tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17224228.post1512799421203222006..comments2023-10-25T03:40:54.655-07:00Comments on Neth Space: Nethhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16963540055415924510noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17224228.post-58937081901072598802007-07-11T09:23:00.000-07:002007-07-11T09:23:00.000-07:00Thanks Jim - you got right to the heart of what bo...Thanks Jim - you got right to the heart of what bothered me most. I'm sure it was a great discussion on many things, but it wasn't what it was supposed to be.Nethhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16963540055415924510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17224228.post-75551635972601751502007-07-11T08:38:00.000-07:002007-07-11T08:38:00.000-07:00I was at that panel, and I agree with this post. I...I was at that panel, and I agree with this post. If you are going to have a panel called "Reviewing in the Blogosphere," you should at least have one or two people who, um, actually <I>review in the blogosphere</I> (or for that matter even have a blog), which, by the way, is <I>not</I> the same thing as reviewing online. <BR/><BR/>I have a longer response to this panel <A HREF="http://jimnstewart.blogspot.com/2007/07/keeping-down-filthy-bloggers.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>.Jim Stewarthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00574052482019065333noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17224228.post-38283004582539737772007-07-10T09:17:00.000-07:002007-07-10T09:17:00.000-07:00I agree with the idea of critical reviews and blog...I agree with the idea of critical reviews and blogger reviews being different animals, but I also agree with your point Neth that one doesn't make the other less valid. Whenever I hear or read critics lamenting the effects of blogging on their profession it just irks me. They act as if they have never read a book because of the recommendation of a friend or someone whose opinion they trust. As if the only valid opinion about a book is that of a paid critic.Carl V. Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15948764216438379394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17224228.post-33185821999122947772007-07-09T21:43:00.000-07:002007-07-09T21:43:00.000-07:00-Larry,I'll see about posting it at wotmania. I'll...-Larry,<BR/><BR/>I'll see about posting it at wotmania. I'll be really busy for the next few days, so I'm not sure when or how much I'll participate.<BR/><BR/><BR/>As for you comment - I think I was mostly annoyed by what I expected after reading the title: "Reviewing in the Blogosphere". It sounds like they had a great panel for discussion of reviews and critiques. But they didn't have bloggers. To make what will probably end up being a shitty analogy - it's like wanting to have a panel discussion about coaching little-league baseball and getting 5 managers of professional teams together. <BR/><BR/>I wasn't there - I'm just going off my own impression that is filtered through the report Matt gave. As I indicated in the original post I could be way off base. <BR/><BR/>As for reviews - I know where you stand, you know where I do - for those that don't, I elaborate <A HREF="http://nethspace.blogspot.com/2006/03/on-my-reviews-as-description-below.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>. I just think that what Clute does and what most bloggers do are completely different things - and IMO at least, neither is any more valid than the other. <BR/><BR/>And of course there is the old standby that 95% of anything is shit (I think Matt said that in the response at FBS, so I didn't say it first in this context).<BR/><BR/><BR/>-Matt, I think your comments were likely addressed above. I hope I didn't step on your toes a bit here. I'm sure with it all being third-hand that I'm taking things out of context, but I felt the discussion was perhaps valid anyway.<BR/><BR/>Oh and I understand about other things getting in the way. I'd love to go to cons, but the Phoenix area isn't exactly a hotbed for cons and I really don't have the time or funds to travel (translation: my wife would kill me).Nethhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16963540055415924510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17224228.post-75471256201848557442007-07-09T16:40:00.000-07:002007-07-09T16:40:00.000-07:00My day job couldn't handle going to all the cons -...My day job couldn't handle going to all the cons -- this one was tricky enough. But thanks! I would like to say two things:<BR/><BR/>1) Before anyone comments I'd request that you do read the whole report on the panel in question -- too often I see discussions where a single isolated quote is taken out of context, spawning all sorts of overly-defensive responses. Clute led off the panel by talking about how appreciative he was of being able to write online, for example, and how he's been doing so for a decade. Also please bear in mind that this "quote" is based on my notes and memories, and should not be considered a word-for-word recital of what Clute said (although I believe it does convey the essense, else I'd not have included it).<BR/><BR/>2) One of the things I admire most about Clute, even more strongly after hearing him speak in person, is his precision with language. If he says that plot summaries plus reader verdict are not reviews, what he likely means is that they <I>not reviews</I>, that they are something else. The point isn't necessarily that they are without value (although he clearly is writing for readers who think they are); the point is that they do not conform to the definition of a review that has been developed and agreed to over a long period of history. What is really needed is a new term for them. It works both ways, after all; it would benefit a reader like you, kcf, who prefers less critical analysis before you read a book, to be able to segment out the longer critical pieces when searching for a "review" of a book.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17224228.post-76205450213681525162007-07-09T16:22:00.000-07:002007-07-09T16:22:00.000-07:00Later, whenever the site is back up (weird quirks ...Later, whenever the site is back up (weird quirks again, I see), I'd like for you to post this at wotmania for some discussion there as well.<BR/><BR/>As for my own personal opinion, you pretty much already know it, but for others that might be reading, it's pretty much like this:<BR/><BR/>Reviews are idiosyncratic things. They ought to reflect the reviewer's personality, but at the same time place the book reviewed in some sort of clear and understandable frame of reference. To an extent, I agree with Clute's comments, although I think critical pieces will often exceed the column spaces for most newspapers (and the usual limit for blog readers' patience - see Hal Duncan's blog for examples of interesting entries that often are too long for the format).<BR/><BR/>If the most effective online review format is a 750-1500 word column, it would seem to me that it would involve a stripping away of setup, unless the writer is talented enough to develop (over the course of many such reviews) a corpus of work that shortcuts through the introductory, plot-related issues and delves into characterization, themes, as well as placement in a wider category of books.<BR/><BR/>But it can't be formulaic, or else it'll just lack that "presence" or "vitality" about it that will persuade a reader if the review is positive or dissuade if it be negative. So many things to balance, which may be what Clute is attempting to say, but not quite going far enough to state it directly.<BR/><BR/>Or you can take author Matt Stover's approach, which is basically writing every word balls-out ;) Have you read his work yet? If not, I highly, highly suggest you look into it in the next 12 months, as <I>finally</I> the third "Acts of Caine" novel, <I>Caine Blacknife</I> is scheduled for a Summer 2008 release. It has been a book I've been looking forward to for over 3 years now.Larry Nolenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16001420558511460998noreply@blogger.com