also bothers me that the writer's attitude seems colored by politics and self-interest: if you follow his link to his earlier piece re: why he no longer does reviews, it's basically a way of passively sucking-up, he doesn't want to give a bad review to a colleague he might need. I guess that's more honest than continuing to write reviews and only writing good ones, but still. I'd prefer reading someone who will give me an honest evisceration (especially if I deserve it!) and would prefer feeling free to give my own opinion if it's defensible. If someone says my work sucks, they're either right or they're wrong (even if they're motivated by sheer jealousy to tell me so), and if they're right, I think I'd rather know.
On a critique level, sure it can be good. But I often here the "Why do people love this stuff when it's (insert your pet dismissal here)?" Roger Ebert, with the bruhaha over his Thor review pretty much stated it. He reviewed the movie as someone of the general public, not someone who was steeped in the comic book lore. And, you know what, Thor will make money despite his review. So what's the definition of success? Great critical acclaim, or books/tickets out the door? There's a quote about how unrecognized genius is so common, it's a literary meme.
Post a Comment