Here’s the review’s start:
"As far as collections of short stories go, I Wonder What Human Flesh Tastes Like is a highly mixed bag.
On the one hand, there were some beautiful sentences, some truly inspired imagery. On the other hand — and this is a much larger and more visible hand — most of the stories felt... pointless. Hollow. Lacking substance.
The characters were uniformly unlikable, self-involved, and obsessive about strange things that never seemed to matter as much as they said they did."
Aside from a few clichés in phrasing, the sentiment is correct, but then Holloway's review tanks:
"...a classic case of telling more than showing. Each story set up an interesting new point of view, and then proceeded to show us how they all shared the same peculiar sort of bizarre madness. Reading through the first few stories, this was interesting; after about half the book, it was tiresome."
A couple of deadly clichés, and, telling was simply not the problem with Isis’s prose. It was what was told, and how it was told that was the problem. Holloway makes it seem as if the act of a character speaking the action is, of itself, always wrong or a bad artistic choice, and does not distinguish between the specifics of most of the tales and the fact that they are told.
Then there is the odd choice to not excerpt a single word from the book. How is a reader supposed to gauge it for themselves? Holloway seems to want the reader to wholly trust her, rather than even give a taste of the work in question. Apparently, this is a website policy, as The New York Journal Of Books seems to have exempted excerption from its reviews, as evidenced by the couple dozen reviews posted by them, that I clicked on, bore not a one.
Let me digress, for a moment, and assail the website itself. First, I’ve seen quite a few reviews from this website, before the one in question, and have been singularly unimpressed with the brief, rote, and, well, hackneyed, reviews they post. Second, there’s the ethical issue of the deliberate parasitic nature of the website’s name — a direct steal from the long established and, despite many flaws, still superior The New York Review Of Books (which, it shall be noted, offers generous excerpts — be they good or bad); a dubious and cheap tactic to confuse search engines and siphon off gullible, non-cyber savvy, new readers. Finally, aside from the bad, formulaic writing, and dubious name choice, it’s — simply put — a very ugly looking website. I get some readers who harp on me for Cosmoetica’s not being a ‘bells and whistles’ site, but it’s unique, the essays are very readable (several organizations for vision-impaired people have praised it) style and font-wise, and it’s aesthetically far easier on the eyes than the Journal’s flat and dull color scheme.
Article comments
1 - Janet Gibson
This is a rather pointed article that one must wonder about. I love the New York Journal of Books. Not every reviewer is outstanding, but I find more professional reviews here than anywhere on the net. The author of this article seems to have an axe to grind - caliing the website ugly. It's a very pleasant website and far easier to navigate than this article's author's own website. Moreover, he makes assertions that aren't grounded in fact, such as the New York Journal of Books having a policy against excerpting from books. I've read many reviews that doincludes quotes from the books -- an excerpt is really something longer, so the term isn't even uysed properly by the author of this article. This is ultimately just a very strange article by someone with an agenda and is wholly irresponsible. Indeed, at least New York Journal of Books seems to professionally edit reviews.
2 - Dan Schneider
Ms. Gibson: below is the definition of excerpt and quote, and clearly I used the terms correctly. You did not.
You also, in several other instances, make false statements.
1) every page on Cosmoetica can be reached within 2 clicks, not so with the Journal. My site is very easy to navigate.
2) I made no assertions not grounded in fact. I said I had clicked on over 2 dozen reviews and not a single one had an excerpt. I stated it 'seemed' as if the site had a policy against excerption.
3) I do have an agenda- I am against the irresponsible nature of most online criticism, of which Holloway's article was a perfect example. I responsibly took her to task for twice conflating the claims of the book's publisher with that of the author, as well as her moralism and ad hominem, two things no responsible critic allows.
It's worth noting that, since you are demonstrably wrong in your plaint, you made no mention of my indisputable showing of these flaws in Holloway's reviews, and merely went in to a defense of a site you like, while never even addressing the specifics of the article which it seems you never even read.
Below the definitions: Is there any difference between an excerpt and a quote?
Below are the definitions from online dictionaries. It looks like an excerpt is a formal quote, am I right?
excerpt ( ) n. A passage or segment taken from a longer work, such as a literary or musical composition, a document, or a film.
quote v. , quoted , quoting , quotes . v.tr. To repeat or copy the words of (another), usually with acknowledgment of the source.
3 - John Newman
The above is the most childish, nasty exchange i've ever seen online. On second thought, no, I've seen worse, but this is so typical of the sort of defensive rants one sees. For what it's worth, anyone in the publishing industry will tell you that an excerpt is far longer than a quote. It's a passage.
I must thank the author of the above critique. Out of curiosity I googled New York Journal of Books. It's superb. I'm no longer at the mercy of the New York Times or New York Review of Books. It is the first online review site I've ever seen which is worth the time of someone seeking intelligent and in some cases extremely entertaining reviews. From what I saw, there may be a few weak links among the reviewers, but their worst is better than most online site's best reviewers. How wonderful to now have a great place to check out books - and lots of them. If you consume books as I do, forget all the other online reviews. You can even forget the New York Times. The choice of books to review at this wonderful website is far more eclectic and interesting.
Best of all, they don't allow for comments like this one and the ones above. I like book reviews. I don't like the nonsense that often accompanies them online as comments.
Get thee to New York Journal of Books.
4 - Dan Schneider
John, you clearly don't spend much time online.
Ms. Gibson made 3 demonstrably false statements, which I showed.
There was no nastiness, nor personal invective by me, although both Gibson and the reviewer Holloway demonstrated both.
"For what it's worth, anyone in the publishing industry will tell you that an excerpt is far longer than a quote. It's a passage."
Not so.
quote: something that is quoted; especially : a passage referred to, repeated, or adduced
excerpt: a passage (as from a book or musical composition) selected, performed, or copied : extract
At the risk of your wrath, you are 100% wrong, definitionally. Neither term refers to any length. Never has. They are de facto synonyms. Care to admit your error?
[Edited by Comments Editor]
5 - David Ramson
Dan you do seem like you have an axe to grind indeed. I would hardly think someone who writes a line like "Isis’s tales’ flaws" should be a writing critic....
6 - A.G.
It is hard to understand the criticisms of this review since I find it quite remarkable. Think of it: a critic is defending a work that he thinks is inferior from another negative criticism because he finds that criticism based upon nothing of substance.
If anything, this smacks of integrity not an axe to grind.
Some of the comments also seem petty and ad hominem. What exactly is wrong with "Isis's tales' flaws"? It's perfectly fine. Are you objecting to the s after the apostrophe that ends Isis? This is mere stylistic choice. Both are grammatically acceptable.
Also, the initial critic is quite right that there is no difference between a quote and an excerpt.
I also take question with the claim that the review under question, and its source, are good. I first read this review a day or so ago and perused the New York Journal. Indeed, it is as the reviewer states, utterly without quotations in its reviews. While this is fine when reviewing history or science books, which are not dependent upon writerly skill sets but research methods, it is not in fiction.
There, where good or bad writing can clearly be shown it is almost a requisite to include at least a brief quote to support a claim.
I went through over 70 pages in the last 48 hours and not a single excerpt was found.
It's a shame that such reviews that are well written and ethically defended are attacked by people who themselves are grinding axes. If they left their weapons at bay we online readers would have more to choose from.
Cheers to BC for publishing such reviews which stand in sharp contrast to the New York Journal.