Dragons & Jetpacks discussion

Beyond Redemption (Manifest Delusions, #1)
This topic is about Beyond Redemption
36 views
BotM Discussion - FANTASY > Beyond Redemption / Overall / ***SPOILERS***

Comments Showing 1-29 of 29 (29 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Roger, Knight Radiant (new) - rated it 4 stars

Roger | 2031 comments Mod
I finished reading this book a few months ago based on a recommendation from fellow moderator Lancer. The premise of this book is very different than anything I've read before, with the power of belief making people more powerful. So, the more followers someone gets the more powerful they become, with the consequence that a person who becomes too powerful basically becomes insane, and their delusions become too powerful for them to control any more and ultimately kill them. There is also the belief that anyone that you kill will serve you in the afterlife, which you find out is actually true at the end of the book. Now, whether or not it's true because it's always been that way or whether it's true because everyone believes it's true is a question that you are left to ponder after the book is all said and done...

I may not have done a great job explaining this book but I found it very entertaining and am looking forward to reading the next book in the series to see where it goes from there.


Rick This is a brilliant book, one of my fave fantasy reads of the last few years. What Roger doesn't mention is that if someone has powerful beliefs about reality (delusions, basically), that aspects of his or her personality can take on life and, while they seem to live in mirrors initially, can take over and relegate their creator to the mirror existence. As we meet the ruler of the realm in which the story takes place, he's trying to create a god ruled by his beliefs. Gods are tricky, dangerous things, though.

This book is dark but not really grim dark in the sense of war and mud and violence because violence. It's an excellent example of taking a core thought - "what if one's beliefs really affected reality and the stronger those beliefs, the more reality changed" - and taking it to an extreme.


message 3: by Lancer, Warden of the Slums (new) - rated it 5 stars

Lancer (elancer) | 1667 comments Mod
The second book is even better. I always see people say that you can really describe it properly because it is, but it is very easy to understand as you read. Just very difficult to put to words.


message 4: by Cupcakes & Machetes, Hybrid Creature (new) - rated it 5 stars

Cupcakes & Machetes (hybridcreature) | 885 comments Mod
I just finished this this morning and loved it. I'm a very big fan of dark stories so this went on my favorites list. I can't decide which perspective I enjoyed reading the most.


Kaitlin I'm afraid I'm on the opposite side of the spectrum from you all! I probably should have done a little bit more checking into it before I checked it out of the library, but I couldn't finish it because I didn't enjoy reading about any of the characters. I'm not generally a fan of grimdark or dark anything, really, so I think that makes sense, but I'm disappointed because I do enjoy very unique worlds and perspectives and I was getting that vibe before I decided to stop.


message 6: by Cupcakes & Machetes, Hybrid Creature (new) - rated it 5 stars

Cupcakes & Machetes (hybridcreature) | 885 comments Mod
Kaitlin wrote: "I'm afraid I'm on the opposite side of the spectrum from you all! I probably should have done a little bit more checking into it before I checked it out of the library, but I couldn't finish it bec..."

Grimdark/dark fantasy isn't for everyone. At least you gave it a try!


Alan | 158 comments Just started this one and so far I'm on the fence--mostly it's the premise that's bothering me. The concept is potentially very interesting and generative, but the approach really seems to be about categorizing people's personalities based on their disorders (the disorder is the sole aspect of them that informs their actions), rather than a legitimate exploration of what the lived experiences of people with mental disorders might be in a fantasy setting.

I'd definitely be more sympathetic to the author's approach if he had one of these disorders himself, but for me (as someone with a mental disorder), this feels like a shallow attempt to be edgy by misrepresenting illness as something "cool." It reminds me of being a teenager when everyone was doing those online quizzes to find out if they were bipolar, etc, just to one-up each other. ):

I'm sure the author is a nice person, and other aspects of the book seem neat, but I don't know how I feel about this as a "take" on mental illness (at least so far--I'm only 50 pages in).


Rick Steve - this isn't a book about the lived experience of mental disorders. I think you might be missing the foundational premise here. In this world, belief shapes reality. Strong beliefs affect reality more than weak beliefs and getting many people to believe a thing will affect it more than having few people believe that thing.

So the premise is that strongly delusional people who have a very rigid, ingrained belief will rise to power because they can warp the real and get people to share what they believe more easily. However very strong delusions also lead to instability in that person with varying, highly negative effects.

Remember, all of this is true *in the world of this book* which is not our world. This isn't a fantasy set here but in some slightly different medieval time. It's a very different place.

If you're looking for a modern, sympathetic and real world take on mental illness this is the wrong book. Its take on mental illness resembles actual, mental illness in the same way that SF with faster than light travel resembles actual physics or fantasy with magic represents actual history.


message 9: by Audrey, Queen of the Potato People (new)

Audrey (niceyackerman) | 3053 comments Mod
Kaitlin wrote: “I’m afraid I’m on the opposite side of the spectrum from you all! I probably should have done a little bit more checking into it before I checked it out of the library, but I couldn’t finish it bec…”

Same here. That’s why I’ve been reluctant to read this one, and I probably won’t.


message 10: by Alan (new) - rated it 3 stars

Alan | 158 comments Rick wrote: "Steve - this isn't a book about the lived experience of mental disorders. I think you might be missing the foundational premise here. In this world, belief shapes reality. Strong beliefs affect rea..."

No worries, I'm aware of the premise, which is clearly put forward in the book itself.

What bothers me is that there's no (at least not yet--keep in mind I'm still reading) attempt at a nuanced portrayal of the disorders being depicted. Regardless of the book's premise (which could exist without the addition of monikers referencing mental illness), people are (so far) categorized and defined completely by the extremely (so far) one-dimensional representations of mental disorders put forward by the author. I don't mean that characters with mental disorders can't be villains, or can't be dangerous, etc, but to me (so far) the representation of mental illness in this book comes off as lazy and poorly researched. The concept, as I said above, has potential, but here it feels as though mental illness has simply been mobilized in order to make the book seem risque and dark for the sake of it. Beyond which, it is important that the author consider the interior lives of actual people with mental illness precisely because so many of the characters whose POVs he writes have those very conditions, and speak specifically from that positionality. It is, seemingly, the selling point of the book, as well as an element of the narrative that, arguably unnecessarily, is framed as pivotal to the premise and plot. If the experiences of people with mental illness aren't of import to the characteriztion of people with mental illness in this book, then what is the point?

I find the argument for suspension of disbelief in a SFF setting doesn't work for me here. I can accept some wonky science, or that unicorns are real, or that vampires exist if the narrative is well constructed and it suits the feel of the book (and sometimes even if it doesn't), but there's a far cry from FTL travel being inaccurately represented, and mental illness being touted uncritically as a feature of someone's being that entirely encapsulates that individual, and which (so far in this book) is indicative of someone being evil, etc. It feels like a network television idea of what schizophrenia or OCD, or [insert disorder here looks like]. This feels like a book written for neurotypical readers who want a glimpse at the "sexy" (broadly speaking), salacious, and frightening aspects of mental illness portrayed so frequently in TV cop shows, etc.

Again, the premise could work while still including the dimension of mental illness, but so far I feel like combining the two would have required more research on the part of the author, or more understanding of how mental illnesses work. How it reads to me so far is that the idea sounded cool and edgy, there was a basic attempt at research, and then some German names and terms were slapped on everything to disguise how basic that research and understanding was. Even the central term in German for the "magic" expressed through the delusions is just the word for "mental illness." In the context of the world, that doesn't even make sense--concepts of "illness" expressed through the German term presumably wouldn't exist in a world where this type of magic is so prevalent and seemingly quite valuable. You either have to assume the German terms used in the book literally have a different definition and etymology, or that these aren't the terms actively being used by the characters. Otherwise (for me, so far) the worldbuilding falls a part a bit. If the author wanted an easily codifiable category system with which to brand/sort characters into groups, why not use fantasy terminology (either his own, or more traditional), since all the nomenclature adds is a thin veneer of creativity and darkness.

I'm still formulating my opinion, as I'm still reading (depending on where the author takes things and whether the approach deepens at all I could certainly change my mind), but these are many of my thoughts and reactions so far.

Apologies if I'm coming off harsh here, but I'm honestly pretty struck by how blatantly mental illness is used here as a gimmick, and how little note seems to have been made of this fact in any of the spoiler-free Goodreads reviews I read.


message 11: by Rick (new) - rated it 5 stars

Rick Again, this is NOT MEANT as a realistic depiction of mental illness. You're looking for something that the book isn't trying to be, I think.

This is not a nuanced world or story. It's the story of people who have extreme illnesses and how that interacts with the reality of this world. AS for the use of German... he explains that in the book he basically misuses and abuses the terms for his own use.


message 12: by Alan (new) - rated it 3 stars

Alan | 158 comments Rick wrote: "Again, this is NOT MEANT as a realistic depiction of mental illness. You're looking for something that the book isn't trying to be, I think.

This is not a nuanced world or story. It's the story o..."


Then I guess my question is still why bother using terminology associated with mental illness if the intention is to misrepresent it? Why not make up a new thing? (I know you can't answer these questions--you didn't write it, so no worries).

As someone who writes themselves I can't get to grips with intentionally misusing terminology in a way that suggests real-world people for your own benefit, but doesn't make meaningful or respectful use of those terms. Again, it just feels lazy.

Not everything needs to be complex to be effective, and some of my favourite reads from this group have been more on the fun side, but given the purported seriousness of this book and its themes I would have wanted the author to take the material he was drawing on from the real world more seriously as well. The thing is, as presented, this isn't a story about "people who have extreme illnesses" in any meaningful sense, because the illnesses listed in the glossary and depicted within the narrative are caricatures of actual mental illness. The only thing extreme about them are how they're represented is in how the descriptions of them narrow their focus to one (often inaccurate) element of a particular disorder.

I read the disclaimer about the German and wasn't sure how I felt about it at the time (having not yet read the book). I thought he came of off as funny and down-to-earth, and I still think that, but it does also come off as lazy. If he speaks German, why not use terms that aren't literally "mental illness," etc. If he doesn't- why use German and not something else?

This seems like a fundamental disagreement between us about what makes a good story/the responsibility of the author, and we probably won't agree. I guess for me, even in escapist literature, I want there to be evidence of effort, of care, and yes of nuance, in elements of a narrative that are intended to be integral to that narrative. This is even more true for me when those elements involve something as serious as mental illness, or an element that's easily falsifiable by talking to an actual human being. As someone with mental illness, it feels like being used to sell merchandise, without the merchant even have being bothered to read beyond Wikipedia.


message 13: by Roger, Knight Radiant (new) - rated it 4 stars

Roger | 2031 comments Mod
Steve wrote: "Rick wrote: "Again, this is NOT MEANT as a realistic depiction of mental illness. You're looking for something that the book isn't trying to be, I think.

This is not a nuanced world or story. It'..."


I don't really see where the author claims this is a book on mental illness but the faith one has in their delusions molding the world, the name of the trilogy is Manifest Delusions with no mention of mental illness. It's really not fair to read/review a book based on a preconceived notion you have about it when that's not what the author is trying to convey. Your points on characters being one dimensional and not nuanced is valid, though I don't agree at all with you saying there is no "evidence of effort", but to judge a book harshly on something it's not trying to be seems wrong to me.


message 14: by Alan (new) - rated it 3 stars

Alan | 158 comments Roger wrote: "Steve wrote: "Rick wrote: "Again, this is NOT MEANT as a realistic depiction of mental illness. You're looking for something that the book isn't trying to be, I think.

This is not a nuanced world..."


The glossary is a list of mental illnesses (schizophrenia, kleptomania, etc) reframed in the context of the world as "delusions." The word "Geisteskranken" literally translates to illness of the spirit (it is the German word for mental illness). For reference: https://dict.leo.org/pages/addinfo/ad...

On my back-cover copy of the book the author's bio includes this note: "This novel grew out of the desire to write something outside of the normal tropes of fantasy, and his contemplation of rare mental disorders (like Cotard's Syndrome) in a fantasy context." The book up to where I am (page 110) frequently draws attention to characters' relative sanity/craziness/insanity. The book is certainly not a book "on" mental illness in a non-fictional sense, but it's working premise depends on a depiction (accurate or not) of mental illness in a fantasy setting. The title of the series, "Manifest Delusions," as well as frequent references to delusion, evoke mental illness/mentally ill people.

If I'm coming off as harsh, I do apologize. I don't mean to unfairly criticize you or anyone else for liking the book, or imply the author is not a good person. As I said initially, I'm also still reading the book and formulating my opinions. My reactions here have been reactions to my reading so far. It's possible the book will change my mind and I'll come back here and say that.

That said, I'm not sure what you think my preconceived notions are. I bought the book because it looked interesting about a month before it was chosen as a group read, so didn't come into it thinking I wouldn't enjoy it (I wouldn't have bothered if I thought that, as I don't always read the mod reads due to time constraints). My opinions and interpretations have been reactions to what is in the book, and my experiences reading it, as well as an effort on my part to clearly articulate to Rick what my issues were. My interpretation of the book and what the author was going for are based on my experience of reading the novel, as well as the author notes on the back and at the start of the book. I may be wrong about his intention. That does not invalidate my interpretation of the novel, but does indicate a disconnect, perhaps, between what he was aiming for, and my reading. My complaint is not chiefly about intent, but about execution. Regardless of intent, based on my reading (so far) of the novel, I think he could have done a better job of representing mental illness. By this I don't mean that nothing bad should be said about mental illness, or that bad shit doesn't/can't happen as a consequence of mental illness, but that the representations could be more multidimensional. As written, the depictions of mental illness in the book don't demonstrate to me that the author researched his subject in any great depth. For me that's a problem; for others it clearly isn't. If it turns out (as I read on) that mental illness is being used as a gimmick, that is what I am taking issue with.

My responses certainly weren't meant as an attack, but I felt compelled to respond to Rick (and it would have been rude not to reply), and that necessitated fleshing out and clarifying my position (something I didn't do in my initial comment). I didn't think I'd been rude anywhere, though I admit to responding in a snarky way myself to what seemed to be Rick's snarky tone. I was legitimately enjoying the conversation--I like to talk about books in depth, so it's exciting that someone also seemed to want to do this.

I'm glad you enjoyed the book. I don't know yet whether I will or not, though I suspect ultimately not. In my final review on the book/comment here, I probably also would have talked about what I liked (as I said in my initial comment, I think the idea has a lot of promise, which is why I originally bought the book in the first place). When I don't like a book, or have a major problem with it, however, I'd like to think I'm able to (civilly and honestly) still participate in the group conversations.


message 15: by Lancer, Warden of the Slums (new) - rated it 5 stars

Lancer (elancer) | 1667 comments Mod
I found the further you go in the series the delusions eventually go a long way towards the characterizations. You do get to see a much deeper picture of Stehlin, Bedeckt, and Wichtig, and their delusions go a long way towards this. After finding out more backstory I did not feel at all they were just slapped with a label and that was that.


message 16: by [deleted user] (new)

Hey folks,

I've been following along with great interest. First, let me say I am totally okay with people not liking my books. They aren't for everyone. And I'm not really looking to convince anyone that the book is good, or that they're missing something or wrong. So far, all of the criticism I've seen looks to be entirely valid.

There has been some discussion as to what my intentions were with the novel, and I thought there might be some interest in hearing what they were.

If I may back up a bit, start this story before the story starts...

...wavy flashback effects...

I didn't think this book would ever get published. I wrote it for a half dozen close friends. Back then (2009) I was completely unaware of self-publishing as an option. I used the German as a way to give it a dark feel, and to hide little Easter eggs. None of my friends speak German. I was lazy and used Google Translate for all the names, because why not. It wasn't like it was going to be published world-wide by some huge publisher. For the later books I found an actual live German to help with the names, but all those used in the first book were set in stone and so...

Anyway. Intentions. For me this book was never about insanity. The whole belief defines reality thing was a way to poke at our society, and the insane things every day normal absolutely sane people believe.

I was never trying to accurately depict insanity. I did some research, but what I found was that the outdated systems of defining insanity (and various delusions) were actually more interesting and useful to me as a story-teller. Most of what I used was interpretations of psychiatry from the 1920s through to the 40s. That's where I found the darkest, most messed up stuff.

To say my representation of delusional characters is dark and unfair to people with real delusions and mental health issues is absolutely fair. I was never trying to do that. The book came out of where I was at the time. I was in a bit of a dark place. I don't mean that in some huge dramatic way. I was kinda depressed, kinda lonely, and basically unhappy with what I was doing with my life. At the time I was reading a bunch of heroic fantasy and seeing people with washboard abs and great hair on the covers and thinking, where are all the ugly mean people? I wanted to write a book where everyone was bad, where no one learned from their experiences, and all the characters were...beyond redemption. I had the title before I wrote the first word. Those who've read the second book will likely have noticed the change in flavour. My life changed. My goals changed. I wanted to say something a little different, a little less bleak. Book three will be different again, all sunshine and puppy hugs. Okay. Not really.

Anyhoo. My sincere apologies if I've interrupted or overstepped.

Cheers!


message 17: by Alan (new) - rated it 3 stars

Alan | 158 comments Lancer wrote: "I found the further you go in the series the delusions eventually go a long way towards the characterizations. You do get to see a much deeper picture of Stehlin, Bedeckt, and Wichtig, and their de..."

That is good to know, and I'm happy to keep reading and give the book a fair shot as was my initial intention. I'm just also honest with myself that given the nature of what's bothering me I probably won't change my mind (happy to be proven wrong as I finish, however).


message 18: by Roger, Knight Radiant (new) - rated it 4 stars

Roger | 2031 comments Mod
Steve wrote: "Roger wrote: "Steve wrote: "Rick wrote: "Again, this is NOT MEANT as a realistic depiction of mental illness. You're looking for something that the book isn't trying to be, I think.

This is not a..."


Sounds good Steve, sorry if I seemed offended or harsh myself, I tell myself not to respond to people in the morning because I'm not what you would call a morning person and write things a bit less diplomatically than normal.

You definitely have some valid points, the way I read earlier made me think that you came in thinking the book was one thing and when it didn't turn out that way you unfairly judged it. I can see that you have put a lot of thought into what bothers you about it and I can definitely respect that. I apologize for getting a bit offended and responding before I had ingested my caffeine for the day.

Also, it's really nice to get the back story from Michael as well.


message 19: by Alan (new) - rated it 3 stars

Alan | 158 comments Michael wrote: "Hey folks,

I've been following along with great interest. First, let me say I am totally okay with people not liking my books. They aren't for everyone. And I'm not really looking to convince anyo..."


Hi, Michael!

Thank you for responding and taking and interest, as well as sharing the background of the novel. I'd have posted some questions in the Q&A if I'd thought it was still ongoing, but I was late reading all our bookclub books from July on, and thought I'd missed it.

Also, as a writer I know it sucks when people have negative things to say about something you've written, so kudos for being polite and considerate in your response. I didn't intend my criticisms to come off as harsh as they obviously did to other group members (and possibly you), and in a normal reviewing context I like to bring up pros and cons.

Firstly, thanks for being honest and genuine about the history of the series (the use of German, what your thought processes were while writing, etc). A lot of what you say confirms a lot of what I was sensing while reading. In the earliest chapters, and in the glossary, I was getting a lot of psychoanalytical vibes from the descriptions of mental illness, so the fact that you were looking at texts from the 20s and 40s makes sense of the impressions I was getting. I'm sympathetic to an interest in medicine and psychology from the period--aesthetically I was always fascinated by madhouses and that kind of thing (the sort of setting of shows like American Horror Story: Asylum, etc). There's a texture to those settings that attracts me on some base level, and I've also always enjoyed narratives that play with cognition, unreliable narration, and hallucination (e.g. Guy Maddin or David Lynch's movies). I'm also an academic specialist on monsters and the monstrous, and have therefore done a lot of research on how disabilities (mental or physical) have been been portrayed as monstrous historically (this was especially true

I don't think there's anything wrong with presenting mental illnesses from a "dark" perspective. I actually hate it when author's sugarcoat things or whitewash what are serious topics. I also really like your premise of asking what would happen if anyone's beliefs could physically shape reality, partly because it opens so many doors in a fantasy setting, but also because as commentary it works very well insofar as the argument can be made that it's true: beliefs do shape reality, the powerful do often demonstrate an ability to sway minds, to form large bodies of followers, etc. These are the things that made me pick up the book, and the fact that mental illness would also play a role seemed interesting as well (and I do think it's possible to combine the ideas, but if I'm honest, so far it's not working for me here).

The issue that I'm having is that, as writers, we can say that we don't aim or want to depict a given element of a story realistically, but when it comes to narrative elements that involve the experiential world of real people I feel there's an added responsibility to do justice to those experiences. This is not to say someone with no experience of their own can't write from a given perspective, or that you have to cater to the whims of every reader who has opinions about your depiction of a positionality, but does mean us thinking a bit harder about how our work fits into a larger body of literature. If I choose, of my own will and intent, to write from the perspective of a young black woman growing up in a poor neighbourhood (something entirely outside my knowledge base), and actively decide to portray that experience unrealistically, I do think there's a problem, and I would expect my story to bother the demographic I had chosen to use. Regardless of my intent when writing about poverty in a black neighbourhood, as a middle class white person uninterested in the realism of my portrayal, it's fairly likely I would accidentally write something racist, and that a reader would justifiably find my story racist. Simply because my intent was not to write something racist, would not make my work any less racist. I feel like you understand this, but I wanted to clarify for anyone reading with a more familiar example, what I was getting at with the distinction and relationship between intent and interpretation. I'm not one of these people who thinks intent doesn't matter at all (it does, to me), but interpretation and execution are equally important (and more so in some cases).

You mention that you found descriptions of illness from the 20s and 40s more useful for you as a storyteller, and I actually think that makes perfect sense, because the truth is that those descriptions are exactly what have informed pop culture understandings (and therefore also real world understandings) of mental illness since they were written. This is the popular image of what mental illness is, and although it has been shocking and fun and romanticized in media (largely TV), the truth is that misrepresentation has come at huge cost to real human beings. Either mental illness and the mentally ill are to be feared (neatly boxed and hermetically sealed away from a public that does not wish to be contaminated), fall into a range of cute tropes that allow neurotypical people to feel good about themselves, or are simply dismissed as not having real medical conditions at all. You don't have to delve deep into a facebook feed to find someone arguing that mental illness isn't real, for instance, and just this last New Years, my best friend's mother called her up on New Year's Day not to wish her good tidings, but to tell her her depression was all in her head and that she should stop taking her (much needed) medication because it makes her gain weight. I suspect you're very sympathetic, since you were open and kind enough to mention your own depression, and my point here is not to tell sob stories, etc, but to demonstrate that fictional explorations of mental illness are not isolated from their real-world counterparts. It doesn't matter that the exploration is fictional, because it engages with and presupposes a public memory and understanding of what mental illness/insanity is. This doesn't mean you can't/shouldn't construct a world in which the context of the world requires that the characters believe in a 20s-40s understanding of mental illness, but an honest approach would acknowledge through POV (supposing one or more POV characters with mental illness), would poke holes in that same 20s-40s understanding. The troubling of a pat understanding of mental illness would, in this instance, not be in service to a supposed social justice cause or anything like that, but because writing that positionality honestly would require it of the author.

Anyway, I'm sorry to have rambled on, especially as I get the impression you do understand where I'm coming from, and what my complaints were (I'm not trying to belabour my points, but I probably have). You seem like a very cool person, and I'm honestly very humbled and excited that you responded the way you did and that your writing and approach have clearly developed alongside you. I would encourage you not to shy away from difficult subject matter, or to avoid the dark side of the topics you write about (mental illness or otherwise). Don't read my criticisms as me saying you can't or shouldn't write about this stuff. More people should write and read about this kind of thing. There's just a broader social context that makes research more important when writing about certain topics.

I have been enjoying other aspects of the book, and I get being in a dark place and being frustrated by all the perfect characters and stories on bookshelves. I rant about this frequently, as my partner can attest. I suspect in 2009 I probably also wouldn't have bothered to research too much into writing a schizophrenic character, and despite being an academic and actively loving research, I sometimes have to force myself to do it.

Thanks so much for your time, and responding! I really do appreciate it.


message 20: by Alan (last edited Aug 31, 2018 09:08AM) (new) - rated it 3 stars

Alan | 158 comments Roger wrote: "Steve wrote: "Roger wrote: "Steve wrote: "Rick wrote: "Again, this is NOT MEANT as a realistic depiction of mental illness. You're looking for something that the book isn't trying to be, I think.
..."


No worries! I understand what it's like having a gut reaction to someone's criticism of something you love, and to be clear I don't disparage you or anyone else for loving the book, or Fletcher for writing it. Despite what turned into a larger discussion here of an (admittedly major) issue I've had with it so far, I do actually think the writing is good, and am enjoying other aspects of the story.

Lancer's comment about the second book, as well as the author's own comments about future installments encouraged me to perhaps read on even if I'm lukewarm about this one. I do feel the premise is interesting, which is why I bought it.

I don't mean to be super negative, but in trying to properly communicate my position it possibly came off that way. I enjoy critical engagement with whatever media I'm reading/watching, but by critical I don't necessarily mean "negative," and I'm sorry also if anything I've written here has come off that way.

EDIT:

I do also want to say I legitimately feel like it's important to support and encourage people who aren't assholes, and who own their mistakes, etc. A lot of authors wouldn't have responded as diplomatically and intelligently to criticism, and I'm super impressed. I hope one day if I'm ever published and someone writes something similar about an element of my work that I'm a fraction as composed and receptive.


message 21: by Cupcakes & Machetes, Hybrid Creature (new) - rated it 5 stars

Cupcakes & Machetes (hybridcreature) | 885 comments Mod
Just going to add in here that the Q&A section is never really closed so long as the author is still willing to answer questions beyond the date we set. :)


message 22: by [deleted user] (new)

Cupcakes & Machetes wrote: "Just going to add in here that the Q&A section is never really closed so long as the author is still willing to answer questions beyond the date we set. :)"

I'm basically always around. Any time I get notified of a question I'll pop in, and folks are welcome to message me at any time.

Cheers!


message 23: by [deleted user] (new)

Steve wrote: "Roger wrote: "Steve wrote: "Roger wrote: "Steve wrote: "Rick wrote: "Again, this is NOT MEANT as a realistic depiction of mental illness. You're looking for something that the book isn't trying to ..."

Like most writers I waded through a ton of rejection and criticism before becoming published. It thickens the skin a bit.

Any time I see something that might ruffle my feathers, I try and step back, remove the emotion, and see what they're trying to say. It's rare that people are attacking you just to be mean. And when it does happen, you get to happily ignore them and go on with your life because who has time for that?


message 24: by Lancer, Warden of the Slums (new) - rated it 5 stars

Lancer (elancer) | 1667 comments Mod
Roger, can I start referring to your morning comments as someone getting "Rogered"?

It has such a nice ring to it.

Like, "ooooh snap! You just got Rogered!"

Sorry, sometimes I have too much time on my hands.


message 25: by Lancer, Warden of the Slums (new) - rated it 5 stars

Lancer (elancer) | 1667 comments Mod
"Rogified" was a close second.


message 26: by Lancer, Warden of the Slums (new) - rated it 5 stars

Lancer (elancer) | 1667 comments Mod
"Roginated" could work as well.


message 27: by Lancer, Warden of the Slums (new) - rated it 5 stars

Lancer (elancer) | 1667 comments Mod
This one just came to me, "Rogerized"


message 28: by Alan (new) - rated it 3 stars

Alan | 158 comments Cupcakes & Machetes wrote: "Just going to add in here that the Q&A section is never really closed so long as the author is still willing to answer questions beyond the date we set. :)"

That's good to know, as I'll likely be reading The Court of Broken Knives a little later than would be ideal (just because I have so much on my plate reading-wise). I'm looking forward to it, but want to have finished the book before asking questions (otherwise my questions are likely to be fairly generic, haha).


message 29: by Roger, Knight Radiant (new) - rated it 4 stars

Roger | 2031 comments Mod
Lancer wrote: "Roger, can I start referring to your morning comments as someone getting "Rogered"?

It has such a nice ring to it.

Like, "ooooh snap! You just got Rogered!"

Sorry, sometimes I have too much ti..."


That's funny because a guy at work already uses that term :) Though he uses it as a term for lying because one time I was wrong about my office building having a fire drill, one time!


back to top