Lis Carey's Reviews > Riding the Red Horse

Riding the Red Horse by Tom Kratman
Rate this book
Clear rating

by
3726509
's review

did not like it
bookshelves: 2015-hugo-nominees, f-sf, fiction, rabid-puppies

Theodore Beale (Vox Day) is nominated for Best Editor, Long Form, and also Best Editor, Short Form.

This collection is included in the Hugo Voters packet in support of Theodore Beale's nomination for Best Editor, Short Form.

Unfortunately, it's a very uneven collection. It includes the very good The Hot Equations, by Ken Burnside, and the very disappointing Turncoat by Steve Rzasa. There is, early on, a casual endorsement of the probable "necessity" of genocide on the grounds that Those People aren't smart enough to modify their behavior. A point Beale's fans will have difficulty with is that such inflammatory language makes it less likely that readers will take in the point the author was attempting to make. A better editor would have caught it and told the author to dispense with pointless provocation and just make his point.

If this is the best evidence Beale has to offer, he has no place on the ballot.
46 likes · flag

Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read Riding the Red Horse.
Sign In »

Reading Progress

June 11, 2015 – Started Reading
June 11, 2015 – Shelved
June 11, 2015 – Shelved as: 2015-hugo-nominees
June 11, 2015 – Shelved as: f-sf
June 11, 2015 – Shelved as: fiction
June 11, 2015 – Shelved as: rabid-puppies
June 11, 2015 –
0.0% "I barely restrained myself from throwing my Nook against the wall."
June 11, 2015 – Finished Reading

Comments Showing 1-20 of 20 (20 new)

dateDown arrow    newest »

Eric McLaughlin This is a personal attack masquerading as a review.


Protest Manager It's sad that your political biases drive you to give such horrid reviews. This is a great collection, it introduced me to several new authors I've enjoyed a lot, and Turncoat is only "disappointing" if you prefer losers to winner.


message 3: by Peter (last edited Jan 02, 2016 09:10PM) (new)

Peter Connor Like most 1 star reviews, it's a fake, although a little bit better than most fake reviews. She clearly hasn't read most of the book, if any. I own this book and think it's quite good....


message 4: by Lis (new) - rated it 1 star

Lis Carey Yeah, I heard Beale put out the call to his puppy pack. I'm sure it will help improve results for SP4/RP2.


message 5: by Glen (new)

Glen This review is a "packet" of shill. Every mention of Scalzi is a 5 star experience. Just nonsense.


message 6: by OneDay (new)

OneDay This 'review' started out as if it were an actual review, but then very quickly turned into a rather vague attack on the editor, and very poorly supported at that. Would it be possible to expand this to an actual review of the book? I guess it makes more sense to just go see if some of the real reviews give a better sense of the value of the book.


message 7: by Roger (new)

Roger Christie Wow, you people are pathetic.


Passing Stranger Ah yes, the puppyboys obey their master and try to harass anyone who dares to criticise him with silly claims of "personal attacks" while indulging in such.


message 9: by Myranda (new)

Myranda Kalis Newsflash for the puppy brigade: you're a little late defending the honor of your lord and master, Sasquan is well over.


message 10: by Rob (last edited Jan 04, 2016 09:30AM) (new)

Rob If I have read this review correctly, Lis examines this document (which is submitted to support a Hugo nomination for Theodore Beale) and then concludes that the stories within do not support Beale's nomination. I don't think that is a personal attack on the nominee, though I do see many personal attacks on Lis in these comments.


message 11: by Fabulist (last edited Jan 04, 2016 11:10AM) (new)

Fabulist If you liked the stories collected here, excellent. Leave a 5 star review about why you liked it and move on. Ms. Carey is well within her rights to leave a review to the opposite effect, and she is also well within her rights to criticize the person who solicited and edited the collection. I think ya'll pups are the ones who can't take criticism. Go on home to whatever pit you crawled out of.


message 12: by Fabulist (new)

Fabulist Amaryllis wrote: "But you're actually saying that it is completely permissible to review a book based on your personal opinion of its editor."

This isn't a novel. It's a collection of stories edited and published by the same man. The editor is assumed to not only be responsible for the general 'cleanliness' of the writing (grammar, and etc), but to be responsible for which stories appear in the collection itself. If a reviewer feels that the editor has not done this to professional standards, why wouldn't it be worth mentioning? Especially considering said editor was nominated for an award for his editing.


message 13: by Deep (new) - rated it 5 stars

Deep Thought Why hasn't this review been banned? This is not a review but a hacket job against the author.


message 14: by Bryan (new)

Bryan Was this review edited recently, and have I missed out the purported content to which the puppies are reacting?

Because otherwise I see nothing wrong with this review at all. She's reviewing hugo nominees, and is judging the book through that lens, so of course she'll need to make a comment about the editing. I don't see the personal attack whatsoever.


message 15: by Myranda (new)

Myranda Kalis Deep wrote: "Why hasn't this review been banned? This is not a review but a hacket job against the author."

This book has no author. This book has *authors,* because it is an anthology. The review is commenting on the poor job of editing done by the *editor* of the book. Facts, they're things!


message 16: by Bryan (new)

Bryan While the puppies enjoyed only a brief stay on GR, at least they gave us gems like "hacket job" before they left. Clearly connoisseurs of finer literature than I've known.


message 17: by Kate (new)

Kate I read a number of the stories from this book that were part of the Hugo nominated packet. At best they were a mediocre rehash of old ideas. Other stories were so weak that I could not finish them. I define weak as being full of purple prose or all the action was told in data dumps instead of being woven through plot or character development.


message 18: by Aaah (last edited Jan 06, 2016 06:02AM) (new)

Aaah You lot are here too? What? Deep? Peter? Michael?

My puppies y'all crawlin' like lice here, too.

Stay strong, Lis. They wiggled all over my reviews, though I ended-up stomping them out. :-)


message 19: by Keith (last edited Jan 06, 2016 09:16AM) (new) - rated it 1 star

Keith I too read several of the stories included in this anthology. Thank God I didn't have to pay for them as they were, without exception (at least for the ones I read), execrable. And Vox Day as editor? Typos, poor grammar, ... what exactly did he DO as editor? Pick stories no one else would buy written by his friends and lackeys? Was sorry to see Jerry Pournelle's name included as I've read and enjoyed many of his books and stories over the years.


message 20: by Steven (new)

Steven Walle Great review Lis!


back to top