Now that I've read (and suffered through) the review of Godwin's novel, I would have this to say to the reviewer:
(1) Let me paraphrase George Orwell by saying, "never use a longer word instead of a shorter word."
(2) Abandon the passion for empty abstractions and concentrate instead on concrete details.
(3) The keys to good writing are simple: be clear, be concise, and be mindful of your audience. (The reviewer receives a failing grade on all three counts.)
Usually we agree, R.T., but this time I must demur. Maybe it's because I know Ed (who used to review for me), but this review is so him I just wouldn't have it any other way. I also usually agree with Orwell but I wouldn't want to be without Robert Burton or Thomas Browne
Frank, I received a savage, ad hominem reply from the reviewer, which you can read at his blog site.
I thought I had simply criticized the review without attacking the reviewer; perhaps I did not do so clearly enough. I welcome your correction, but I stand by my basic opinions.
In any event, I think the reviewers response to me was completely out of line. Such commentary tends to convince me that the blog environment remains (at times) uncivil and undisciplined.
If we need to continue this discussion, please contact me via email. Given the reviewer's reaction, I cannot offer that same invitation to him.
I have noticed that this Ed Whatzizface gets hot under the collar no matter what you criticize -- him, his writing, the weather, the scenery. Man'll take a stroke if he don't watch out.
Here, Frank, is a copy of my final comment to the reviewer:
May I offer a couple of final comments?
First, I am an adjunct (by choice rather than necessity), but I am not miserable (either about it or at it). In fact, I enjoy teaching, and both the university and the students seem satisfied with my contributions.
Second, I am not suicidal; in any event, there are no skyscrapers in the region, so it would be impossible for me to act upon your suggestion. I could, I suppose, fling myself off a pier into the nearby Gulf of Mexico, but I am fearful of water.
Third, style is always “fair game” for analysis and criticism. As a component of composition, style (i.e., diction, syntax, etc.) is the goal-sensitive medium through which the writer seeks to communicate most effectively to the audience. Different writers have different styles; the sensible writers are shrewd about adopting a style that achieves the goal: good communication.
Fourth, I apologize again for having offended you. Your writing style, though, leads me (as a teacher of writing and literature) to make one final suggestion: simplify and clarify.
I don't see what's so ad hominem about suggesting that R.T. throw himself off a skyscraper. As I indicated in the original thread, I was merely suggesting the next rational step for someone depressed enough to suffer through my apparent "bad" writing. But in case it isn't clear enough (since clarity seems to R.T.'s bete noire):
satire (n.): the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.
Oh, and it's "reviewer's," not "reviewers." Some more quibbles. Style is not a medium. It is a technique, a show of will in some cases. A medium, by way of being a mere thing, cannot be sensitive to goals, unless it is a person employed to contact spirits. (And, in that case, we enter the territory of superstition.) You also assume that communicating to an audience must be simple or "good," by way of a strict Orwellian approach. But "good" communication often emerges from eccentric or idiosyncratic expression. But I'll leave you to your literal-minded goals, who will presumably be more sensitive to your medium.
Mr. Champion -- Let us agree that we have no option but to disagree on the concept of style. However, I think neither one of us as persons is in the position of being able to judge the other based on brief, sometimes hastily written comments. In any event, I have not judged you; please do not judge me. To the extent that we should now move on to other matters, I shall try to remain open-minded about and receptive to your comments because you have made some good points. However, please try to remain open-minded about and receptive to mine.
Frank -- I apologize to you for having converted your blog site into a petty battle zone. My initial comments about Mr. Champion's review (though, I think, valid) were possibly poorly stated, obviously offensive, and certainly not well received. This kind of squabble is an excellent example of the dangers of the blog environment. Most people would not say to another person's face what purportedly passes for "satire" or civil response in a blog communication.
So, as journalists used to type at the end of their copy; -30-
Postscript: I apologize for the several typographical errors that have appeared in my postings. No one is perfect.
To calm the apparently hostile waters, here is a pedestrian recipe for a cranberry-based fudge:
12 ounces white chocolate 1/2 cup dried cranberries 1 cup toasted almonds (or you can use cashews) A can of condensed milk
1. You're going to need an 8 inch square pan. Butter this baby or spray it.
2. Put the chocolate and the milk in a small pan. Stir as it melts. When you've got your nifty little mixture, put this in a bowl. Add the cranberries and the almonds and mix this up. Spread it evenly into the pan.
3. Let the sucker sit for a few hours -- either in the fridge or on the counter. When it's cooled off, cut into small squares. Serve.
Now that I've read (and suffered through) the review of Godwin's novel, I would have this to say to the reviewer:
ReplyDelete(1) Let me paraphrase George Orwell by saying, "never use a longer word instead of a shorter word."
(2) Abandon the passion for empty abstractions and concentrate instead on concrete details.
(3) The keys to good writing are simple: be clear, be concise, and be mindful of your audience. (The reviewer receives a failing grade on all three counts.)
Usually we agree, R.T., but this time I must demur. Maybe it's because I know Ed (who used to review for me), but this review is so him I just wouldn't have it any other way. I also usually agree with Orwell but I wouldn't want to be without Robert Burton or Thomas Browne
ReplyDeleteFrank, I received a savage, ad hominem reply from the reviewer, which you can read at his blog site.
ReplyDeleteI thought I had simply criticized the review without attacking the reviewer; perhaps I did not do so clearly enough. I welcome your correction, but I stand by my basic opinions.
In any event, I think the reviewers response to me was completely out of line. Such commentary tends to convince me that the blog environment remains (at times) uncivil and undisciplined.
If we need to continue this discussion, please contact me via email. Given the reviewer's reaction, I cannot offer that same invitation to him.
I have noticed that this Ed Whatzizface gets hot under the collar no matter what you criticize -- him, his writing, the weather, the scenery. Man'll take a stroke if he don't watch out.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOops.
ReplyDeleteHere, Frank, is a copy of my final comment to the reviewer:
ReplyDeleteMay I offer a couple of final comments?
First, I am an adjunct (by choice rather than necessity), but I am not miserable (either about it or at it). In fact, I enjoy teaching, and both the university and the students seem satisfied with my contributions.
Second, I am not suicidal; in any event, there are no skyscrapers in the region, so it would be impossible for me to act upon your suggestion. I could, I suppose, fling myself off a pier into the nearby Gulf of Mexico, but I am fearful of water.
Third, style is always “fair game” for analysis and criticism. As a component of composition, style (i.e., diction, syntax, etc.) is the goal-sensitive medium through which the writer seeks to communicate most effectively to the audience. Different writers have different styles; the sensible writers are shrewd about adopting a style that achieves the goal: good communication.
Fourth, I apologize again for having offended you. Your writing style, though, leads me (as a teacher of writing and literature) to make one final suggestion: simplify and clarify.
I don't see what's so ad hominem about suggesting that R.T. throw himself off a skyscraper. As I indicated in the original thread, I was merely suggesting the next rational step for someone depressed enough to suffer through my apparent "bad" writing. But in case it isn't clear enough (since clarity seems to R.T.'s bete noire):
ReplyDeletesatire (n.): the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.
Oh, and it's "reviewer's," not "reviewers." Some more quibbles. Style is not a medium. It is a technique, a show of will in some cases. A medium, by way of being a mere thing, cannot be sensitive to goals, unless it is a person employed to contact spirits. (And, in that case, we enter the territory of superstition.) You also assume that communicating to an audience must be simple or "good," by way of a strict Orwellian approach. But "good" communication often emerges from eccentric or idiosyncratic expression. But I'll leave you to your literal-minded goals, who will presumably be more sensitive to your medium.
Here are two final and simple points:
ReplyDeleteMr. Champion -- Let us agree that we have no option but to disagree on the concept of style. However, I think neither one of us as persons is in the position of being able to judge the other based on brief, sometimes hastily written comments. In any event, I have not judged you; please do not judge me. To the extent that we should now move on to other matters, I shall try to remain open-minded about and receptive to your comments because you have made some good points. However, please try to remain open-minded about and receptive to mine.
Frank -- I apologize to you for having converted your blog site into a petty battle zone. My initial comments about Mr. Champion's review (though, I think, valid) were possibly poorly stated, obviously offensive, and certainly not well received. This kind of squabble is an excellent example of the dangers of the blog environment. Most people would not say to another person's face what purportedly passes for "satire" or civil response in a blog communication.
So, as journalists used to type at the end of their copy; -30-
Postscript: I apologize for the several typographical errors that have appeared in my postings. No one is perfect.
To calm the apparently hostile waters, here is a pedestrian recipe for a cranberry-based fudge:
ReplyDelete12 ounces white chocolate
1/2 cup dried cranberries
1 cup toasted almonds (or you can use cashews)
A can of condensed milk
1. You're going to need an 8 inch square pan. Butter this baby or spray it.
2. Put the chocolate and the milk in a small pan. Stir as it melts. When you've got your nifty little mixture, put this in a bowl. Add the cranberries and the almonds and mix this up. Spread it evenly into the pan.
3. Let the sucker sit for a few hours -- either in the fridge or on the counter. When it's cooled off, cut into small squares. Serve.
FYI, here is my attempt at another way of looking at and learning from the recent dust up.
ReplyDelete