|
|
Joined: 4/26/2011
Posts: 77
|
I'm a lousy reviewer. I can't focus on Overall or Plot or Setting or Chars or Anything Else when I'm reading a book.
But by gum, I find I have a word to say now and then.
So this is an invitation. Don't review me. Twitter at me. Snipe. Snark. Make bad puns. Jeer if you must, but cogently!
My stuff is Shortfall followed by The Integrator.
Or, of course, ignore me. Do it instead to somebody you love.
|
|
Joined: 11/17/2011
Posts: 1016
|
Philip,
I don't want you to think that I've forgotten about you. My reviews take time, and I just finished a particularly lengthy one.
I've read Shortfall, quickly. I'll need to look at it again, more carefully. Here is your pre-review, the real thing will be along before too long: I don't quite follow, as yet, the grotesque critters, the outlandish habitat, and the torrent of helter-skelter information, but it's fun.
I have a murky memory of a slice-of-slimeball-life classic that I read fifty years ago. I imagine that I find that very entertaining sensibility in your piece. I'll revisit the oldie-but-goodie before I comment further. And I'll read your other book, which may shed some light on your in-no-hurry-to-go-anywhere intentions.
So far, it's a grand stroll.
|
|
Joined: 4/26/2011
Posts: 77
|
Mimi,
Thanks for the attention!
I am eager to learn about that slimeball classic from fifty years ago; those were my formative years.
I've just put up a revised version of The Integrator, still very much work in progress. Perhaps it will provide some context for Shortfall.
|
|
Joined: 11/17/2011
Posts: 1016
|
Philip,
Don't lose hope. I'm on your review. I've read your work. Now I'm researching, and thinking. I'll read it through one more time before I pretty up my mess of notes and post.
I see things that you probably didn't intend, rather like when, forty years ago, a guy wrote a best seller, The Gospel According To Peanuts. Charles Schultz must have been mystified.
I must say this process is highly entertaining, I've really gotten into it, and highly educational. I'm learning all kinds of things.
I figure another week, and you'll have the result. I hope you have as much fun reading it as I'm having writing it.
|
|
Joined: 4/26/2011
Posts: 77
|
Thanks for the update. I am really looking forward to this! I very much appreciate the work you're doing.
BTW, I started a discussion to try to get people to rewrite each others' work.
I'll do some of yours if you have no objection.
|
|
Joined: 11/17/2011
Posts: 1016
|
I have no objections in the least. I'd love to see how you try to solve some of my problems. It might open my closed mind a bit.
|
|
Joined: 11/17/2011
Posts: 1016
|
As a matter of fact, I tink it is a fabulous idea! Why didn't anyone suggest it sooner?
|
|
Joined: 4/26/2011
Posts: 77
|
Thanks! Just as soon as you finish my review  , you could rewrite somebody else.
|
|
Joined: 4/26/2011
Posts: 77
|
I see that a couple of you have taken a look at Upshot.
Thanks.
|
|
Joined: 4/26/2011
Posts: 77
|
Wow, three readers! Thanks three times.
Now that I've raised this legion of loyal fans, I'd like to pose a couple of questions:
1. Re: Prologue (The Elks Roadhouse)
The intent here is to sketch a portrait of an early version of an uplifted homin. Does that come across?
2. Re: Screed (was Public Inload): keep it, or cut it?
3. I'm using a lot of lightly disguised exposition in the form of the Bailiwiki articles, newspaper, book, etc. Does that work for you?
|
|
|
|