Re: Things that's great about the new TNBW
j p lundstrom wrote:Charles_F_Bell wrote:Well then, critiquing a blank page suits your purpose perfectly. No spelling, grammar,or punctuation errors there.
Bad ideas can only be expressed poorly. This is more obvious in non-fiction than fiction but for the latter it is true but usually hidden, perhaps even unknowingly by the author who may be "educated" in bad ideas and does not know better.
One could not have made Herr Hitler's writing better, and it is certainly a moral error to critique Mein Kampf only on the basis of his turgid and impenetrable style, and Steinbeck's content problem is an issue even if expression of that content into language by grammar, spelling and punctuation is not.
Charles,
I think you misunderstood. dags wasn't proposing to criticize the subject of another's work. Such a critique, without helpful suggestions, was one item in a list of reviews she finds less than useful. There's no need to jump on everyone who just might not agree with you.We do agree that even authors who have a wonderful command of language can write crap, and that no amount of skill will turn crappy ideas into beautiful writing. (Same thing, said twice--what do they call that?)
I do have a question, though: what was Steinbeck's content problem?
Affectionately, JP
Rather than go into the weeds on what could be an essay ("How Hitler and Steinbeck are the Same"), I'll stick to the issue that Blocking a reviewer because of his review for the reason he is obnoxious has flipside that suggests that the author/Blocker is insensitive to criticism on the basis of disagreement on content, and I think polite criticism of content is a valid criticism, even without particular authoring suggestions, and it is rude, unhelpful, and anti-social to block someone on that basis. Or for that matter, to block anyone for any reason other than truly obnoxious behavior.
Disagree or agree as far as that goes?
Yes, there is a difference between : "How dare you claim kittens are cute and cuddly!" and "How dare you suggest genocide!"
What do you think of blocking someone with whom you have had no interaction at all -- as some sort of pre-emptive strike? And yes, that has happened. Or blocking without explanation on what was so wrong with the one and only review? And yes, that has happened.
Okay, I'll forget about Steinbeck, except to answer your "How is a raven like a writing-desk?" comparison of Hitler and Steinbeck by saying they both influenced public opinion and, ultimately, government policy. I haven't read Steinbeck for decades, though, and I might find myself in total agreement if I went back and read his work again. But I probably won't--I like to do a thing once, and then move on.
You have a point about the arbitrary blocking of a reviewer simply because he/she gave you an unwelcome review. However, some of us are easily scared off when we see two people squaring off (albeit figuratively) and throwing verbal punches in the forum. Others of us just don't want to deal with people who spend their time in such a pursuit. There are justifiable reasons to block such folks.
Why are you comparing kittens and genocide?
