Chaos Reading discussion
Books & Reading In General
>
Pet hates (for grumpy old gits)
I read the LOTR more than a decade ago, and I recall being fond of Tom Bombadil... Maybe the portuguese translation was soft on the "tiddle-de-tiddle". :PAll this pent up anger encourages me to go at it again, and its about time I reread the whole thing and see what my grown up self feels about the series! I think I'll read the original this time. :D
Elise wrote: "'Literature - written works, especially those considered of superior or lasting artistic merit'"It may be vague but it's actually a very good definition, because it goes right to my hatred of 'literature'. If a work is 'considered of superior ... merit', then there has to be someone doing the 'considering', and I really hate letting somebody else tell me what has merit.
So a more precise definition would be "...especially those which have been rated 5-stars by Derek on Goodreads.com"!
In Tolkien's defense, I'll suggest he was married to a cardboard cutout. How he actually managed to have children, I'm not sure. Yes, Bombadil really does have a purpose, but I think he's mostly one of those pieces of Middle Earth that existed in Tolkien's mind long before LOTR was completed, and Tolkien never quite managed to make him fit. I could dig up a dozen reasons why he belongs in Middle Earth, from rec.books.tolkien, but I've read LOTR at least a dozen times, and I still don't like Bombadil.
Derek wrote: "Elise wrote: "'Literature - written works, especially those considered of superior or lasting artistic merit'"It may be vague but it's actually a very good definition, because it goes right to m..."
(Oh dear, I think I'm about to get back on my high horse! The one I climbed off this morning.)
I do hate the sort of book snobbery that labelling something as "good literature" represents. OK, I do read a fair amount of "classics", but that's because I like them. I also read an awful lot of things that book-snobs would dismiss as complete trash - I like them too.
I get that there is a "canon" of "literature" out there and that most of it is good to read (with some major exceptions, in my opinion) - fair enough, but the academics who somehow have the privilege to define such things are unbelievably narrow minded about most "genre" books - some of which are every bit as well written as "THE CANON".
They are all just damned books, just because that one was written by a nineteenth century French academic, does not automatically make it good! Most books deserve interest taken in them and intelligent discussions about them, but they do NOT deserve reverence.
...you know, I'm not really an angry person, I just write angry really really well...
Mod
I have quite a few of these, but to be fair to myself, they're mostly books I read before I joined Goodreads. No way I'm going back and writing a few hundred reviews. I also don't feel qualified given the amount of time that had passed for most of them. For some others, they're popular reads that already have hundreds of reviews, I'm not sure one more person needs to weigh in on how much fun a Terry Pratchett novel is.
Whitney wrote: "No way I'm going back and writing a few hundred reviews. I also don't feel qualified given the amount of time that had passed for most of them. For some others, they're popular reads that already have hundreds of reviews, I'm not sure one more person needs to weigh in on how much fun a Terry Pratchett novel is."Ditto on all counts.
Regarding LOTR, I've somehow never read it. I keep meaning to get around to the books, and I'm sure I will one day, but I'm fully expecting to not like them that much.
Jim wrote: "I hate the one star reviews that don't say why. I always assume those are political votes (i.e. people who have a grudge against the author or are aspiring writers voting others down).Now I'm going to hang my head in shame and go see how many books I've rated without writing a review. "
To be fair, GoodReads doesn't ask us to rate books with any particular intent. There are people who rate books purely for their own use — I've even heard of one person who rates books as 1 - Absolutely the best and 5 - Ugh. Personally, I think that sort of contrarian system is disrespecting the rest of us, and they should have the decency to make their profiles completely private so that we never come across them. But that's just me.
I certainly don't think anybody is bound, either by GR policy or personal ethics to provide any sort of review along with a rating. Generally, if I rate something with a 1, 4 or 5, I'll write a review. 2s & 3s, I might, but there are 3s that I'll read voraciously (generally mystery series) that I'll never bother with a review - or particularly for series, I'll write one review for an early volume, and never write another unless it somehow breaks the mold.
Elise wrote: "I think that most UK bookshops actually do OK on splitting up books by genre/department. I can't think we usually have a "literature" section:"Literature - written works, especially those consid..."
Elise wrote: "I think that most UK bookshops actually do OK on splitting up books by genre/department. I can't think we usually have a "literature" section:
"Literature - written works, especially those consid..."
Well, I wish twe had a horror section, its all "young adult' science fiction and fiction/literature.I mean, it makes no sense. And I like our indie store....its mostly used books,whicj is a good thing and they are happy to order books as well.
Mod
..."
GR tells you what the star ratings are supposed to represent, just as in any set of indicators (or proxies). And, as in every survey since the dawn of time, there is always the odd drama queen who thinks that making up their own rating system is somehow making some sort of statement. As if they expect that somebody actually goes through each rating for each book to see what each rating meant to that individual reviewer. All that's doing is (slightly) widening the margin of error for an already imprecise measurement tool. And, as you say, disrespecting those of us who understand basic self-reporting tools!
Wow. That felt good. Those bastard real estate agents who tried to scam me today have no idea the level of white hot rage they've unleashed.....
Ruby wrote: "GR tells you what the star ratings are supposed to represent..."Yes, but those ratings are only loosely intended for other users. We are free, with GR's blessing, to rate books purely for our own use. Now, if I really was doing it just for myself, I wouldn't have 5 stars - I'd use three: never read another book by this author, look for other books by this author, reread THIS book.
Elise wrote: "Whitney wrote: "Elise wrote: "I don't like characters that serve no purpose and sit there making pointless gnomic utterances (especially in verse, as well as going "twiddle-de-fol-de-rol", or whate..."SO pleased with myself! Have just had a lightbulb over the head moment. All of my feelings of violence towards Tom Bombadil and his tarradiddle are simply caused by him being very very drunk all of the time - or even more likely stoned as well. He and Goldberry are growing some interesting "herbs" and/or fungi round the back of his little house in the woods - and they have a still in a shed out back too. Of course! It all makes sense now!
Whitney wrote: "I have quite a few of these, but to be fair to myself, they're mostly books I read before I joined Goodreads. No way I'm going back and writing a few hundred reviews. I also don't feel qualified given the amount of time that had passed for most of them. For some others, they're popular reads that already have hundreds of reviews, I'm not sure one more person needs to weigh in on how much fun a Terry Pratchett novel is."That's my situation: When I joined, I simply added books to my shelves with the star ratings. It wasn't until several months later that I started writing reviews, and while some of my books are old friends that I will reread (and, presumably, then write a review... except for Terry Pratchett--he doesn't need my help), I have nowhere near the needed time and energy to go back and read, then write reviews for them all. (And, yes, I will have to reread the books because there's no way I'll be able to write them strictly from memory. It's about as leaky as a sieve at this point.)
Ron wrote: "All right, enough about semicolons. Lately the circumflex has begun to get up my nose. Easily the most irritating of all diacritical marks."In English? Seriously?
I can see how it would get up your nose - it's kind of shaped like a nose plug. But hôw woûld ŷou ever use one in English?
Mod
In English? Seriously?..."
I'd also like to hear how the circumflex has come to plague your life. How does one abuse the circumflex?
Derek wrote: "I can see how it would get up your nose - it's kind of shaped like a nose plug"LOL!
We use it alot in portuguese, but I don't see how it can be abused - its like a letter, it either is part of the word or it isn't - we make no choice to use it or not :P
I like the way it looks though, like a little hat ^^
EDIT: And there, finishing my last phrase, I understood. LOL again!
It doesn't seem to be the circumflex, but the caret to which Ron is referring. At least in my understanding, the circumflex is used in combination with letters, whereas the caret is used by itself.
Ron wrote: "But enough of my tiresome maundering."Tiresome? I had a laugh from these last few comments, thanks! :D
Mod
That second paragraph however was in deadly earnest. And thus deadly dul..."
Oh, thank God! In a world where a movie review can set off a chain of death threats, it's not always easy to tell when a rant is in jest, especially when you don't know the person involved.
For the second paragraph, it would be hard to disagree about the growth of crappy and formulaic writing, mainly due to the ease of self-publishing. While I've no doubt the percentage of good writing has gone down, I do wonder if the total amount of good writing being published has actually decreased or if it is just being overshadowed by the sheer volume of garbage. I don't read enough new fiction each year to be able to say, but I've never had trouble finding quality new books.
Ron wrote: "Derek wrote: "Seriously?"Er, no. The circumflex-shape/up-the-bracket connection was intended. Just a bit of fun you know.
That second paragraph however was in deadly earnest. And thus deadly dul..."
Well, so I suspected, but as Whitney noted, you cân never têll. (Sorry, I'm just having so much fun using circumflexes, knowing how much it irks some).
But, yeah, it was far more interesting to deal with the circumflex issue, because there's nothing to argue with about the self-involved wittering.
No, Whitney, I don't think the total amount of good writing is decreasing - you've got to figure there was good writing happening in earlier days, that never got published. Now that anybody can publish anything, all of that should actually be available, and since there's an ever increasing number of authors, the actual quantity of good stuff has to be increasing. It's just so hard to find it in the midst of the crap, which as always, increases faster.
This might be a little controversial but I thought I'd throw it in anyway and see what others think.Personally, I find the price of some books quite annoying and the attitude of some authors when people turn to other sources in order to acquire a particular read (ie, the internet).
First off though - the price. On the one hand I fully understand why books are the price they are. *Most* authors work very hard on their works and of course deserve to be paid well for it. However, let me give you a little back story to present my case. I come from a single parent, working class family. My parent worked a low income job so we didn't used to have much money. I've loved reading my entire life but as quite a few books are expensive (to us) I usually resorted going to the library and only generally received books for birthdays or other holidays. I am still so passionate about reading and I love it to bits. But I'm in a difficult position. I've been unemployed for the past 2 years and trying very hard to get a job (which isn't too easy in the current market). I get next to no help from the government and have to make do living off of just over £50 a week. Say, for instance, I buy 2 or 3 books a month... that's already around £15 gone. In a weekly basis, the sacrifice of £5 for a book that should really be spent on food or bills, can prove to be substantial in the long run. Libraries in this end of London are awful... hence why I don't go to them anymore.
In terms of the author thing, I recently read a semi-debate between I *think* Neil Gaiman and one other author. The other author reacted quite aggressively to the fact that one of their books had been pirated on the internet and people were downloading it for free. However, Gaiman presented the arguments that a) reading should not only be accessible to the rich. Everybody deserves the opportunity to delve into the deep riches of books. and b) torrenting can sometimes prove beneficial. He even backed this up with his own evidence of releasing a book for free (as an ebook I believe) and after that his sales actually increased rather than decreased (which was the reason the other author was so anti-torrenting). This is especially true in my case - I once torrented a version of a book and I loved it so much that I was lucky enough for my partner to buy me 4 of the authors books for my birthday, which I otherwise would never have been able to afford, and probably would never have read the authors works otherwise!
I really admire Gaiman for putting those points across, and 'reading is not just for the rich' has always stuck with me.
I've rambled on a bit too much, apologies. But yes..those are my peeves!
Jack wrote: "This might be a little controversial but I thought I'd throw it in anyway and see what others think.Personally, I find the price of some books quite annoying and the attitude of some authors when..."
Yes. I just checked out I'm Starved for You $2.80+ for a 60 page e-book. Not impressed.
I don't know if Neil Gaiman said all that, but Cory Doctorow certainly did :-) (In the preface to every one of his books, I think)
Funny - I could've [sic - see further...] sworn somebody here complained about the use of "should of" when the writer meant "should have". I just came across the following in Voices by Arnaldur Indridason:"...though I've seen more of him than I should of."
"Should have," Erlendur corrected her.
"What?"
"You're supposed to say 'should have', not 'should of'."
She gave him a pitying look.
What I love about this is that the book was written in Icelandic. What on Earth was the original???
I do not like dust covers or paper covers on hard cover books, so annoying and flimsy.
I, even as a child, never liked bookmarks, and especially dog ears on pages.
When authors rate their own books,you like it<--otherwise you woudn't of gone through the trouble of publishing it.
I dislike that my town no longer has book stores
I, even as a child, never liked bookmarks, and especially dog ears on pages.
When authors rate their own books,you like it<--otherwise you woudn't of gone through the trouble of publishing it.
I dislike that my town no longer has book stores
I think I hate e-books. For example:I despise this e-book (it could be any e-book). But give me the paperback, and it would be okay. I swear to you it would. What the hell is wrong with this thing? (The thing, being my e-reader. I think it's possessed.)
I'm not even sure if this complaint belongs here. My apologies, in advance. But I just had to say it. I think I hate e-books. Actually, no. I'm sure I do.
Ashley wrote: "I think I hate e-books. For example:I despise this e-book (it could be any e-book). But give me the paperback, and it would be okay. I swear to you it would. What the hell is wrong with this thing..."
I rather like mine (e-reader, for one, my eyes are now old and the extra ligh helps. But it is frustrating when the pages won;t turn or they jump ahead 200 pages and you can't easliy find your way back...And then the battery dies at a most important part of the story without fail and your never close to a plug!!So maybe sometimes I like mine...sometimes I don't.
I also love books and reading. I don't think that will ever change. I just can't seem to get that connection with a book through an electronic device like I can with the actual book in my hands. Maybe it's just me!
Mod
I told a friend one of the reasons I like the ereader is that I can search the text and easily find a scene I want to refer back to. My ereader disliking friend said she can more easily flip back in a physical book to where the scene took place (which I can never do). Is this anyone else's experience?
Mod
But there are some books that HAVE to be read in hardcopy, like House of Leaves or Scorch Atlas.
Mod
Anything that uses the form of a book as part of the experience for sure - the ones you mentioned, also Pale Fire, most of David Foster Wallace, Pat the Bunny, etc. Most reference books are useless on the basic ereaders, and anything with maps or extensive appendices suffers a little. The last was the major drawback to e-reading Game of Thrones, but being able to search for minor characters who appeared 500 pages (or two books) past made up for it for me.
People use books like the above as reasons why the ereaders are somehow wrong. I just don't understand the level of vitriol that gets applied. It's not one or the other. Illuminated manuscripts handwritten on vellum are great, but that doesn't make the printing press the tool of Satan. (Unless maybe Satan has been using a printing press to put out propaganda. Then I suppose a case could be made, at least for that particular printing press.)
Whitney wrote: "Illuminated manuscripts handwritten on vellum are great, but that doesn't make the printing press the tool of Satan. (Unless maybe Satan has been using a printing press to put out propaganda."LOL. I can see it now, circa 1480, William Caxton visiting a fellow printer:
Fellow: "This printing press is the tool of Satan."
Caxton: "Not at all, I'm doing God's work."
Fellow: "No, THIS printing press is the tool of Satan. He came here last week and ordered 2000 copies of an Anti-Gospel."
Mod
Caxton: "Not at all, I'm doing God's work."
Fellow: "No, THIS printing press is the tool of Satan. He came here last week and ordered 2000 copies of an Anti-Gospel." ..."
Bahaha!
Derek wrote: "Whitney wrote: "Illuminated manuscripts handwritten on vellum are great, but that doesn't make the printing press the tool of Satan. (Unless maybe Satan has been using a printing press to put out p..."That is great!!!
Jack wrote: "This might be a little controversial but I thought I'd throw it in anyway and see what others think.Personally, I find the price of some books quite annoying and the attitude of some authors when..."
On the subject of free ebooks. Wonderfully successful as Mr Gaiman is I am afraid he missed an extremely important point when he argued about free ebooks being good for sales.
He missed the point that he was famous already when he put his book out as a free copy.
When a famous author puts a free ebook out there - people flock to it and read it avidly. People who have previously been 'thinking' of buying one of his books - bite the bullet and download it and immediately start reading it - Oh ho! they think to themselves This is a bargain - I shall go and buy another of these or request them from the library.
Mr Gaiman sees a peak in sales. Yahoo for Mr Gaiman! And trumpets and drum rolls and a little bit of ukelele as well because we know he likes that sort of thing.
But when an unknown writer releases a free book/or their book is found wandering unprotected and vulnerable online -here's what happens:
Either it gets ignored completely. Or if it is a really good book people tell each other about it or share it in various places and it gets downloaded in large quantities.
Wonderful you think, Just as the brilliant Mr Gaiman foretold. Now all manner of great things shall happen and the writer will get their just reward.
Sadly not :( The large quantities of free downloads sit on people's ebooks along with the other gazillions of copies of other free downloads waiting To Be Read. Except of course there is a gnat's chance in the proverbial hot place run by the previously commented upon pointy-horned host that this particular book will be chosen from amongst the others to be plucked from the obscurity of the TBR list EVER let alone some time soon.
In the meantime the person who might have been prompted to buy the work at a moderate to cheap price has not done so and never will. Vast swathes of readers who equate the free unknown-author lists as some sort of tacit declaration that their work is crap and therefore nobody would ever spend money on it - avoid it like the plague.
A potentially successful book can thus be doomed to failure.
I would say that while reading should not be restricted to the rich neither should being a writer be restricted to the rich. The rich and successful can afford to give stuff away for free and it works but the starter-outers don't find it works that way in general.
As for libraries being dreadful - the way to get them to improve is to use their services and complain. Go there - demand what you want and make a fuss until you get it.
Libraries are a valuable and important facility - if you genuinely believe in free reading for all - then you should be fighting to improve and save these services - not abandoning them and then trying to turn the commercial world into a library because that feels more convenient.
Libraries these days allow ebook lending - it is not the best or easiest system but they are in early days of that service. Become involved - help them improve.
The services are there, the mechanisms are there. Use it or lose it - as someone much cleverer than me once said.
Oh and sorry for this massive long rant - but I misread the title of this thread and the disappointment wound me up a bit.
I thought it said, "Pet Hats (for grumpy old gits)" and was looking forward to a whimsical link to such delights as these baby platypuses in fedoras
http://pinterest.com/pin/249386898086...
Hi Michele,Really interesting point about free books. I never thought of it like that. It is a shame how often a free book gets downloaded but never read.
Mark wrote: "A. wrote: "Books where the text is just too bloody small to read.Like Atlas Shrugged, which I bought without looking inside. When I opened the book to start it, I couldn't believe that the type w..."
OMG, yes. And along with small type, there's italics. One of the stupidest things I've ever seen is "large print" books, with italics. Publishers! Can't you figure it out? We get the LP books because we're trying to pretend we don't need reading glasses. Italics defeat the whole purpose.
Let us not forget the practice of "sharing copyrighted material" with friends...thus making sure the the author doesn't even get the pittance he might have made from a low priced E-book.
Mod
By 'sharing copyrighted material with friends' you mean 'loaning someone a book'?
No I mean providing pirated copies of E-books. When you buy a physical book it's yous as is anything else and we all do it. But to buy an E-book or worse get a pirated copy and then provide other pirated copies is theft. Like with music or business software or whatever, if the people doing the original work don't get paid the original work will eventually be just hobby.
Michele wrote: "..."Well, really, I have to disagree with practically all of that. I can't say it nearly as well as Cory Doctorow, so rather than explain why it's all wrong, just download one of his books and read his preface. Any one of them I think. And feel free - he encourages it. I downloaded Pirate Cinema last week - it takes a little searching, because his publisher certainly doesn't encourage it, but it's easy enough to find.
But the biggest way I think you're wrong Michelle is that you say this works for famous authors like Neil Gaiman. Doctorow was doing this long before he was famous. It doesn't matter that most e-downloads go unread (mine don't - though I do still have a few, including Pirate Cinema, unread), most books that authors try to sell through conventional publishing end up unread, too - and worse, they end up completely unreadable, because they never see the light of day. If your book is good, and you get it out there, you've already won half the battle.
Baen Publishing makes a large number of their books available for free download - they believe it increases sales. I'm actually disappointed that almost all of their authors _are_ well known (at least to me), because I'd read any one of their authors even if I'd never heard of them. Their trick is that they mostly give away book one of a set. Set the hook, then reel in the readers.
As for the "pittance" an author might make from a low-priced e-book, it's often better than he'd get from a high-priced paper book. And really, most people don't pirate books or music, and those who do are often the people who spend the most on the legitimate items.
A. wrote: "Books where the text is just too bloody small to read.Like Atlas Shrugged, which I bought without looking inside. When I opened the book to start it, I couldn't believe that the type was so small..."
I too hate the very small print! I mean I know my sight isn;t great, I wear glasses, but why shold I have to resort to additional help when reading. Its supposed to be enjoyable!!
Celebrity reviews that describe a sub standard book in glowing terms as in, greatest ever, saved my life, massive achievement. Especially if I believe them and buy the book. While I'm on this topic of reviews, I know this was a movie but can anyone tell me what The Tree of Life was supposed to be about??
Mod
I never believe a blurb from a writer on another writer's book, I think they're just too sympathetic to not give a good review. Plus I suspect their publisher asks them for a blurb half the time.
I know this was a movie but can anyone tell me what The Tree of Life was supposed to be about??.."
Nature and Grace :-) Did you watch this in a theater? Not a movie that can be fully appreciated on DVD.
We need to get away from this crazy idea that eBooks are expensive. A $10 eBook provides 24 hours of entertainment. A great thing about the internet is that a lot of cool stuff is free but writers have got to eat. I just dropped one of my eBooks from $8.06 to $4.99, but I will not go any lower unless I am trying to promote a new release and then it will not be less than $2.99. Free is just plain ridiculous but I would rather do that than 99 cents or $1.99.
Mod
Look at this site, where the writer tries to analyze cost vs revenue for ebooks. He acknowledges the limitations of his methods, but it is the best attempt I've yet seen to try and put some numbers to the debate. In short, the cost of putting out an ebook is essentially fixed, unlike traditional publishing where it changes based on units printed and sold. So if you sell 5,000 ebooks at $1.99, you will make more money than if you sell 2,000 at $3.99. At the lower price, you are more likely to get the casual purchasers who are willing to take a chance on an unknown. It's really a question of finding the best location on the units sold vs price curve.
http://www.evilgeniuschronicles.org/w...
Bernie wrote: "A $10 eBook provides 24 hours of entertainment."That's pretty questionable. Most people who actually buy books read fairly well. I go through page-turners at 30 seconds a page. Serious books at 1 minute per page. Ones that really make me think might take two minutes per page.
There's no doubt that a $10 book is better value than going to the movies, the pub, or buying a pack of cigarettes, but I don't get 24 hours of entertainment out of very many books.
Whitney wrote: "It's really a question of finding the best location on the units sold vs price curve."
And for an author you don't know, who nobody on GoodReads has ever rated, I'd bet on the low end of the curve. I note from the article that once the author had firmly established sales, he raised his prices.
I had initially thought that it would be difficult to do a randomized study to establish the most profitable price-point, but evilgenius has that covered.
Derek wrote: "Bernie wrote: "A $10 eBook provides 24 hours of entertainment."That's pretty questionable. Most people who actually buy books read fairly well. I go through page-turners at 30 seconds a page. Ser..."
Exactly what I was thinking. Really curious where Bernie's getting this 24-hour figure from... that would be one long book for me.
Derek wrote: "And for an author you don't know, who nobody on GoodReads has ever rated, I'd bet on the low end of the curve. I note from the article that once the author had firmly established sales, he raised his prices."
An author who I don't know, who has zero ratings or reviews on GR, and who uses his first post in a group to gripe about readers not valuing books highly enough... very low.
Maybe that was snarky, but this is the pet hates thread.
Mod
To be fair, I think the first post was to denigrate Ruby's Kindle selection. It was the second post that griped about readers not valuing books highly enough :-)
It is not a gripe. It is a reasoned argument and if you halve it to 12 hours,400 pages @ 2 pages a minute, the argument holds. But few people read a good novel in less than a day. And I did not denigrate Ruby's selection. I thought Ruby may have selected Slaughterhouse 5 on its title and might not like it. But then again she might. I was laying out the book. You people certainly know how to make someone feel welcome.Reminds me of the tweeter who said "Who the hell are you?" about Mo Yan winning the Nobel Prize. As if he could not be any good because the tweeter had never heard of him. Let's keep the personal insults out of this. Anyone can find out who Mo Yan is, or indeed who I am.
Chaos Reading
Books mentioned in this topic
City of Saints and Madmen (other topics)A Song of Ice and Fire (other topics)
The Eye of the World (other topics)
A Game of Thrones (other topics)
The Great Hunt (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Sidney Sheldon (other topics)Robert B. Parker (other topics)
Guy Gavriel Kay (other topics)
Terry Goodkind (other topics)
Brandon Sanderson (other topics)
More...
I actually quite like the book (3*), (no matter how my irritation yesterday may have appeared otherwise), I just get VERY annoyed with that one particular section (which crystallises my other slight annoyances into something a lot more... vitriolic) and I really find it irritating that the most hard-core aficionados seem to see it as some sort of inviolable uncriticisable sacred text.
It's a decent quest narrative with a beautifully realised world (so well realised that it takes something from other aspects of the book, in my opinion, but still beautifully done). The lack of women is, I suppose, better than him having shoe-horned women in, if he couldn't write them well - which he probably couldn't, given how totally male-dominated/orientated his life was.
...and just occasionally I don't rant - wow!