tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4438041449595085165.post4939136261180352631..comments2024-03-17T14:31:21.769-04:00Comments on Fantasy Book Critic: On Some Recent Reviews (by Liviu Suciu)Roberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15006565422867420980noreply@blogger.comBlogger22125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4438041449595085165.post-9881547954918819082012-01-16T09:15:00.218-05:002012-01-16T09:15:00.218-05:00I will add an edit to the post and from then on I ...I will add an edit to the post and from then on I will disable comments; if anyone wants to pursue this further feel free to contact me through the blog email addressLiviuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04615405766065227026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4438041449595085165.post-70506171720833211762012-01-16T09:04:04.156-05:002012-01-16T09:04:04.156-05:00Comment deleted for being not in accordance with o...Comment deleted for being not in accordance with our policies; no further comments on the issue will be allowed as this has degenerated.Liviuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04615405766065227026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4438041449595085165.post-8669022930594602942012-01-16T06:17:43.953-05:002012-01-16T06:17:43.953-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Martinhttp://everythingisnice.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4438041449595085165.post-83848566035364474622012-01-15T21:49:49.707-05:002012-01-15T21:49:49.707-05:00I've been interested in reading Sulivan's ...I've been interested in reading Sulivan's work for a while now and this was the first genuinely negative review I'd seen for it, so I read it largely because of that reason. It wasn't just that it was negative, constructive negative criticism is good for both reader and author, but this review had a nasty tone that I didn't like at all. I can see that some of her criticisms are valid, I've seen examples of the same sort of things that irritated her in other books, and they've annoyed me, too, but the overwhelming tone of the review seemed to set out to attack and insult both the author and anyone who read and admitted to enjoying the work. It hasn't put me off trying the Riyria chronicles either, mind you.Elfyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09955473789404631382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4438041449595085165.post-85977809124732927862012-01-15T21:22:51.381-05:002012-01-15T21:22:51.381-05:00Eric: I do not condone attacks based on sex, race,...Eric: I do not condone attacks based on sex, race, etc and i do not engage in them; the reviewer's words speak for themselves as to what her online persona; as for the oft cited Mencken, etc, the only thing I say, in the past it was easy for such like him to dish it and not have to take it, but today, you dish, you must take it.<br /><br />I have been around since the newsgroups of the 90's and i know how easy is to descend into mud so I try to be polite, but Strange horizons started the mud with the paragraph I quoted; who in the world are you to claim "I want to hunt down every single soul associated with the decision to give this series the imprimatur of a major publishing house and rub their noses in it like a bad puppy"<br /><br /><br /><br />Abigail: this is getting close to slander so beware of the thin line as I do not want to have to nuke the comments and be accused of censorship etc; I do not spread lies as I simply note my perception of what SH stands for - you can refute it sure, but you still did not explain how is that authors that were/are perceived as marginal (Mark Newton when he dared being a 20 something to have success, Neal Asher and his conservative views, JC Wright and his Catholic views, Michael Sullivan who dared to self publish and be successful) are trashed on your site. Coinicdence, maybe, but one has to wonder when the tone of this latest review is like that<br /><br />I am happy to be shown the error of my ways but with deeds not with accusations. <br /> <br />And yes what i find offensive is the tone which basically throws the debate in the mud; you are civilized, I am civilized, but do not expect niceness in return for mud; you started it and now that you got taken to task you go even deeper into the mud; your choice again but keep in mind that mud sticks to everyoneLiviuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04615405766065227026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4438041449595085165.post-32184813105629254152012-01-15T12:49:26.665-05:002012-01-15T12:49:26.665-05:00Liviu:
I think it's very telling that you per...Liviu:<br /><br />I think it's very telling that you perceive this to be a matter of politeness and impoliteness, not truth and lies. What you're saying is basically, "I'm angry at you, therefore it's OK for me to spread lies about you" - lies that you have continued to spread in your latest comment despite having been called out on them.<br /><br />I'm actually grateful to you for spelling this out so clearly, because it's crystalized something that's always bothered me about your comments in SH. You don't bother to engage with the arguments of reviews you disagree with because you don't care about the arguments. All you care about is tone. A negative opinion and a negative lie have exactly the same moral value to you.<br /><br />So it's probably a good thing that you don't claim to be an expert on ethical behavior. But the thing is, politeness and ethics are linked to one another, and you can't very well expect me to take anything you say about politeness seriously when you obviously don't give a damn about ethics.Abigail Nussbaumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08562462228380637583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4438041449595085165.post-83087450483391857312012-01-15T12:32:19.808-05:002012-01-15T12:32:19.808-05:00And above all, I take issue with the use of "...And above all, I take issue with the use of "dishonest review" and "dishonesty of the reviewer" being bandied about. It is infuriating and shows those throwing it around interwebs are not able to form even the most basic argument in their defense.<br /><br />I'll return the favour. I say this is cowardly. Base. It shows an utter inability to engage with the criticism itself, so of course, you must try to smear the critic and their forum instead.<br /><br />How "female" of the reviewer! How "queer" of her! What next, shall we say that she's being "-insert racial slur here-"? Or perhaps she's just a big fat liar? Does she have a weight problem, or just one with telling the truth? Really?<br /><br />To suggest that a reviewer is being fake, dishonest, lying, is shameful indeed - much as if you'd made one of the accusations above. Far more so than any amount of snark or imagined vituperativeness.<br /><br />Show me the dishonesty or slink off to the shadows where such cowards deserve to dwell.Eric M. Edwardshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11464329371478605627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4438041449595085165.post-85412134949146045022012-01-15T12:07:28.249-05:002012-01-15T12:07:28.249-05:00Everyone has the right to enjoy a book. Or find it...Everyone has the right to enjoy a book. Or find it inadequate.<br /><br />A reviewer's job is do potentially both as a proxy, with even more rigor and thoroughness than someone just reading it for pleasure.<br /><br />There is nothing, absolutely nothing in the SH review that isn't exactly this. And if you think somehow the tone or the phrasing used to denote the disappointment and dissatisfaction of the reviewer in this case are unprofessional, I suggest you check out the literary sections of The New York Times, The Guardian, or the Paris Review of Books. <br /><br />Better still, Google up some old reviews from Gore Vidal or H. L. Mencken. Both extremely professional writers and critics, and whose stuff makes SH look like a gentle chiding.<br /><br />One of the problems here is that most people making comments against the review, are I suspect, not at all familiar with professional book reviews or professional critics. The internet is awash with amateurs but very few of the former. <br /><br />Little wonder in a blogsphere where positivism and gushing reviews especially of genre are the norm - and they are among fans and blogs such as this one far more so than the reverse - five star reviews given on Amazon like party favours, for books that are at best page turning commercial works and not of exactly age-defying brilliance - that people can be shocked by reading a negative review, however professional or no matter how well backed up by the critique it contains. But that's not SH or the reviewer's fault if this happens, but your own.<br /><br />A lot of people keep trying to move the blame to some perceived "issue" with the reviewer - her education, her mental health, her sex, her previous background with genre. It's rather like watching people building sand castles while the tide is sweeping in, but more boring.<br /><br />Again, no one would mind a divergent opinion on the book itself - but these attacks on the reviewer and SH only firm the belief of many of us who dwell, I suppose, on the fringe of the SFF community, that said community really can't take negative commentary. That despite all the eternal winging that "literature" doesn't take genre seriously, genre can't handle the normal forms of critique and review that the rest of writing is subject to.<br /><br />Either way is fine but you can't demand both. Special treatment, softly softly we're just light entertainment (and even this is an art form, with good, middling, and god-awful examples), or we're just writing - full stop, with all the benefits and responsibilities.<br /><br />I'd choose the former, but it seems like a lot of people would rather hide behind lowered expectations.Eric M. Edwardshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11464329371478605627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4438041449595085165.post-13540333527853372622012-01-15T10:36:41.831-05:002012-01-15T10:36:41.831-05:00@ Abigail
Let’s be honest here that review was ...@ Abigail<br /><br /> Let’s be honest here that review was less of a review and more of a hatchet job. Ms. Bourke’s credentials as a reviewer aren't being attacked here, simply put her style of deconstructing a book is being highlighted.<br /><br /> Like Liviu said earlier, she takes part and parcel of the story and from it draws conclusions about the characters and overall story line. Granted she didn't enjoy the story, she could have said so in a much simpler way.<br /><br /> Michael J. Sullivan has written a medieval fantasy book in which the grammar isn't corresponding to Early Modern English, So? The book isn't set in some historical era, it is fiction. The author reserves the right to have some leeway with his "archaic grammar" in his story. The reviewer's background in Classics might hearken her to note them but for the average reader such a point is most likely not even registered. <br /><br /> Overall I'm not a regular visitor to SH, but I expect basic decency in any professional/semi-professional review site. If you don't like a book, state the reasons and do so without any condescension. Don't indulge in vituperative behavior because you have a soapbox of a sizeable audience, it showcases narrow mindedness rather than true genre criticism.<br /><br />MihirThe Readerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01060590167867977158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4438041449595085165.post-6548037644291108692012-01-15T09:56:03.248-05:002012-01-15T09:56:03.248-05:00Sorry I do not claim to be an authority on ethical...Sorry I do not claim to be an authority on ethical behavior; my point was very simply - you indulge in nastiness and in hyperbola, you gotta take it too.<br /><br />So take my statement as a bit hyperbolic like yours, backed for examples by the names I mentioned that got thrashed and somehow happen to be authors that do no fit into the pc/establishment places, while utterly similar (or worse and we can discuss that too btw if in the mood) books and authors (eg Sword of Fire and Sun which is on the same level with Theft orf Swords from quite a few points of view) get the plus treatment.<br /><br />And you mentioned that your reviewer writes for Tor.com as badge of honor; fine but again then do not cry when I use that in my rhetoric either....<br /><br />You dish it, you take it but I see you want it both ways - you dish it, everyone else gotta take it; sorry that does not fly and as mentioned somewhere else, you are polite, I am polite, you are nasty, I am nasty - one reason reviews like this (Theft of Swords) are bad whatever your opinion of the book, is that they invite precisely the attacks they do (though my points about its wrongfulness or at best its mis-interpretation of the book) still stand too btwLiviuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04615405766065227026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4438041449595085165.post-20322687837723342622012-01-15T03:26:35.927-05:002012-01-15T03:26:35.927-05:00I'm gobsmacked. Strange Horizons shouldn't...I'm gobsmacked. Strange Horizons shouldn't publish negative reviews because it encourages you to tell lies about the magazine? Wow.Martinhttp://everythingisnice.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4438041449595085165.post-77352970607010236402012-01-15T00:27:05.823-05:002012-01-15T00:27:05.823-05:00This incidentally shows why having insulting revie...<i>This incidentally shows why having insulting reviews is pragmatically bad as it invites precisely these kinds of attacks</i><br /><br />My reviewer made a strong claim and then backed it up with examples. You made a strong - and serious - accusation despite either being aware that the facts were against you, or not even bothering to check. How is that the same thing? Do you honestly expect me to treat you as an authority on ethical behavior after that sort of display?Abigail Nussbaumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08562462228380637583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4438041449595085165.post-4087580227849094252012-01-14T23:57:15.712-05:002012-01-14T23:57:15.712-05:00Well, you deal in over the top claims, you gotta t...Well, you deal in over the top claims, you gotta take them too.<br /><br />This incidentally shows why having insulting reviews is pragmatically bad as it invites precisely these kinds of attacks; what's wrong with being polite in dismissing a book rather than invoking dog poop?Liviuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04615405766065227026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4438041449595085165.post-71883829534998310622012-01-14T15:40:40.412-05:002012-01-14T15:40:40.412-05:00You are aware, of course, that Martin's review...You are aware, of course, that Martin's review was edited by Niall Harrison, while Liz's review was edited by me?<br /><br /><i>site "philosophy" as in praise the establishment (the scalzis, the tors, the oldies, the pc's)</i><br /><br />Not sure what "the pc's" are here, but John Scalzi was last reviewed in SH in 2009. As for Tor, I don't keep close track of who publishes the books we review, but a quick review of our archives shows that of 150 or so reviews published in 2011, only 11 were of Tor books, and four of them were negative. In fact, we reviewed far more books by Orbit, Sullivan's publisher, than by Tor. As for new authors, in 2011 we positively reviewed debuts by Col Buchanan, Charles Yu, Ben Aaronovitch, S.L. Grey, Kameron Hurley, Livia Llewellyn, Erin Hoffman, Genevieve Valentine, Erin Morgenstern, and Rob Ziegler. But, you know, don't let the facts get in the way of a good story.Abigail Nussbaumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08562462228380637583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4438041449595085165.post-59691051011515746012012-01-14T12:54:30.912-05:002012-01-14T12:54:30.912-05:00site "philosophy" as in praise the estab...site "philosophy" as in praise the establishment (the scalzis, the tors, the oldies, the pc's), trash the newcomers eg Mark Newton or Mr. Sullivan and the un-pc's (Neal Asher, JC Wright) to make your quota of "criticism"Liviuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04615405766065227026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4438041449595085165.post-85890126223354818402012-01-14T11:56:54.426-05:002012-01-14T11:56:54.426-05:00I thought the venue has improved markedly from a f...<i>I thought the venue has improved markedly from a few years ago when genre bashing was regular as I noticed in a few comments there, as comparing the two reviews of the same author, same series, books 1 and 2, linked above will show.</i><br /><br />Just so I'm clear the comparison between a review of one book written by one reviewer with a review of a different book written by a different reviewer shows what exactly?Martinhttp://everythingisnice.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4438041449595085165.post-61528995699037279392012-01-14T08:04:58.443-05:002012-01-14T08:04:58.443-05:00I read the review in question on SH and for what i...I read the review in question on SH and for what it's worth left a comment there. My interest was twofold, the series itself and the content of the review.<br /><br />I have indeed read the first five books in the series, and was looking through the reviews to see if and when I should get the last, since the series wasn't on top of my list, but I remembered that the later books had piqued my interest. <br /><br />As for the review on SH, I think the issue for me rather than its validity is the form of expression. I'd also find some of the examples that the reviewer has provided objectionable, regardless of context. However, the post is so mired in vitriol and aggrandized language that makes it impossible to take the criticism seriously.<br /><br />I wouldn't want to question the sincerity of the reviewer (though she makes it hard no to), but rather her temperament. From personal experience, I can imagine her, disliking the book more and more as she read more. Reading further on for the sole purpose of gathering the <i>evidence</i> for the scathing "review" to come, and writing it immediately to vent the pent-up anger. Whether it's due to inexperience or the sheer perceived failure of the book, at this point the reviewer has all but forgotten her <i>critic's specs</i> and given into self-indulgence. (I'd highlight the oversight of the editor here, if indeed it was edited).Seannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4438041449595085165.post-75367105543750483172012-01-13T21:26:20.660-05:002012-01-13T21:26:20.660-05:00Abigail. Really? REALLY?
You see no problems with...Abigail. Really? REALLY?<br /><br />You see no problems with that review?<br /><br />Really?<br /><br />Wow.<br /><br />Just wow.<br /><br />Liz actually doesn't back up what she has to say at all. She certianly seem to enjoy ranting. But an objective, balanced review? Yeah, she doesn't have a clue.<br /><br />Liviu is correct in his supposition that Liz has little experience in the genre.<br /><br /><br />Lastly, she's written stuff for TOR. Consdiering that a site that posts the review of a totally biased, militantly feminist reviewer named Teresa Jusino for TV.....I'm not surprised they published Liz's stuff.<br /><br />She's behaving like a child, not an adult in her review. It is card carrying nastiness for nastiness's sake.<br /><br />And i for one hope that review goes viral, so you KNOW that you were wrong in letting such crap stand/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4438041449595085165.post-56941540721326204452012-01-13T16:21:50.294-05:002012-01-13T16:21:50.294-05:00I posted a comment on SH showing how some of the r...I posted a comment on SH showing how some of the review claims are misleading or false and how at least imho a lot of the prose is just tongue in cheek and the book simply does not take itself too seriously - in the second novel there is a play called The Crown Conspiracy about the events of the first novel and if that is not a huge hint about the "tongue in cheek" aspects, well i do not know what can be.<br /><br />There are lots of women with agency in the series - actually the women are smarter than men at least as the main guys (Hadrian and Royce) keep being manipulated left and right, while Alric is a whining prince/king etc<br /><br />There are a lot of criticisms you can bring to the series sure - eg the world building, the 1000 year fetish - but this review simply seems very misguided while the first paragraph reads "how dare this self published author have success, let's take him down a peg or two..."<br /><br />I am even more surprised when you mention Sword of Fire and sea which to me is even more full of tongue in cheek action and stuff that can be trashed badly if you take it seriously rather than in the fun spirit I for example (who enjoyed greatly that one too) took it, while for a really bad idea, the patronising patois of the natives in Cold Fire has few equals though I still enjoyed the novel quite a lotLiviuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04615405766065227026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4438041449595085165.post-37473528747493704742012-01-13T16:05:16.042-05:002012-01-13T16:05:16.042-05:00i do not see that the reviewer has that much exper...<i>i do not see that the reviewer has that much experience of reading in the field</i><br /><br />Perhaps because you didn't look for it? For SH, Liz has reviewed Kate Elliott's <a href="http://www.strangehorizons.com/reviews/2011/12/two_by_kate_ell.shtml" rel="nofollow">Cold Fire</a> and Erin Hoffman's <a href="http://www.strangehorizons.com/reviews/2011/10/sword_of_fire_a.shtml" rel="nofollow">Sword of Fire and Sea</a>, quite positively in both cases. She's also been a <a href="http://www.tor.com/Liz%20Bourke" rel="nofollow">regular reviewer</a> for Tor.com, and frequently covers epic fantasy on that site - again, often quite positively.<br /><br />As the person who edited that review, I can tell you that I feel absolutely no qualms about having published it. The opening statement is harsh but the rest of the review backs it up with arguments and examples. I note, by the way, that other than straw man attacks on both the magazine and the reviewer - she's jealous, she doesn't like epic fantasy, she's looking for Nobel-level writing - you haven't made any significant counters to any of the arguments she brings against the novel. For example, here you say that "a phrase out of context" doesn't represent the novel (though in fact Liz brings some half-dozen quotes and puts them in context) but you don't explain how, in context, what seems like awful prose is actually serviceable writing.Abigail Nussbaumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08562462228380637583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4438041449595085165.post-43234772490679292032012-01-13T15:39:48.101-05:002012-01-13T15:39:48.101-05:00sorry i do not see that the reviewer has that much...sorry i do not see that the reviewer has that much experience of reading in the field, and that paragraph I quoted is very revealing as her agenda.<br /><br />As for textual examples, a phrase out of context is irrelevant as I am sure i could comb anything written of enough length and find similar gems.<br /><br />There is an easy way to check btw as you can read for free both the prequel short and the first chapter of the novel on the author's website.<br /><br />Also as someone who read both the original and the Orbit edition, I can attest there was a lot of editing and quite a few examples where the author originally broke the flow were smoothed out.<br /><br />Anyway the review stands by itself and its publication in SH is a low mark for the venueLiviuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04615405766065227026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4438041449595085165.post-69774155140653130852012-01-13T15:22:41.098-05:002012-01-13T15:22:41.098-05:00I find it odd you call the SH review "genre-b...I find it odd you call the SH review "genre-bashing"; it is clear from the review that reviewer has read and enjoyed plenty of fantasy, but the evidence provided in the review shows some absolutely appalling gaffes that even the least talented editor should have picked up on a brief run through. The arguments presented by the reviewer are solidly backed up by evidence from the book, whereas your responses are not - it's fair enough to have a differing opinion, but it's pretty rich for you to insult both the reviewer and the venue without being able to provide any meaningful substance to back yourself up.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com