http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005 by the authors Sun, 12 Feb 2006 20:27:22 EST http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/09/30/015524.php#comment-319891 Knowledge is a crystal that has fallen beneath a sea of murk. Like an anchor thrown from a ship, it's stuck down there, and will remain stuck until we do something about it. At the moment, there's a lot of confusion. What's going on with that anchor? Could it have magnetically fused with the rocks in the seabed? Thus do the sailors conjecture, little knowing that they could be right. On the other hand, they could be religious zealots who blindly believe fiction. Blindly believing, they would deserve the ignorance to which they had been bound. Moreover, they think that vague, error-prone religious scriptures are evidence in support of their faith. Well, Occam's razor speaks differently. Occam's razor is a rational principle. It tells us what not to believe: thus it protects our rationality. But when fantasy and reality merge together, and when the dangerous thrill of the unknown seizes upon everything that at present lives--then, only, can change occur. Then, only, can evolution take place! Evolution is in contrast to nihilism. It's in contrast to leaving that anchor down there forever. Having made that clear, it is now time to raise the anchor. It is now time--to think rationally. Is God real? We must conclude the negative--for Time Cube's proven true, therefore a 1-corner God cannot be. Time Cube, however, has four corners. Four corners. 319891@blogcritics.org Sun, 12 Feb 2006 20:27:22 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/09/30/015524.php#comment-89699 I see what you're saying, but I disagree completely -- because basically what you're saying is publications should only print positive reviews of debut novels, and that's just not fair to the reader. Readers deserve to know there's a mix of opinion, if there is one. I've given harsh reviews -- and glowing ones -- to first novels; I feel it's patronizing not to take a first novel as seriously as you would one by a seasoned writer. 89699@blogcritics.org Sun, 10 Oct 2004 10:06:49 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/09/30/015524.php#comment-89679 I tend to think bad reviews should be for people who are known. What's the point of telling people, "Here's a book by somebody you've never heard of. He sucks"? 89679@blogcritics.org Sun, 10 Oct 2004 04:02:59 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/09/30/015524.php#comment-88427 Ms. Diva, thank you for your comment - I agree with you wholeheartedly on criticism, you put it very well. While I believe you have a point about the length of the entry, I'd like to clarify something: I'm not new to blogging, just new to blogging here - so I am hoping that your note about writing blog entries was really more specific to perhaps the kind of blog entry one expects to see on blogcritics.org. If that's what you meant, I see your point. However I completely reserve the right when I blog otherwise to go on at length if I choose, the reader's attention span be damned. Please understand I'm not debating your point - it's a good one - I'm just trying to clarify it. Because my focus in a blogcritic entry might be less personal than a planethuff.com entry I agree with you - if I feel I have something worthwhile to say I should say it concisely. Like I did not do with this comment. 88427@blogcritics.org Sat, 2 Oct 2004 23:21:38 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/09/30/015524.php#comment-88421 LOL! When it comes to literary criticism, I aspire to be Dorothy Parker with a good tan. She was actually fired by publications because irate writers and their friends would throw hissy fits about her reviews. There are more good books and plays than I will have time to read in my life time. That gives me the right to dis the bad ones. The writer has wasted my time. Steve, a note on writing blog entries. There is enough material in this one for three or more. Blog readers have shorter attention spans than even newspaper readers. (The average length of a visit to a blog is about two minutes.) So, long entries don't get read. Consider shorter entries on just one topic. If you tend to write long, you can go back and divide the long piece into shorter ones. 88421@blogcritics.org Sat, 2 Oct 2004 22:12:29 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/09/30/015524.php#comment-88327 Edgar Allan Poe was resoundly hated for his scathing literary criticism. In some cases, those who can not only do, but also point out the flaws in those who try to do and can't. 88327@blogcritics.org Fri, 1 Oct 2004 23:32:32 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/09/30/015524.php#comment-88041 Enjoyed your post. I've been to Kiernan's blog and made a note to buy a couple of her books. Thanks for reminding me. 88041@blogcritics.org Thu, 30 Sep 2004 12:57:17 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/09/30/015524.php#comment-87987 very reflective and absorbing Steve - you do an excellent job of explaining your processes - thanks! 87987@blogcritics.org Thu, 30 Sep 2004 08:56:01 EDT