Quote:
Originally Posted by WaitingForAName
Not reading part of the book is the same thing as not reading the entire book, though.
|
No, it clearly isn't.
Quote:
|
Not only did you bother to pass judgment on books you hadn't read, you didn't even get the titles right. That's a ten-second Google search.
|
Lacking an editor and copious free time, I'm afraid that mistakes will creep into my reviews.
Quote:
|
That's hardly the case. You're judging the book for X, and, finding Y, asking who could possibly find Y useful. The best thing to say would be that people who read for X will be disappointed, but those who read for Y will like it. If nobody really does like Y, then it won't be an issue. If they do like Y, they can pick it up.
|
And I note that in the review, that I'm not usually fond of these kind of products. Jesus Christ, I drop in disclaimers and you pounce on them as if they're admissions of guilt.
"Coffee may be hot? WHAT KIND OF SHIT ARE YOU TRYING TO PULL, MCDONALDS?"
Quote:
|
It's fairly standard for reviewers to not take just their personal tastes into factor, but those of the audience.
|
Mmm, nah.
Quote:
|
Should I point you to Chapter 28? You'll likely find the monster's actions most atypical of a pillow, no matter how large.
|
I'd also point out that the title of the book, one of the 20th century's most famous horror novels, is not
Our Dark Lady, but
Our Lady of Darkness. It's given right above the stats in
Secrets you are critiquing.[/quote]
Yeah. Thank you for catching that.
Quote:
|
Perhaps you should reacquaint yourself with this book?
|
If I could find the book, then yeah, I would.
Quote:
|
Perhaps you should spend less time on completeness and more on ensuring the content is correct? If a reviewer can't even get basic facts right, it raises questions about how accurate his reading of the book really was. In fact, if a reviewer is willing to pass judgment on books he hasn't read, it's perfectly legitimate to ask whether he's read the book he's reviewing.
|
You can nitpick my reviews until you're blue in the face, but it doesn't alter the basic thrust of the review. You've managed to find two minor errors, and you've decided to extrapolate that into "Well, the review is largely worthless!" Which is fine, but it's also missing the point rather seriously.
We're also having this discussion over here:
http://www.yog-sothoth.com/modules.p...=108680#108680
-Darren MacLennan