Active Users:468 Time:18/09/2025 04:39:44 AM
I know the difference Larry Send a noteboard - 17/09/2009 05:55:46 PM
It'd be one thing if it were a well-written, well-argued negative review of the book, but that review was mostly summary and very little analysis of what made it a poor novel.


It's not supposed to be a scholarly article.

Just sayin'.


And I'll be "just sayin'" that for a newspaper article, it was poorly written. I read hundreds of newspaper and magazine reviews and that was among the worst I've read of that length in quite some time. At least the NYT review was better-structured, even if I disagreed with its points.

If I had submitted something like that for the paying markets that I've submitted reviews in the past, mine should (would?) have been rejected, just like that review should have been subjected to more editing/revision.
Illusions fall like the husk of a fruit, one after another, and the fruit is experience. - Narrator, Sylvie

Je suis méchant.
Reply to message
The Magicians by Lev Grossman - 14/09/2009 07:50:28 AM 690 Views
Thank you for the review, Bryce. - 14/09/2009 08:19:02 PM 381 Views
USA Today LAMBASTED this novel. *NM* - 15/09/2009 07:42:28 PM 203 Views
That was a rather poor review of the book - 15/09/2009 09:59:27 PM 415 Views
It's a newspaper review... it's supposed to summarize and maybe analyze a little. - 17/09/2009 02:07:37 AM 412 Views
It's still a poorly done review, even for a newspaper review. - 17/09/2009 04:28:15 PM 403 Views
Hmmm, seems strange to me that you both would independently come to that conclusion. - 17/09/2009 08:10:11 PM 442 Views
Why is it strange? - 17/09/2009 10:26:32 PM 390 Views
What's the point? - 18/09/2009 04:41:38 AM 461 Views
I know the difference - 17/09/2009 05:55:46 PM 474 Views
You should apply at USA Today. Show 'em a thing or two! - 17/09/2009 08:08:39 PM 467 Views
Why not Publishers Weekly? - 17/09/2009 10:24:57 PM 371 Views
I thought the book was mediocre. - 26/09/2009 01:48:12 AM 439 Views

Reply to Message