Terminalcoffee discussion
note: This topic has been closed to new comments.
Feeling Nostalgic? The archives
>
Suitably Sunday and a Vote Whore/Code Violation WARNING
LOLOLOL so eloquent in your silence. How do you get it to send blank? I can't make it do it
There you go. You figured it out all by yourself.
Sorry, Stephen. I haven't read any Murakami. And going after votes like this is beneath you, in my opinion.
Votes have no intrinsic value if they are sought.
I voted, but I genuinely thought the review was good...you didn't have to whore for votes, Stephen.I'm surprised Jackie hasn't read Murakami, by the way.
I don't disparage Stephen for asking for votes, though. I thought it was a good review, too.
Sorry. It's just that after the whole "Gary" thing, asking for votes leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Heh...I forgot about Gary already.
What? going after votes like this is beneath me? Why? What standard have I offended? If there is some code I need to know it.
Stephen, there's nothing wrong with enjoying people voting for your review, and even asking for people to check your review out. But there's been so much competition and weirdness about asking for votes recently, that it bugs me now. There's a vibe of desperation to it, I guess.
It's just me, though, so do what you want to do.
I think Jackie was trying to compliment you. Like saying you don't need to ask for votes because people would vote for you anyway.
RandomAnthony wrote: "I think Jackie was trying to compliment you. Like saying you don't need to ask for votes because people would vote for you anyway."They would, Stephen.
Well folks the second post I made this morning was a joyous peal of bells on youtube from St. Pauls London. That -- I thought -- and my language about vote whoring, was an indication of my high spirits, and general playful mood.All I really want is analysis of the review, and so far, no one has done that. I don't give a who-ahh if someone likes or hates the book, how was the review written. That's what matters to me.
Heh. How many words would suffice, Stevie? Man, I like your review, Stephen, but I barely find time to write my own reviews. I still have to write one for For Whom The Bell Tolls....and when it starts to feel like homework, bleh. So I would probably say don't take it personally when people don't write a ton on your reviews. Take the votes:)
And there you have it. Stevie? Jackie Librarian? I'm not mad for pete sake.
RA, it is homework. You assignment tonight is to review ten reviews of Twilight.
Folks, when I speak my mind I use the words of "speaking ones mind." When I'm mad I cuss.
It's all good, Stephen. We'll keep an eye out for the cussin'. :)
Like, Catholic cussin' or real cussin'?:)
Blue streak cussin'?
What exactly is Catholic Cussin? I mean down home, Texas redneck moved to Kentucky style cussin. I often use acronyms. My father was famous for saying GDSOB so fast you couldn't make out the individual words. Really it was all one word. So you will know.
The Gary thing. Yes, that was a real fiasco.
Stephen wrote: "The Gary thing. Yes, that was a real fiasco."So you understand. Good.
Catholic cussin' is, like, saying "oh darn..." So acronyms would work.
RandomAnthony wrote: "I think Jackie was trying to compliment you. Like saying you don't need to ask for votes because people would vote for you anyway."Great, now I feel guilty. Ok I'm done with guilty. LOL
As far as your review, I thought it was great. I really liked how you tied some of Murukami's storytelling to parallels in classic literature. My background in that area is pretty weak whereas you are well versed in that area, so that was my favorite part.Personally speaking, I think the secret to the reviews is that there is no secret. When I first joined this site I tried to write straight-forward, New York Times sounding reviews. They sucked and I cringe whenever I stumble across one of those. The day of liberation came when I noticed that the words above the little textbox say "Your Review/What this book meant to you." Usually if the book has inspired something within you then the review is going to be pretty good no matter what. Those of mine that seem to have been the most well liked by friends are the ones that include some personal detail about my life as it relates to the book, but this too can become an annoying shtick if overused. So...uh...yeah, there's my two cents.
Lots of people lots of choices.Well said.
Yep. My reviews are coming from a librarian/book talk point of view, occasionally mixed with giddiness or sarcasm. They've become more conversational, and I think they've gotten way better since I joined Goodreads in their readability, too.
Exactly. I was angry because I felt -- well I said it all. Never mind. lol
Larry wrote: "I would vote for that comment."I would too.
It's allowable to get angry, guy. It's on the title page of the group.
OH, I meant I was angry in the review. I felt Murakami has sold me out. Orpheus failed, fine, but at least tell me why and how? But speaking of incredible reviews, have you read David's of the The Immigrants? It is pure art. At least in my estimation. http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...
Let it out, Stephen. We're here for you. :)
Jackie "the Librarian" wrote: "Let it out, Stephen. We're here for you. :)"Unless we aren't. Here, I mean.
Sometimes there are danishes to eat, and we have to go, it's true.
Or chocolate croissants.
This topic has been frozen by the moderator. No new comments can be posted.
BUT what I really want from all of you is not how I got it wrong about Murakami, but how to write better reviews. So have at it. No ad hominem attacks or I'll "let loose the dogs of war"
So, I'll be at church, because that is my job after all, and I'll be back here to read my own vivisection. Be kind if you can, but if you can't, at least be fair.
Smooooooooooochie!