(no subject)
Apr. 22nd, 2011 01:36 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatHave today off...it's not quite a bank holiday, but close enough, also Earth Day, although we have it off because it is Good Friday - the first of the Easter weekend. This always throws me - because in the mid-west, we never had Good Friday off. Actually this is the only place I've worked in which I did get Good Friday as a holiday, making me wonder if Roman and/or Irish Catholics were heavily involved in the first union negotiations regarding paid holidays way back when? (I was raised as the latter - Irish Catholic, although my mother being German and whose parents were devote non-religious types - they believed in God, hated religion, had her own take on the whole thing. Odd people my parents. My father who'd tried the seminary then decided he preferred to go the historian route (and eventually went the business route not in school, after school) had insisted that his kids be raised Catholic. So, my mother, who liked religion - particularly religious rituals and the community spirit of the whole thing (she ignores the dogma and what she calls the idiotic dictates) decided there wasn't that much difference between being Episcopalin and Catholic, and converted. (She'd been Episcopalin at the time.) I find this whole story highly amusing - considering of the two, my mother is more into it than my father ever has been. And he rarely pressured us to go to church, on vacations - he'd often push for skipping it. Laid-back people my parents. Personally, I think my father would have been happier as either a Unitarian (which he considered - the man questions everything) or an Episcopalin, as would my mother. Catholicism really wasn't the right fit (you aren't supposed to question things in Catholicism, doesn't mean most Catholics don't - being human and all that) - but being old dogs - they've committed themselves to the Catholic church. My father has even thrown his hat into the ring to serve on the church council (didn't know they had those in the Catholic church, but apparently they do.)
Read Gina Bellafante's reaction to the criticism of herreview personal rant about Game of Thrones. And am once again resisting the urge to comment, too many other people already have.
You can't really call this review - it was more a rant about fantasy fans and fantasy serials and basically got the response that a rant in a newspaper by a paid professional critic deserves. Instead of reviewing the show, she ranted about it not being a tv series that appeals to her or people she knows - which is okay, if you are shadowkat67 blogging on your personal livejournal and not getting paid a dime for it, but quite another story if you are being paid to provide a somewhat objective review to legions of readers so that they can determine whether they should watch the tv series. I'm sorry hon, but the last time I checked, you aren't a blogger. You are a paid "professional" reviewer published in a national paper which means you are being paid to do a job, not just whine. You failed. Personally, I think you should be summarily dismissed for failing to do your job or at least slapped upside the head (which I guess happened? The latter not the former. The NY Times readers should be so lucky.). But hey, I don't subscribe to NYT so what do I care? To others out there who like to read professional reviews? I have a few alternatives to the Times - try Strange Horizons, robwillreview, Entertainment Weekly's Ken Tucker is fairly objective most of the time, as is TV Guide's Matt Rush, also Salon.com tends to do relatively good reviews. The Guardian in the UK also isn't bad - it's actually better and more reliable than the NY Times in a lot of categories at the moment. For NY papers? The Village Voice was good until Murdoch took it over. Metro isn't too bad. Haven't tried the Wall Street Journal lately. Wish there were more female reviewers that I liked - all I can think of at the moment are men. I do rather like abigail at Strange Horizons. (I miss Pauline Kale - the film reviewer of the NY Times - who really knew how to do it. The problem with reviewers in today's world is anybody can do it - and most have no clue how. The trick is to give the reader enough info for them to know regardless of what you thought about the movie, if they will like it or not, without giving the plot of the movie, tv show, or book away. Few people seem to know how to do this well.)
Finished two things. S3 of Being Erica - which was okay, but did not quite work for me. Although I think I know what it is going on with the show now. And the concept is fascinating and highly innovative - or at least it is to me - since I've never seen it done before. What it entails is a woman has a nervous breakdown, she runs into an odd therapist who aids her by taking her back in time to relive regrets. Over the course of three seasons, she finds herself, who she is, and is
able to handle the other stuff (boyfriend, perfect job, etc) being ripped away. It's an odd discourse on suicide. That's what I liked. The plot is choppy though, and I'm not sure the Adam character, introduced this season, worked as well as the Kai character in the previous seasons did, in part because he is almost too cliche and they rushed his story. To the point in which we'd often be in his pov, when up to that point, we'd only ever really been inside Erica's. Also we are jumping around in too many points of view this season - which is jarring as well - because prior to this season, we were solely in Erica's pov. The group therapy idea was interesting but poorly developed - instead of using it to explore Erica's character more or even the mythos of the series, it was used as means to thrust Adam and Erica into each others arms. None of the other characters were fully developed. Also a lot of time was spent in Dr. Tom's pov - which I'm not sure entirely works. The series works best when it focuses on Erica and her issues, less on other characters. It can end where it is ...not sure it needs another season. I feel like Erica has more or less finished the main part of her journey? Although I'm admittedly curious if Kai jumps back into it or not.
Laughter of Dead Kings by Elizabeth Peters - I don't recommend this book. After a fairly fun and interesting start, it rapidly goes down hill and doesn't get any better. An excellent example of how not to write a mystery novel. Peters does all the things - every writer knows are big no-no's.
1) She tells not shows all the action. We are told what happened in long expository speeches or rambling dialogues - as if Lord Peter Wimsey and Nora Charles were discussing the weather.
2) The story is told in first person, but the narrator doesn't propel the action, if anything she finds out about all of it after the fact. She's constantly being told what happened. The few places in the novel that are interesting - there are about three - involve the heroine being in the center of the action - but in each section she's either ineffective or gets hurt. In some cases, she just comes across as incredibly dumb.
3.)Peters writes herself into the story in a lame-ass way of linking the Vicky Bliss novels to the best-selling Amelia Peabody novels. At least she's not a Mary Sue.
4) Nothing really happens, it's basically a bunch of people wandering around hunting a mummy. It's hard to care about the missing mummy or the people involved, and the joke about the missing mummy while funny in the first two or three chapters, gets old by the fourth.
In short, the book often put me to sleep, I ended up scanning 80% of it, because literally nothing happens. And still understood the whole thing. So - if you like the Vicky Bliss mysteries? Stop at Night Train to Memphis. As a Coda, this doesn't quite satisfy or maybe it does, in explaining why the story is over. If you want to know what happened with Vicky and her Sir John Smythe - ask me, and I'll tell you, saving you a few bucks and time.
Read Gina Bellafante's reaction to the criticism of her
You can't really call this review - it was more a rant about fantasy fans and fantasy serials and basically got the response that a rant in a newspaper by a paid professional critic deserves. Instead of reviewing the show, she ranted about it not being a tv series that appeals to her or people she knows - which is okay, if you are shadowkat67 blogging on your personal livejournal and not getting paid a dime for it, but quite another story if you are being paid to provide a somewhat objective review to legions of readers so that they can determine whether they should watch the tv series. I'm sorry hon, but the last time I checked, you aren't a blogger. You are a paid "professional" reviewer published in a national paper which means you are being paid to do a job, not just whine. You failed. Personally, I think you should be summarily dismissed for failing to do your job or at least slapped upside the head (which I guess happened? The latter not the former. The NY Times readers should be so lucky.). But hey, I don't subscribe to NYT so what do I care? To others out there who like to read professional reviews? I have a few alternatives to the Times - try Strange Horizons, robwillreview, Entertainment Weekly's Ken Tucker is fairly objective most of the time, as is TV Guide's Matt Rush, also Salon.com tends to do relatively good reviews. The Guardian in the UK also isn't bad - it's actually better and more reliable than the NY Times in a lot of categories at the moment. For NY papers? The Village Voice was good until Murdoch took it over. Metro isn't too bad. Haven't tried the Wall Street Journal lately. Wish there were more female reviewers that I liked - all I can think of at the moment are men. I do rather like abigail at Strange Horizons. (I miss Pauline Kale - the film reviewer of the NY Times - who really knew how to do it. The problem with reviewers in today's world is anybody can do it - and most have no clue how. The trick is to give the reader enough info for them to know regardless of what you thought about the movie, if they will like it or not, without giving the plot of the movie, tv show, or book away. Few people seem to know how to do this well.)
Finished two things. S3 of Being Erica - which was okay, but did not quite work for me. Although I think I know what it is going on with the show now. And the concept is fascinating and highly innovative - or at least it is to me - since I've never seen it done before. What it entails is a woman has a nervous breakdown, she runs into an odd therapist who aids her by taking her back in time to relive regrets. Over the course of three seasons, she finds herself, who she is, and is
able to handle the other stuff (boyfriend, perfect job, etc) being ripped away. It's an odd discourse on suicide. That's what I liked. The plot is choppy though, and I'm not sure the Adam character, introduced this season, worked as well as the Kai character in the previous seasons did, in part because he is almost too cliche and they rushed his story. To the point in which we'd often be in his pov, when up to that point, we'd only ever really been inside Erica's. Also we are jumping around in too many points of view this season - which is jarring as well - because prior to this season, we were solely in Erica's pov. The group therapy idea was interesting but poorly developed - instead of using it to explore Erica's character more or even the mythos of the series, it was used as means to thrust Adam and Erica into each others arms. None of the other characters were fully developed. Also a lot of time was spent in Dr. Tom's pov - which I'm not sure entirely works. The series works best when it focuses on Erica and her issues, less on other characters. It can end where it is ...not sure it needs another season. I feel like Erica has more or less finished the main part of her journey? Although I'm admittedly curious if Kai jumps back into it or not.
Laughter of Dead Kings by Elizabeth Peters - I don't recommend this book. After a fairly fun and interesting start, it rapidly goes down hill and doesn't get any better. An excellent example of how not to write a mystery novel. Peters does all the things - every writer knows are big no-no's.
1) She tells not shows all the action. We are told what happened in long expository speeches or rambling dialogues - as if Lord Peter Wimsey and Nora Charles were discussing the weather.
2) The story is told in first person, but the narrator doesn't propel the action, if anything she finds out about all of it after the fact. She's constantly being told what happened. The few places in the novel that are interesting - there are about three - involve the heroine being in the center of the action - but in each section she's either ineffective or gets hurt. In some cases, she just comes across as incredibly dumb.
3.)Peters writes herself into the story in a lame-ass way of linking the Vicky Bliss novels to the best-selling Amelia Peabody novels. At least she's not a Mary Sue.
4) Nothing really happens, it's basically a bunch of people wandering around hunting a mummy. It's hard to care about the missing mummy or the people involved, and the joke about the missing mummy while funny in the first two or three chapters, gets old by the fourth.
In short, the book often put me to sleep, I ended up scanning 80% of it, because literally nothing happens. And still understood the whole thing. So - if you like the Vicky Bliss mysteries? Stop at Night Train to Memphis. As a Coda, this doesn't quite satisfy or maybe it does, in explaining why the story is over. If you want to know what happened with Vicky and her Sir John Smythe - ask me, and I'll tell you, saving you a few bucks and time.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-04-22 08:01 pm (UTC)I'm more annoyed with the New York Times for publishing the review and paying Bellafante for it, than with Bellafante. I got the feeling that tightropegirl was as well. There are a lot of really good professional reviewers out there who would kill to get their stuff published and to work for the Times, and they hire this woman? Okay.