New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

6Moons .... - Page 4

post #46 of 68

I can't say I have read many of their reviews.  Frankly I am more interested in the consumer reviews and assessments on sites like Head-fi. Most professional reviews are based on fairly short times with equipment.  The consumers on the other hand live with the stuff for a long time and will often spot problems or advantages that the short trem user can't.

 

I can relate to where the consumer is coming from, they want the best they can get for their hard-earned dollars.  As some others have noted already,  with professional reviews there is often an overlay of journalistic culture, one upsmanship, clever writing etc. which hampers the review. 

post #47 of 68

Good writing is writing that has the intended impact. Bad writing is writing which fails to have the intended impact. Just like art, the meaning is in the mind of the viewer, not the creator.

 

The advertiser-reviewer relationship is a classic problem in most industries. That's why you see push for independent review sources (Consumer Reports) and for objective measurements.

post #48 of 68

 

WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! 


Good writing is writing that has the intended impact. Bad writing is writing which fails to have the intended impact. Just like art, the meaning is in the mind of the viewer, not the creator.

 

The advertiser-reviewer relationship is a classic problem in most industries. That's why you see push for independent review sources (Consumer Reports) and for objective measurements.

post #49 of 68

Wow you really blew a fuse there tongue.gif

 

post #50 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by kboe View Post


Actually it would be the opposite.  A good review, article, book or paper is meant to put forward an argument, be it education, entertainment, or whatever, and to do so in a way that displays competence, understanding of the breadth of the topic, and the writing skills of the author.  Any writing that does these to a lesser degree is not great writing.  I can not fault 6moons in any of these categories.  It may not be your cup of tea, or how you would write a review, but it is an effective means of conveying the material.  Ive owned a few of Srajans review items that pertain to our headfi world, and find him to be dead on with his commentary.    



Navel-gazing and verbal preening distract from arguments. In that sense, 6moons is guilty of bad writing. Their reviews have much more to do with the authors themselves and their gear than it does about effectively conveying meaning about the subject. You could cut down the majority of reviews to a paragraph or two of meaningful communication. The rest is masturbation.

vcoheda, if being published is a measure of competence to criticize, then we could all learn a lot from Stephenie Meyer, right?
post #51 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by kboe View Post


Actually it would be the opposite.  A good review, article, book or paper is meant to put forward an argument, be it education, entertainment, or whatever, and to do so in a way that displays competence, understanding of the breadth of the topic, and the writing skills of the author.  Any writing that does these to a lesser degree is not great writing.  I can not fault 6moons in any of these categories.  It may not be your cup of tea, or how you would write a review, but it is an effective means of conveying the material.  Ive owned a few of Srajans review items that pertain to our headfi world, and find him to be dead on with his commentary.    




 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Erik View Post





Navel-gazing and verbal preening distract from arguments. In that sense, 6moons is guilty of bad writing. Their reviews have much more to do with the authors themselves and their gear than it does about effectively conveying meaning about the subject. You could cut down the majority of reviews to a paragraph or two of meaningful communication. The rest is masturbation.

vcoheda, if being published is a measure of competence to criticize, then we could all learn a lot from Stephenie Meyer, right?


Agreed.  Something I find extremely irritating is reviews that give pages of useless background information, for no other reason than to give the false impression that the reviewer knows something about the history of the product.  Being "educated" in a review is fine, but pretending to be educated is not.

 

In the words of an electronic engineer I was talking to at RMAF:

 

"Audio publications are the place where guys who can't line up two D batteries in a flashlight pontificate about circuit topology."

 

post #52 of 68


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kboe View Post

 

WRONG!...WRONG! 


You were reacting to:

 

Quote:

Good writing is writing that has the intended impact. Bad writing is writing which fails to have the intended impact. Just like art, the meaning is in the mind of the viewer, not the creator.

 

No, he's correct. The ultimate test of a piece of music, a painting, a set of phones or a sentence lies with the person on the receiving end. It's a hard lesson, but the most necessary one if you're going to write. Yes, there are reasons why someone won't *get* what you're saying. Yes, you're allowed to have your own style. But if there's a failure to communicate, chances are the problem is at your end, not the reader's.

 

I write for a living, and more importantly I teach young writers, and if you believe nothing else, believe that you're carrying 90 percent of the weight when it comes to telling the tale or making the point. The only thing the reader owes us is a little attention, and a mind that's open just long enough to decide if they *might* have some sympathy for your point of view.

 

That said, I can't buy Uncle Erik's take either.

 

Quote:
Navel-gazing and verbal preening distract from arguments. In that sense, 6moons is guilty of bad writing. Their reviews have much more to do with the authors themselves and their gear than it does about effectively conveying meaning about the subject. You could cut down the majority of reviews to a paragraph or two of meaningful communication. The rest is masturbation.

 

You may not want to read navel gazing, but that doesn't always make it a bad thing. When I'm reading reviews, part of what I enjoy is "the authors themselves and their gear". Knowing about the person doing the writing, getting a feel for their likes and dislikes, helps me sort out whether I would like a piece of gear - if someone likes little T amps and full range speakers, I know we share some of the same tastes.

 

Plus, I may just like reading their sentences. I listen to a lot of jazz, and part of the pleasure of being a fan is following along as someone works out an idea or a feeling. It can be the same way with writing - it's (mostly) not masturbation, it's trying to find the right thing.

 

s.


Edited by satkinsn - 11/9/10 at 4:57pm
post #53 of 68
This has turned out to be one of the funnier threads.
post #54 of 68


What is underlined.

 

I disagree, and here's why.  I as a reader am responsible for understanding the authors motives.  Some are good and honorable, they are honest and straight with the reader, and you can pick up on this in their tone.  These are easy to spot and easy to consume and enjoy.  There are others that hide an agenda, or are less than honest with impressions and data.  These to are easy to spot and easy to argue against.  I think whats going on here is a difference on where we draw that line between the two.  That's all.

 

 

For what is in bold. 

 

I absolutely agree.  Its why Srajan includes pictures of his home and listening area.  By better knowing the Author we can better appreciate his work, put him into greater context.  Between less and more, when it comes to information, more is always better, always.

Quote:
Originally Posted by satkinsn View Post


 


You were reacting to:

 

 

No, he's correct. The ultimate test of a piece of music, a painting, a set of phones or a sentence lies with the person on the receiving end. It's a hard lesson, but the most necessary one if you're going to write. Yes, there are reasons why someone won't *get* what you're saying. Yes, you're allowed to have your own style. But if there's a failure to communicate, chances are the problem is at your end, not the reader's.

 

I write for a living, and more importantly I teach young writers, and if you believe nothing else, believe that you're carrying 90 percent of the weight when it comes to telling the tale or making the point. The only thing the reader owes us is a little attention, and a mind that's open just long enough to decide if they *might* have some sympathy for your point of view.

 

That said, I can't buy Uncle Erik's take either.

 

 

You may not want to read navel gazing, but that doesn't always make it a bad thing. When I'm reading reviews, part of what I enjoy is "the authors themselves and their gear". Knowing about the person doing the writing, getting a feel for their likes and dislikes, helps me sort out whether I would like a piece of gear - if someone likes little T amps and full range speakers, I know we share some of the same tastes.

 

Plus, I may just like reading their sentences. I listen to a lot of jazz, and part of the pleasure of being a fan is following along as someone works out an idea or a feeling. It can be the same way with writing - it's (mostly) not masturbation, it's trying to find the right thing.

 

s.

post #55 of 68
Originally Posted by kboe View Post

What is underlined.

 

I disagree, and here's why.  I as a reader am responsible for understanding the authors motives.  Some are good and honorable, they are honest and straight with the reader, and you can pick up on this in their tone.  These are easy to spot and easy to consume and enjoy.  There are others that hide an agenda, or are less than honest with impressions and data.  These to are easy to spot and easy to argue against.  I think whats going on here is a difference on where we draw that line between the two.  That's all.


Ok. So I write a speech for a politician, and it moves the world, and the world changes, and it becomes enshrined as the most influential speech in the history of the planet.

Then you write a speech, and it bores the audience who, in a fit of not understanding your motives, contemplates the lint in their navel.

 

We don't know from that alone that my speech was a better speech than yours was?

 

We are discussing reviews here. So what is a good review? For 6moons, a good review is one that makes them money (I assume visits to the site, both to view that review and to seek out future reviews, and advertisers spending money). For the company whose product is being reviewed, a good review is one that both attracts readers and causes those readers to buy the product (again, on which makes money).

 

For me a good review is one that imparts the information I want to know, in a manner I can act on and which turns out to cause me to make correct decisions.

Unless I'm not buying, in which case a good review is one that entertains.

 

You believe the audience owes you something? That explains what I've never heard of you and never read any of your writings sans some posts here.

 

Quote:
Between less and more, when it comes to information, more is always better, always.

 

So when you ask whether McDonalds is to the left or right, and I give you a history of McDonald's, that's better? I suppose that means that we can tell how good a writing is by how long it is. Is that why you write "wrong" so many times? Or to be "information", but it also be new: in which case my post is better than yours.


Edited by JerryLove - 11/9/10 at 6:26pm
post #56 of 68


Yup.  My long "wrong" post was me acting out like a four year old who cant express his opinion any other way, (which I later did in a few post).  My misstep.  

 

Your personal attack and exaggerated example of more information... is yours.  

Quote:
Originally Posted by JerryLove View Post


Ok. So I write a speech for a politician, and it moves the world, and the world changes, and it becomes enshrined as the most influential speech in the history of the planet.

Then you write a speech, and it bores the audience who, in a fit of not understanding your motives, contemplates the lint in their navel.

 

We don't know from that alone that my speech was a better speech than yours was?

 

We are discussing reviews here. So what is a good review? For 6moons, a good review is one that makes them money (I assume visits to the site, both to view that review and to seek out future reviews, and advertisers spending money). For the company whose product is being reviewed, a good review is one that both attracts readers and causes those readers to buy the product (again, on which makes money).

 

For me a good review is one that imparts the information I want to know, in a manner I can act on and which turns out to cause me to make correct decisions.

Unless I'm not buying, in which case a good review is one that entertains.

 

You believe the audience owes you something? That explains what I've never heard of you and never read any of your writings sans some posts here.

 

 

So when you ask whether McDonalds is to the left or right, and I give you a history of McDonald's, that's better? I suppose that means that we can tell how good a writing is by how long it is. Is that why you write "wrong" so many times? Or to be "information", but it also be new: in which case my post is better than yours.

post #57 of 68

 

 

Great to see this thread end up like so many others,utter crap.

post #58 of 68

Quote:

Originally Posted by satkinsn View Post

 

 

That said, I can't buy Uncle Erik's take either.

 

You may not want to read navel gazing, but that doesn't always make it a bad thing. When I'm reading reviews, part of what I enjoy is "the authors themselves and their gear". Knowing about the person doing the writing, getting a feel for their likes and dislikes, helps me sort out whether I would like a piece of gear - if someone likes little T amps and full range speakers, I know we share some of the same tastes.

 

Plus, I may just like reading their sentences. I listen to a lot of jazz, and part of the pleasure of being a fan is following along as someone works out an idea or a feeling. It can be the same way with writing - it's (mostly) not masturbation, it's trying to find the right thing.

 

s.


If an author wants to talk about himself and his gear, you should be able to click on a link or two to read read his bio and gear list.  Further, that information should be there.

 

However, novelists don't start and stop stories to talk about themselves.  Neither do any other professional writers.  What if you were reading a story in the New York Times and the journalist kept interrupting to story to talk about the amusing quirks of his word processor, where he went to journalism school, and so on?  That would distract from the story and make it practically unreadable.

 

If I'm reading a story about mergers and acquisitions, I want to read a story about mergers and acquisitions.  If I find the author particularly good, I'll pull his bio, learn more and look up other things he wrote.


Edited by Uncle Erik - 11/10/10 at 1:47am
post #59 of 68

For me that source not interesting, I trust only my experience,  my  friends opinion about DACs, cd-pleers etc. and a little head-fi members (about headphones and amplifiers). About 6moon - weak magazine, nothing interesting for me. 

post #60 of 68


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Erik View Post

Quote:


If an author wants to talk about himself and his gear, you should be able to click on a link or two to read read his bio and gear list.  Further, that information should be there.

 

However, novelists don't start and stop stories to talk about themselves.  Neither do any other professional writers.  What if you were reading a story in the New York Times and the journalist kept interrupting to story to talk about the amusing quirks of his word processor, where he went to journalism school, and so on?  That would distract from the story and make it practically unreadable.

 

If I'm reading a story about mergers and acquisitions, I want to read a story about mergers and acquisitions.  If I find the author particularly good, I'll pull his bio, learn more and look up other things he wrote.


I don't think we're that far apart.

 

About 99.9 percent of the time, you'd be right about the novelist, though there are a few novels over the years in which the writer explicitly makes an appearance and interrupts the flow. (You better be really good at doing it if you're gonna pull it off.)

 

But a lot of other writing has more latitude: I wouldn't expect to read an author's personal aside in a straight news piece in the NYT, but if, say, James Stewart references himself, previous stories and other interests when writing the same piece for The New Yorker, I figure he's doing it to push the narrative along.

 

Of course there's a line beyond which you're just indulging yourself, and many writers have trouble staying on the right side of it. But that's true of any creative effort, and it's equally true that if you mix things up with inspiration and competence, it can work. What you're left with is what you like or don't like, not what's 'good' or 'bad.' I'm not an opera fan, (and am pretty much ignorant of it), but I know there's a lot of good-great opera out there. By the same token, 6M is not to your taste, but it is to mine.

 

s.

 

edit - This is major thread creep, but the following piece strikes me as somehow appropriate. It's about the actual work of writing, once you can no longer do it.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/nov/07/tom-lubbock-brain-tumour-language


Edited by satkinsn - 11/10/10 at 3:31am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: High-end Audio Forum