@LeeAnna -  I was just going to kick them into a bottomless pit. That would work, right? No body, no evidence. Just 'This! Is! Sparta! and *boot* and I feel better.

No?

Ah, well. Back to the drawing board.

@Carl - Not. So. Fast. (If you don't get it, lurk moar Or go to YouTube and check out Leonidas vs. Master Chief. Warning - NSFW (language))

Interesting idea on keeping the reviews up after the books are dropped though. What would you think of some form of marker that notes which revision the review was for? That would address the 'that one star review was for my rough draft, and I've rewritten six times in the two years since!' concerns.

Also, in answer to your question, I'm currently making my way through the Miles Vorkosigan series. I'd never read it before. Pretty good so far, although amusingly it breaks a lot of the 'rules' I've read posted here and elsewhere.

Sam, I never read other reviews first.  Doing so only biases me, but generally in an way opposite to what you expressed - if I first read a glowing review, I tend to be disappointed, on other hand following a bad review generally leads me to conclude: "Gee, that wasn't that bad." So my method is to read the work twice (once for general take, second time for details and to make sure I didn’t miss or misinterpret something).  Then I write the review, and after posting it I look at other reviews.  All around better and more interesting way of doing things for me.

Carl, I’ve been reading mainly history in order to get some insight on which I can build stronge characters.  Not pretty though.  Just finished “The End” by Ian Kershaw – covers the final year or so of Third Reich and why they didn’t give up.  Right now reading about another sweetheart – “Hitler’s Hangman, the Life of Heydrich”  by Robert Gerwarth.  I’m not really super into WWII, just trying to get better understanding in order to better draw my characters.  One book I will recommend though is Drew Gilpin Faust’s “This Republic of Suffering”.  Examines the changes in attitudes about death and dying over the course of the Civil War.  Now you know why most of my writing is so cheery!   

  BTW, got another short story all done in my head (which means it’s about 5% done).  Just got to find the time to sit down and write it out.  Just to give you an idea, “And the Last Shall Be First” was all thought out around end of last July.  I pretty much finished the first draft by the end of November.  Last draft – currently posted on BC following heated discussions of characters with a writer who will go unnamed (thanks Carl!) – posted end of January.   

Hey Carl,

I'm having trouble settling on a book to read just now.  Nothing's grabbing me.  I'm slowly going through Blood Meridian and rereading the Castle--remarkable parallels between these books, structurally, narratively, (which wasn't planned on my part, just a lovely synchronicity), but neither book is demanding my full attention atm.  Also picked up Kings of Colorado, but I may drop it. 

Y'know, I go to B&N to look for new SF titles to check out and I'm always so disappointed.  Of course, first of all, the shelves are dominated by garish pulp fantasy titles and the few SF books mixed in are mostly about space exploration and aliens and blah blah blah.  Not what I'm looking for. 

When it's all said and done, the SF/fantasy that I've appreciated (The Goneaway World, The Passage) has all been shelved with literature anyway.  I would not be surprised if my own near future distopian novel got shelved with literature as well.

I may be a rarity here on BC, but I usually read a few pages of a book on the site and if it sustains my interest I read at least a few of the reviews it's gotten.  I'm really clear with myself that I'm not here to judge the books or award them prizes, so there is no issue of bias for me. 

Mainly, I don't want to be redundant.  Although, if I think there's a point several reviewers have touched on but the writer has ignored I may try my hand at getting through.  I'm here to share what insights into the creative process I have and help the work to be better.  I don't review a book unless I feel I have some insight into what the writer is up to.  Some books I just don't get and I don't review those.  I want to focus on what the book seems to be trying to accomplish and help it to achieve its goals.  I understand this is pretty presumptuous of me, but life's too short to not take the risk, y'know?  And in the end, all I'm risking is being wrong. 

-Kevin

@Herb: Not at all! I suspect Jay loves this (if he's reading this thread). He's a formidable, fearsome and respected (by me, anyway; the man knows his shit and knows exactly what he thinks about it) presence on this site and believe me he's no wilting wall-flower. If he wants to chime in here he'll come rocket-blasting down on ten-ton space boots and kick all our asses, heh!  

Now, about your book's opening. Here's the thing: I get what you're trying to do--establish the fact that the character has a musician's knowledge of the difference between harps and lyres--but you haven't done it. (I'm equally as irritated by Jay pretending that he doesn't know what you're trying to do there.)

Here's what I would advise: You've got to extend that bit to make it work: "He noticed it wasn't a harp but a lyre--the blank of the blank, the way the something verbed and verbed, the adjective blank of the blank." I know nothing of these differences but you do; your character does--so if you're going to convince me, the reader, of that fact you're going to have to give me telling details that show, not merely tell, me those facts. 

Personally, I'd argue with you over "stately" as opposed to "ancient". Yes, someone told him this but who cares? If you describe the woman properly (use the adjective on her there, perhaps, as description) and then show us that he's noticing the differences between a lyre and harp I get what you're trying to do. But once you've pulled-in tight to 3rd-person limited you've got to stay there for the duration of the scene; you can't be whip-sawing between omni and limited, you know?  

And btw: spirited discussion and the occasional heatedly-argued creative difference is good for this site (IMHO); it keeps everyone awake and alert and on their toes. Notice how Kevin caught that switch between "I'm being critiqued" and "the work" is being critiqued in your rankings? The guy's sharp but that doesn't mean I always agree with him--any more than I always agree with Tom W., or Angela, or GD, or Atthys, or Mimi, or anyone else here for that matter.

What's most important, I think, is that working writers hear a diversity of opinions and argument on their work. Many times an epiphany or further artistic breakthrough is just another clarified statement, elaborated discussion or hotly-argued assertion away . . . 

• For one thing he champions a strict 3rd-person limited POV;

Nonsense. One of my published works is a first person novel. How could I be against various points of view? What I'm against is the author standing on stage, alone, telling the reader what just happened in the film they're watching in their head. It’s having no POV that I’m against.

In school we don't learn about POV, tag usage, managing dialog, scene goals, or much else about writing fiction—including the fact that it's different from writing a report. So virtually every single new writer uses the identical approach—the author-centric fact-based compositional techniques we learn before high school graduation. If you mention that the average new writer you get a blank look.

As far as I'm concerned the comments on a given work are gold, but the star ratings are useless. Unless you're a publisher, editor or agent, someone responding can only give a personal: "this is how much I liked it." But they may be praising the very thing that keeps their own work from selling. Their sincerity and dedication isn’t in question, but the rating is subjective, and no two reviewers will apply the same scale.

There is an axiom in the publishing business: “unjustified praise results in unjustified submissions.” Present ten serious problems in a critique, but end it with a meaningless, “With work, though, this could be a winner,” and the writer will take only one thing from the critique.” “He liked it.”

Readers are always useful, because a comment means there was a “lump in the prose,” Be their comments accurate or not. The stars? Meaningless.

But that’s neither here nor there. The gentleman posted his work and asked for critique in the fantasy thread. I stand by both my comments and my star rating, because, as I see it the work has significant  problems that permeate it, and would cause a rejection, for the reasons given.

In response, rather than coming to me and perhaps discussing the issues, he’s turned this into a, “Let’s put Jay Greenstein on trial,” thread. That's not even remotely what this site is about, and cannot accomplish anything but to change the tone of the discussion to focus on the messenger rather than the message.

If a moderator reads this, my personal suggestion is to delete everything posted so far as this discussion. I won’t respond further.

Welcome to the party, Jay! I was hoping you'd join the discussion.

And btw: I hope that Book Country rules in favor of working writers on this site openly and honestly (yes, sometimes even heatedly and argumentatively) discussing another reviewer's particular review or over-all review style and tone.

If I offended you, I apologize. That wasn't my intention. I praised you for your "fearlessly forthright" criticism while criticizing those aspects of your feedback style that I disagree with. It seems silly to me to dance around the fact that we’re talking about your review without ever once naming you or calling attention to the review under discussion. And I believe I made it clear that I regard you as a force to be reckoned with on this site, an intelligent and accomplished critical voice that needs to be listened to and carefully considered. (But also once in awhile, challenged and counter-critiqued—as I expect my own writing and opinions to be.)

But I also count on you—and others engaged in this thread—to bring a sense of humor as well as a critical, all-seeing eye to the process of critiquing and discussing other's writings. If I crossed the line with anything I’ve said here I take the responsibility and the full blame and again apologize; the fault is entirely my own and not Herb’s. I’d intended to be comical not incendiary; I’d hoped to wring a wry smile and perhaps a chuckle or two out of you but my own damnable faults and failings as a prose stylist wrought the very opposite effect. Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

A final thought: There are thousands upon thousands of accomplished, veteran readers out there capable of providing helpful feedback to working writers. (I hope we hear from more of them.) Some of these are expert critics, a few—a very select, empathetic and good-humored few—will transcend the status of mere critic to become mentors, capable of encouraging and energizing their reviewed writers even as they critique them.

I see you as a mentor who could be more effective, Jay, with just a tweak or two to your personal review style. And if that offends and angers you again, then I apologize again—unreservedly and without sarcasm, with the maximum of intended respect and salutary acknowledgment of your considerable reading, writing and reviewing skills.

Salute!

• And btw: I hope that Book Country rules in favor of working writers on this site openly and honestly (yes, sometimes even heatedly and argumentatively) discussing another reviewer's particular review or over-all review style and tone.

You miss the point, I think. The moment the discussion turns from the writing to a given person and their fitness to comment—and your opinion of them—rather than the writing that’s being commented on, the tone of the group changes, and people feel obligated to defend themselves. Personally, I don’t care what people think of me. It’s the writing, and the writer’s understanding of the process that matters. I see too many people trapped at an entry level by a lack of professional knowledge and an inability to separate a comment on the writing from a comment on themselves and their worth as a writer, being encouraged to be remain ignorant by well meaning but equally ignorant writers. But that’s me, and everyone is different.

I've watched this sort of thing destroy the old AOL Writers Club. The MySpace forums were chopped from the site for the same reason. People begin to choose sides, both from conviction and a desire not to be attacked, and heated discussion easily becomes personal, which attracts in an element who's more interested in playing, "I've got you now, you son-of-a-bitch," than becoming a better writer, or simply socializing with like-minded others.

An online forum is a democracy, in the sense that majority actually rules the discussion and determines what's accepted a "right." What that means, in practice, is that bad decisions by the majority will increase the odds of another bad decision because others with the same view will be attracted to the discussion, while those who hold the opposing view will, more and more, be shouted down.

Make no mistake. In the kingdom of the blind the one-eyed man is not king, he’s vilified and driven out. Humanity is thoroughly bedded in, “Me, my mate, my bandy-legged little Hessians, my friends, and then the rest of the world—in that order. And "I wanna," as always, trumps, "But look here," because the discussion is emotion not fact based.

That doesn’t say that my interpretation of what the writing teachers have to say is accurate, or even desirable. My lack of success in attracting a mainstream publisher shouts that I’m far from expert. But over the years, those views and my ability to identify problems—the ability you commented on positively, have made me the focus of too many arguments, and I respect this site too much to want that to happen here.

People often forget that you learn nothing from people who agree with you.

And now I’m off to build some bedrooms in my daughter’s attic.

Hi, Jay, very glad you decided to continue participating.

*The moment the discussion turns from the writing to a given person and their fitness to comment—and your opinion of them—rather than the writing that’s being commented on ...

If anything I wrote came across as denigrating you as a person or maligning your fitness to comment, let me apologize profusely. My entire point was that your comments were both accurate and useful, and that you appeared to have a clear intent to help, but that elements of the writing in question (which is to say, your review) reduced its effectiveness in reaching its intended audience (which is to say, me).

It is a fact that the emotional cloud that threatened to obscure your message arose on my side of the reviewer/reviewee interaction. But it's also a fact that the raising of those emotional clouds is an entirely predictable phenomenon -- just as it is entirely predictable that many readers will be turned off by trivial details and authorial intrusions. You're not obligated to modify your review-writing style to accommodate that phenomenon any more than I am obligated to modify my writing style to accommodate the phenomenon you pointed out to me.

But I certainly learned something by making the effort to absorb your review, and I think it will make me more effective in reaching my intended audience.

Are you really so sure that your reviewing approach is unimprovable with respect to reaching yours?

Very well said indeed, Jay. I hear you loud and clear. I think we all do; I suspect most of us share your concerns. We are a fragile, sometimes contentious but earnest and serious-minded community of working writers and editors (for the most part). My own personal style is to lighten and leaven that serious-minded intent and daily writing workload with near-constant humorous asides, non-sequiturs and pithy (or surreal) observations.

I knew there had to be a warmer, funnier, more . . . well, humanistic and likable side of you that we weren't seeing. It's been there in the subtext all along; flashes of it in your discussion thread postings and reviews—a droll, sly sense of humor that I wanted to hear more of. I used Herb's posting to poke at you a bit, characterizing you as "the heavy" for my (and what I'd hoped was your own) amusement, hoping you'd take the bait and get involved in this discussion thread. Which you did. But in retrospect the way I did it was naive, jejune and presumptuous—if not preposterous—I turned you into a caricature and that was wrong. I should have sought your permission or known you better before I poked fun at you like that (and us; at least half the target of my intended humor there was us).

What's that old expression? "Disagreements and misunderstandings between people are inevitable, given human nature; what isn't inevitable is that every disagreement and/or misunderstanding need end in ever-lasting acrimony and bitterness." Well, that’s my old expression . . .

Truth is, it used to irk me to see someone—or someone(s)—red-thumbing almost all of your review and discussion-thread comments awhile back. That was unfair and unsportsmanlike, I felt then and still feel now.

Yet at one and the same, I think there's some validity and justification for some of the comments I (and others, here and elsewhere) made regarding various under-discussion topics as well. The old saw: "Even a broken clock is right twice a day" perhaps applies here . . .

I'm very glad you joined the discussion. Talking about different review styles on Book Country without the input of Jay Greenstein would be like the UN convening a super-power conference and having every country in the world show up but China . . .

And I have to say that I hope you keep being you, Jay: "fearlessly forthright", to use Mimi's term; dogged and dogmatic and deconstructive. I—and I think most of us—wouldn't have it any other way. Well, perhaps with a tweak or two . . . Heh!

Hope the bedroom building went well. Truly! But . . . how do you get all that work done dressed in that Darth Vader costume?

PS. Re: “You learn nothing from people who agree with you.” Really?! I would note that there are a number of people I interact with in-person on a daily basis who are simpatico and “of-a-mind” on matters aesthetic, political and philosophical. This doesn’t mean, however, that we’re simply engaging in mindless “group-think” or providing an audience of mutually-appreciative nodding-heads for one another; rather we engage in almost constant conversation and disputation, endlessly interrogating the meaning, import and relevance of the topics and matters that most concern and engage our interest. Doesn't the same apply to you?    

Wait; what?
Hmmm... thought I heard my ears ringing.

Mimi- we ain't so crazy we're a-scarrin' everone away, d'ya think?

How about this? You know that It Was a Dark and Stormy Night contest, held every year at some university, in California, I believe? Worst opening paragraph?

We each write a first paragraph. A winner is chosen. Then, we take turns building on it. 

BTW, I’m with Hemingway: Write drunk, edit sober. 

Okay...if I don't see the thread up by tomorrow, then I will start it.

Perry, you got like 15 hours dude, then we proceed without you.

DONE DEAL!!!!!!!!!!