Search options (Page 107 of 152)

A spreadsheet is a poor substitute for a database.

Ho yez!

A new word for a writer is like a new tool in a guy's garage.

No, those are vignettes.  Actually isolated scenes that can be more or less judged on their own.  Two of them I consider at the level of Literary Fiction because there are subtleties that my reviewers don't get /2.  The long sequence is a thread with a couple of interruptions. One of those interruptions is two chapters that need to be split into scenes and woven into other chapters.

Look, I've got Chapters 4-6 apart on the bench.  There's a lot to redo in the subsequent chapters, but feel free to take them on.  You could read Rescue Hunt if you wanted, and the stuff in Book 2 is out there to be read and reviewed.  Problem is, there are spoilers and sketches as well as real chapters.

The most value to me: Look for the least-reviewed chapters (or newest chapters) in Book 1.

Gosh ... I just spent most of the ball game on one of my take-no-prisoner reviews on your latest chapter.

When I write of Churchill, I should add that he knew how to modulate between his stately form and a more direct style.  In the Preamble to The Last Lion (Vol. I), Wm. Manchester likens Churchill's style for speeches to an organ performance.  The reference is to the Late Romantic style, especially of Cesar Frank or Camille Saint-Saens.  See (hear) Frank's Chorale Nr. 2 in b-minor.

What to review, after you've recovered from my cluster-bombing?  Hmm.  There's a sequence from Chapters 23 to 43, with a couple of interruptions.  You miss the opening, and I'm changing Momma's name spelling from Mellaen to Melayne (to get more space from her daughter's name).  No reason not to do the first three chapters if you care to get the start.  For a standalone -- 66, 67, 81, 87.  Not all of these are in the main sequence of Book 1.

If you do a sixth of that, I'll owe you bigtime.

Oh, dear.

The difference is the word 'in'.  With no 'in', Catherine's dress is still up around her admirable front.  With 'in', the dress was set right expeditiously.

See The Lexicon of Intentionally Ambiguous Recommendation, also called LIAR.  (How do you read "I cannot recommend him too highly."  ?)

Oddly enough, this is one place where I think you're all right.  Yes, another top-level category might make sense, or just highlighting the reply link when there's a draft in there, but I think the effort could be better applied to other issues.

IMO and Your Mileage May Vary, to be sure.

So problem one is caused by problem two?

If you want performance in a computer system, you must design for it.

I just entered an inline review for Don Chambers's Mysterious Ways.  I was told that I had entered 96 comments.  Now, I'm prolix and sometimes outright logorrheaic, but ninety-six is a lot.  I went back and checked; there were 28 comments.  It's not as though we're paid by the comment, but it would be nice to have an accurate count.

Isn't it obvious?  "What do you want me for?" or "What do you want with/of me?"

'Anant' means 'on the subject of'.

So if I said "What would you with me?" you could answer?

Have you read =Albion's Seed=, by, I think, David Hackett?  It's a study of the cultures and "Folkways" that came from the British Isles at different times in different migrations.

Notice though that the expected readership is female, so you can't go too deeply into the male perspective.  Enough to lend a corroborative verisimilitude to ... oh, fiddlesticks!