tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post5168173698257765340..comments2024-03-18T06:16:18.802-05:00Comments on A Newbie's Guide to Publishing: Be DeliberateJA Konrathhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08778324558755151986noreply@blogger.comBlogger323125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-89503750053462964352011-09-02T23:55:54.496-05:002011-09-02T23:55:54.496-05:00Anon, ya had me interested until I go to "Fau...Anon, ya had me interested until I go to "Faulkner or Melville or Hemingway, or Joyce or Cormac McCarthy" sticking with your baseball analogy, you could have said "Ruth or Mantle or Ted Williams, or Aaron or Tommy Agee". You went from the Hall of Fame to a so so. Hey, and I enjoy McCarthy in small doses. Besides, in your annonomous effort to denigrate Joe (in case you haven't gotten to that part of the BFA course that means put down) you are comparing apples and oranges. Joe writes great hardboiled entertainment. they are fun reads and I can't recall him starting a Nobel or Pulitzer campagne so far. Put another way, you are comparing Warhol to Renoir. <br /><br />Besides, taste in anything, including reading, is pretty sunjective. Raymond Chandler though James M. Cain was a hack, the worst thing that happened to the genre, yet Cain is taught in colleges and Universities. I myself can't stand Cornell Woolrich, but I like my noir without melodrama or gothic delievries. Yet, many people that are fans of crime fiction praise both of these writters. I'm certainly not pretentious enough to try and tell them they are full of shit. but, then, I am not annonomous....Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07343193422030740142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-79635757669884196212011-09-02T21:59:51.529-05:002011-09-02T21:59:51.529-05:00"Nights dark beyond darkness and the days mor...<i>"Nights dark beyond darkness and the days more gray each one than what had gone before. Like the onset of some cold glaucoma dimming away the world."</i><br /><br />I'll make a deal with you. Show me a picture of "dark beyond darkness" and I'll stop blogging.<br /><br />And then Cormac beats the metaphorical dead horse even more, because "beyond darkness" wasn't dark enough, and he also has to delve into glaucoma to really drive home the overwritten metaphor.<br /><br />You like purple prose? Fine. Your choice. Some folks dig literary masturbation that takes forever to reach a self-indulgent climax. <br /><br />Others like a fast-paced story that's actually fun to read.<br /><br />To each his own.JA Konrathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08778324558755151986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-26708963823737897532011-08-28T23:42:21.843-05:002011-08-28T23:42:21.843-05:00I'm sorry but if you can't appreciate the ...I'm sorry but if you can't appreciate the power and poetry of Cormac McCarthy then you really don't know anything about good writing. Up until you made that comment I thought you were realistic in your outlook, now I see you're off in fantasy land.<br /><br /> Because, let's be frank here, you're not a writer, you're a hack. Nothing wrong with being a pulp hack flogging cliches by the yard, but you should have a realistic appreciation of where you stand in relation to serious writers like Faulkner or Melville or Hemingway, or Joyce or Cormac McCarthy. It comes down to respect - I'll make a sporting comparison that might make this clearer for you. What Philip Roth or Milan Kundera or Don Dellilo does is akin to what Michael Jordan did in the NBA or what Muhammad Ali was to boxing or what Anderson Silva does in MMA. They are geniuses in their field, vying for immortality, which is why their work will be taught in universities for generations to come.<br /> For to say you don't care for McCarthy's prose is like a pee wee ball player sneering at Barry Bonds. It's not even that you're not in the same league it's that you don't even realize you don't even qualify to be on the same-sized field of play. You really should read some Tolstoy, some Dickens, some Shakespeare, some Proust before you can remotely consider yourself ready to comment on what Cormac is or is not trying to do. <br /> I think maybe your little bit of internet money success has made you think you are something other than a hack, which is a shame, because, as I say I thought you were a realist and now this cast doubts on all your other opinions. <br /><br /> Sample of Joe: "A horn blared and Joan swerved out of incoming traffic. She pulled over to the curb, her heart racing."<br /><br /> This is lazy cliche. Hearts always pound or race, horns always blare, guns roar. It has no style, no rhythme, no originality or flavour. Anyone could have written those lines and thousands already have.<br /><br /> Sample of Cormac: "Nights dark beyond darkness and the days more gray each one than what had gone before. Like the onset of some cold glaucoma dimming away the world."<br /><br /> This shines with original talent. It's art. You could write for a thousand years and you'd never approach it - so at least have the grace not to presume to tell Mr. McCarthy when he should "get into the conflict."<br /><br /> Those who know, know. Those who don't should hush.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-34607500606243946202011-08-06T16:43:20.466-05:002011-08-06T16:43:20.466-05:00"If you've ever called someone a name wit..."If you've ever called someone a name without any provocation, you're probably an idiot."<br /><br />Oh b*gg*r. That just about does it for me!William Knighthttp://william-knight.blogs.com/writing_books/2006/02/william_knight.htmlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-65957150237757314922011-07-28T00:37:34.113-05:002011-07-28T00:37:34.113-05:00Meb Bryant said: "I understand your frustrati...Meb Bryant said: "I understand your frustrations over the one star ratings. It's a cowardly way to express an opinion of an author's novel, especially a complimentary copy."<br /><br />This, along with Mr. Konrath's response to a response on it bringing up Hisenberg's Uncertainty Principal, kind of bothers me. In part this is because I cannot for the life of me understand what Konrath was getting at with the reference. The big thing is that I am a book review blogger and almost all the books I review have been complementary copies. I do my best to write good, if not necessarily positive, reviews of the books I am sent. This occasionally means that I get a book that I just can't find anything good to say about, which leads to my giving it a one out of five. It seems that according to Ms. Bryant I should award those books more than that because the copy I have was free. This annoys me because while, yes it is great to get a book to review, that doesn't change the baseline quality of the novel or my reactions to the writing.<br /><br />I would also like to point out that I have very deliberately written utter crap at times. Does this mean that I both succeed at writing crap and failed to write crap because I was doing it on purpose? That may have been the biggest bit of logical fallacy I've posted in awhile, but I find that it meshes well with the "you're probably an idiot" bits late in the original post and the sweeping generalizations from earlier. If I as a reader interpret a novel differently than the author intended, then that is no fault of mine nor the author's. I'm a fan of the idea that a novel should meet the readers' expectations to be considered successful, an unprinted manuscript could meet the expectations of its author but a novel needs readers.<br /><br />All in all, I have to say that both the original post and many of his subsequent comments make Konrath seem kind of childish. I can't speak as one published novelist to her peers, but the post needed work. Too vague with some of it's arguments, such as the statments regarding those who post one star reviews. Too much focus on how deliberation makes everything good with only a token mention that one also needs the skill with their craft to go with it. Way too much "you can't speak to everyone's reactions so don't say anything" and arguing against opinions in an opinion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-85910808148304703272011-07-27T12:33:02.276-05:002011-07-27T12:33:02.276-05:00"I think JFK was assassinated by 37 people wh...<i>"I think JFK was assassinated by 37 people who came from Argentina after he died." vs. "The sun is a great ball of hydrogen, which it burns through the process of atomic fusion."</i><br /><br />Everyone knows JFK was assassinated by aliens. Duh.<br /><br />There is a difference between taste, opinion, and fact.<br /><br />Taste is personal, and valid. Opinion is valid if it is informed and can be defended. Fact is whatever stands up to the scientific method.JA Konrathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08778324558755151986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-88194112425926216422011-07-27T06:05:59.324-05:002011-07-27T06:05:59.324-05:00Joe,
I always enjoy your blog,know it's a time...Joe,<br />I always enjoy your blog,know it's a time suck, but come anyway...sometimes time suck isn't a bad thing if you're learning and I generally learn something here. <br /><br />Of all your many posts, this is one of my favorites, totally agree that being deliberate is important and can strengthen the story.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-81412838317202447482011-07-26T13:27:56.751-05:002011-07-26T13:27:56.751-05:00An intriquing post, fairly thorough. But, - "...An intriquing post, fairly thorough. But, - "ALL OPINIONS ARE EQUAL." Really. "Fire is the fluid or humour of things burned." vs. "I think JFK was assassinated by 37 people who came from Argentina after he died." vs. "The sun is a great ball of hydrogen, which it burns through the process of atomic fusion."<br /><br />They may be equally BELIEVED (and even THAT is unlikely) but they are hardly equally true.<br /><br />FAIL. Lazy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-60658121434957836942011-07-25T15:30:36.347-05:002011-07-25T15:30:36.347-05:00It was like playing chess with people who‘ll only ...<i>It was like playing chess with people who‘ll only throw the pieces.</i><br /><br />LOL. Agreed.JA Konrathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08778324558755151986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-1314141752332805632011-07-25T15:09:49.684-05:002011-07-25T15:09:49.684-05:00By the way, I think you said yourself that freedom...By the way, I think you said yourself that freedom of speech requires self-restraint on behalf of those who exercise it or everything goes to shit. And as you know too, the written medium requires far more in the way of diplomacy, because strangers don’t always know how to read you (e.g., I’m more of a pr*ck in real life). <br /><br />Anyone who was online in the early 90s has seen how fast it goes first hand. I used to be active in online forums back then. One by one I watched the best and most interesting people leave, because more and more of those who didn’t understand (or care about) this basic condition for actual debate joined the fray. I soon gave up too because every forum turned into a screech-fest, which was pointless. It was like playing chess with people who‘ll only throw the pieces.<br /><br />None of which is an endorsement of censorship. I’m simply observing the fact that the freedom to speak has little practical value when everyone’s hissing at enemies, whether named or unnamed.W. Deanhttps://platoshead.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-17565867838810745372011-07-25T15:09:05.109-05:002011-07-25T15:09:05.109-05:00“You're being cute.”
Only half. I recognize ...<i> “You're being cute.” </i><br /><br />Only half. I recognize the distinction between naming idiots and talking about idiocy in general, just as I recognize that you were being more humorous than truculent in your original post. But not everyone picked up on it. Susan Tunis, for example, initially took it as an indirect shot across the bow. <br /><br />The anonymous poster took it in a whole different direction by saying, in effect, that anyone who doesn’t act and think as he does is an idiot. Sure, he didn’t name names. But not being an idiot requires more than not naming names. And you don’t get a free pass to indulge in invective because you’re on the side of the angels.<br /><br /><i> “...fiction is fiction.” </i><br /><br />I wasn’t lamenting free speech. I was trying to force the poster to admit that he, like everyone else, thinks some things cross the line and should be condemned (even if he doesn’t believe that such things should be illegal). After all, he can’t consistently maintain that taste is subjective while condemning as idiocy some people’s taste for writing invective. He can’t have it both ways: either taste is subjective and everyone’s taste is hunky-dory (no matter how idiotic or vile) or some people have bad taste and some good (and we can debate what it is).W. Deanhttps://platoshead.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-52461833969557056332011-07-25T15:07:34.287-05:002011-07-25T15:07:34.287-05:00“You're being cute.”
Only half. I recognize ...<i> “You're being cute.” </i><br /><br />Only half. I recognize the distinction between naming idiots and talking about idiocy in general, just as I recognize that you were being more humorous than truculent in your original post. But not everyone picked up on it. Susan Tunis, for example, initially took it as an indirect shot across the bow. <br /><br />The anonymous poster took it in a whole different direction by saying, in effect, that anyone who doesn’t act and think as he does is an idiot. Sure, he didn’t name names. But not being an idiot requires more than not naming names. And you don’t get a free pass to indulge in invective because you’re on the side of the angels.<br /><br /><i> “fiction is fiction.” </i><br /><br />I wasn’t lamenting free speech. I was trying to force the poster to admit that he, like everyone else, thinks some things cross the line and should be condemned (even if he doesn’t believe that such things should be illegal). After all, he can’t consistently maintain that taste is subjective while condemning as idiocy some people’s taste for writing invective. He can’t have it both ways: either taste is subjective and everyone’s taste is hunky-dory (no matter how idiotic or vile) or some people have bad taste and some good (and we can debate what it is). <br /><br />By the way, I think you said yourself that freedom of speech requires self-restraint on behalf of those who exercise it or everything goes to shit. And as you know too, the written medium requires far more in the way of diplomacy, because strangers don’t always know how to read you (e.g., I’m more of a pr*ck in real life). <br /><br />Anyone who was online in the early 90s has seen how fast it goes first hand. I used to be active in online forums back then. One by one I watched the best and most interesting people leave, because more and more of those who didn’t understand (or care about) this basic condition for actual debate joined the fray. I soon gave up too because every forum turned into a screech-fest, which was pointless. It was like playing chess with people who‘ll only throw the pieces.<br /><br />None of which is an endorsement of censorship. I’m simply observing the fact that the freedom to speak has little practical value when everyone’s hissing at enemies, whether named or unnamed.W. Deanhttps://platoshead.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-87148184772745884582011-07-25T12:18:38.452-05:002011-07-25T12:18:38.452-05:00I mean, why do you call everyone who disagrees wit...<i>I mean, why do you call everyone who disagrees with you “stupid,” “idiot” and “idiotic douche-bag”?</i><br /><br />You're being cute. There is a big difference between attacking a specific book and author, and a general statement calling out those who are overly negative. Surely you know the difference.<br /><br /><i>What about kiddy-diddling stories, rape fantasies and torture porn?</i><br /><br />You mean, like the bible? I believe that contains all three of those.<br /><br />Look, fiction is fiction. We can all agree that murder, rape, and child abuse are wrong. But that's real life. When you start restricting what you can write about, it becomes a free speech slippery slop. Should we ban DeSade? Mein Kampf? The Koran certainly seems to incite some people to do bad things.<br /><br />Once you become the sole expert in what is harmful and what isn't, you open yourself up to a world of problems.JA Konrathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08778324558755151986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-15417911895526030922011-07-25T11:19:10.644-05:002011-07-25T11:19:10.644-05:00There is something worse than a one-star review. W...There is something worse than a one-star review. When someone describes your work as 'nice.' Which meant it had no impact on them whatsoever.writerlydervhttp://www.writerlyderv.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-50905744766502664962011-07-25T10:56:13.145-05:002011-07-25T10:56:13.145-05:00“People don't realize that negativity is harmf...<i> “People don't realize that negativity is harmful.” </i><br /><br />No one has realized this before. You’re the first. But seriously, if “negativity” is so bad, how do you justify your own? I mean, why do you call everyone who disagrees with you “stupid,” “idiot” and “idiotic douche-bag”? Don’t tell me, I’ll guess: they deserve your negativity for being negative!<br /><br />I don’t blame you completely for ranting, because the nastiness is annoying (and Mr. Konrath ultimately invited the name-calling, even if he meant to be a little tongue in cheek). But you’re only really adding to it while holding yourself up as a paragon of righteousness.<br /> <br /><i> “It's all in the eye of the beholder when it comes down to it.” </i><br /><br />What about kiddy-diddling stories, rape fantasies and torture porn? Are these all in the eye of the beholder? No doubt the beholders enjoy those things, but by your lights we cannot judge them. After all, wouldn’t stating a dislike of such things be the sort of self-limiting behavior that idiotic douche bags engage in?W. Deanhttps://platoshead.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-31069575906350856032011-07-25T08:06:22.542-05:002011-07-25T08:06:22.542-05:00The posting system ate the other half of my commen...The posting system ate the other half of my comment... There's a chance it will turn up twice, but I'll risk re-posting it: <br /><br /><i>A critique from a professional that you trust is where you get good critiques. Strangers' opinions are worthless. If you want to go chasing the approval of a someone you'll never meet, consult the DSM IV.</i><br /><br />From a professional, you get input on technical execution of the story, like plotting, characters, or spelling and style (by the way, there are several spelling errors in the story, you should really get a professional to check it), but they tend to get lost in those technical aspects that they forget the most important part, if it’s <i>fun</i> to read. You will never get the same kind of critique from a writer as you would from a reader because they’re looking for different things, and it’s not other writers you write for, it’s readers. Both critiques are just as important. You say you’re not chasing the approval of strangers, and yet you boast with those half a million that approve. Interesting. In fact, the approval of those half a million is your livelihood.<br /><br /><i>We wrote Serial with the intent of trying to kill each other. There is a very definite plan and purpose. It's the whole point of the story. If you didn't get that, that's on you, because Blake and I got is, and thousands of others got it.</i><br /><br />Yes, you roleplayed, I get that. It shows in every sentence. You didn’t discover America. A lot of kids put their roleplaying sessions online, only some of them edit it before they show it to the world. “I spiked your drink.” “Really? I eat drugs for breakfast. HA!” You do? Where did that come from? Go back to the first chapter and show him popping a few pills in his mouth and I’ll believe him. Or does consistency go against your experiment?<br /><br /><i>Serial is self-contained.</i><br /><br />Yes, I get that too. It’s a short story. I’m not saying it needs to be expanded, it needs to be written better. Ending in particularly.<br /><br /><br /><i>But if you were as sharp as you think you are, you'd understand the point of my blog, which I repeated ad nauseum in the comments.<br />Be deliberate. Consider things carefully before you speak. Or else you come off looking like an idiot.</i><br /><br />I get your message, and agree with it, it’s your examples that bother me. It’s calling people that don’t agree with you idiots that bothers me. I realize the quality of Serial is not the point of your blog, but you opened that door when you chose it as an example.<br /><br /><i>Anyone who thought Serial was gory is an idiot.</i><br /><br />I wouldn’t call him an idiot. I’d call him a pamsy. The ones that don’t like violence but still read it, those are the idiots.<br /><br /><i>Anyone who said it was poorly written is an idiot. </i><br /><br />No, just has higher standards than most. I wish there were more of them out there. If you’re going to compare it to My Immortal (http://www.fanfiction.net/s/4719325/1/My_Immortal_REPOST) then no, it’s not poorly written. If you’re going to compare it to Twilight, no, it’s not poorly written. But both of you showed that you have a certain level of skill, and then you failed to hold that level of skill to the end. Compared to what you two with that level of skill could have written, it’s not written as good as it should have been. And I’m not even going to go further this line and compare it to, I don’t know, Hemingway, for instance. In the end, it’s all a matter of standards.<br /><br /><i>Anyone who said it was awful without support that claim is an idiot.</i><br /><br />No, just not willing to waste their time on something they have no profit from. You act like they owe you something. A review is a gift, not an obligation to you or other readers. The comment from Terrance Foxxe summed it up quite nicely. Also, I don’t see you calling 5 star reviewers that don’t support their claim idiots.Draganahttp://mystictreehouse.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-68699227852374086562011-07-24T20:30:37.469-05:002011-07-24T20:30:37.469-05:00Absolutely true.
People don't realize that ne...Absolutely true.<br /><br />People don't realize that negativity is harmful. The bottom line is that no one WANTS to be given a 1-star review, nore do they want their work torn apart without tact or justification.<br /><br />I have to say that the most idiotic douche-bags out there are elitists - they believe that they have superior tastes in life and are quick to tear down others for having "inferior" tastes.<br /><br />The hilarious thing about these idiots is that many of them (one in particular) are mediocre at best in the area they claim to have superior taste in. I suppose I'm talking about critics here.<br /><br />It's enough to drive you insane. The bottom line is that if you find value in your work, that's enough. BOTTOM LINE. The rest of the world doesn't matter.<br /><br />Now, once you step outside this comforting belief to actually get money for your work, it helps to take CONSTRUCTIVE criticism from those with EXPERIENCE in the field (and many with experience will NOT tear your work apart without justification). But in the end, you have to go with your gut instinct.<br /><br />I have to say that I'm with Joe on this one. The idiot is really truly ignorant to his plight. He is utterly convinced that there are better and worse forms of art out there, and he has picked all the "good" ones. It's all in the eye of the beholder when it comes down to it.<br /><br />I can not emphasize how pissed off I am that there are people out there that are this idiotic. Although I suppose it is liberating in a way, because it's reminder of how confining a way of thinking can be. These idiots severely limit themselves. To be truly changing and improving, you have to be truly open-minded to thinking in new ways.<br /><br />And that is why I respect this blog from what I have read so far. And I respect those venting their opinions with justification. Keep up the determination and realize that by taking the time to justify your opinions, you have already won against the idiots of the world.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-3178459866354528632011-07-24T20:20:20.925-05:002011-07-24T20:20:20.925-05:00This blog is excellent.
But I hate the commenting...This blog is excellent.<br /><br />But I hate the commenting section of it. That's my opinion of course - doesn't mean it should be changed necessarily. But I think it should.<br /><br />I think you should upgrade to a better looking blog.<br /><br />But I think you have some really solid-minded views of the world of e-publishing. Keep up the good work!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-83442784076471341042011-07-24T15:49:43.301-05:002011-07-24T15:49:43.301-05:00“It really seems like the author came up with some...<i>“It really seems like the author came up with some interesting ways to kill people but never bothered to write a good story around those ideas.”</i><br /><br />First of all, it's "authors."<br /><br />Second, the story is perfectly summed up in the book description: Two predators go at each other, so who will win? THAT is the story, and it plays out exactly as we wanted it to play out.<br /><br />This reviews is akin to many other who bitch about the lack of characterization. Again, intentional on our part. We didn't write a story about why people become killers. We wrote a story about two established killers trying to kill each other. Don't criticize a story for what it doesn't want to be.<br /><br />But Blake and I also knew we had more to say about these characters, so we wrote SERIAL KILLERS UNCUT, which expands a 7000 word idea into a 120,000 word double novel. Donaldson and Lucy will also be in STIRRED. <br /><br />This free short story that Blake and I wrote in an afternoon has been read over half a million times, and has made us a fortune, and we continue to get new fans because of it.<br /><br />So, yes, I can dismiss the majority of those 140 reviewers as idiots. They're confusing their own personal tastes with quality. You don't have to like Serial. If you give it one star, that should be your rationale. Once you say the writing is "juvenile" it shows you're an idiot who doesn't know what juvenile means.JA Konrathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08778324558755151986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-24016010137782861782011-07-24T15:41:21.906-05:002011-07-24T15:41:21.906-05:00And you, of course, are infallible.
No. I'm d...<i>And you, of course, are infallible.</i><br /><br />No. I'm deliberate. It means I don't say dumb stuff without thinking.<br /><br /><i>Sure, Twilight found a lot of fans, but it also found just as many people, if not more, that hate it with a passion, does that tell you anything?</i><br /><br />Yes. It tells me taste is subjective. It also tells me a whole lot of people like and dislike things without thinking.<br /><br />I'm not saying there aren't reasons to dislike Twilight. But it is also doing a lot right, and can't be cavalierly dismissed as garbage. <br /><br /><i>“I was unimpressed by this short story, I am an elementary school teacher, and I believe my students could have written a more sophisticated ending.”</i><br /><br />If they could, then they should, and get rich. But I've read enough student and newbie stories to be able to dismiss this comment as a particularly stupid thing to say. Serial not only follows a deliberate structure, but the structure is sophisticated and invisible. I challenge any student or newbie to write a scene completely devoid of internal monologue or perspective. The final scene in Serial contains zero head-hopping, zero telling. It's all showing, and the reader is never privy to either character's thoughts. That ain't easy.<br /><br /><i>“The writing was juvenile, lacking depth, and fairly predictable. The possibilities for this book were enormous, and it fell far short of its potential.”</i><br /><br />The writing wasn't juvenile. Period. As for lacking depth, it's a short story, meant to be a one trick pony. This reviewer is looking for something that intentionally isn't there. That equals idiot. As for predictable, I agree and disagree. Agree in that all stories are predictable if you understand anything about structure. My wife hates seeing movies with me, because I always predict what scene will happen next, and I'm right most of the time. That doesn't mean the movie is bad. But the ending of Serial was unpredictable because Blake and I were trying to kill each other and had no idea how it would end. If we didn't know the ending until the moment we wrote it, it's not a predictable story.JA Konrathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08778324558755151986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-87491203051792431752011-07-24T09:20:12.403-05:002011-07-24T09:20:12.403-05:00I very much appreciate your point about thinking b...I very much appreciate your point about thinking before you speak. But there certainly is a challenge to be faced with art.<br /><br />Most people, at first glance, hate Shakespeare. The language is strange and difficult, as are the settings. Yet many people who have taken the time to get to know Shakespeare find his works sublime. A similar situation exists with modern art, ballet, opera, comic books, and rap music. Some people dismiss them out of hand. Others take the time to examine them before forming an opinion.<br /><br />What can you say about the people who dismiss things out of hand? They don't want their opinions challenged. They are not curious. And maybe, because they think they know everything, they will never grow as people.<br /><br />But one thing is true, they don't see anything wrong with how they are. If people disagree with them, they dismiss those people too. They are happy to surround themselves only with people who agree with them. It's only the thoughtful who try to see other perspectives, who question their own beliefs, and who try to understand how the real idiots can be so unthoughtful and incurious.<br /><br />You can only hope your work finds its audience first among those who instantly like it and second among those who take the time to think about it. But you can't escape the idiots without becoming as insular as they are.<br /><br />And we can all try to not dismiss things out of hand and nurture our own thoughtfulness.Glen Strathyhttp://www.how-to-write-a-book-now.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-84975634542794414382011-07-24T07:28:13.665-05:002011-07-24T07:28:13.665-05:00I despise mindless tradition. When people lose th...I despise mindless tradition. When people lose the reason for an activity, it becomes meaningless or legalistic. Much better to think about why continue it than to follow it religiously.JohnPaul DeWalthttp://johnpauldewalt@twitter.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-27770531491117272052011-07-23T21:35:30.715-05:002011-07-23T21:35:30.715-05:00Interesting that you write this. I had two comment...Interesting that you write this. I had two comments on my kindle edition of my crime e-book, Crunk. Both liked the plot, characters, inner voice, etc. They both gave it three stars. But they suggested I used too many words. I find this humorous in two factors: A.) The text was edited by two college english professors prior to publication. B.) I believe they were referring to the way that the characters spoke, which may have included broken english, because most people I've encountered in life rarely speak formal English.<br /><br />Either way, you have to take the comments you receive and just "go from there." Just keep writing and stop worrying about the rest of it.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16349619453674587024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-75381046489830082672011-07-23T21:26:31.537-05:002011-07-23T21:26:31.537-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.POKEMONhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17713615439974272746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-25849234176072231522011-07-23T19:56:40.337-05:002011-07-23T19:56:40.337-05:00Veronica,
I know it seems like bad e-reviews shou...Veronica,<br /><br />I know it seems like bad e-reviews should harm a book, but it’s not necessarily the case that they do. There could be a lot of factors that come into play. The star rating, for example, is meaningless to me. I do consider well-written bad reviews, though I take them more as information than guidance. The bottom line is that one can’t assume that a bad rating works any better than a good one without concrete evidence.W. Deanhttps://platoshead.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.com