Here’s the review’s end, with the almost obligatory claim that Holloway found things of merit, so this has to be a fair review (Don’t question my motives, Buster!):
"But this isn’t a unilaterally unflattering review. There are enough glimmers of something truly wonderful here that it will be interesting to see how Isis matures as a writer, to see if the next collection is purer, less subsumed by what reads as arrogance.
If the next book is better, perhaps Mr. Isis will actually earn the praise piled on in the introduction to I Wonder What Human Flesh Tastes Like."
More moralizing. Isis’s tales’ flaws (in at least 7 of the 10 tales) have nothing to do with ‘arrogance,’ but with the narrative anomy and indifferent characterization; things manifestly justifiable and provable… with excerption! The last sentence of the review is true, but while I did not think Isis’s book was a good book, and he certainly deserved a negative review, he deserved a far more impartial, fair, less condescendingly moralistic, off the rack, and better written one than this.
If a critic’s aim is to point out positives and negatives so readers and writers understand what constitutes quality and not, this review fails to demonstrate, and convince, readers of its rather nebulous claims (much less those of a personal or ad hominem bent) and, I’m sure, does not convince Isis. Whether the Journal's review’s flaws lie with the Holloway, the website, or both, does not really matter, as all three entities are merely symptoms of the deliteracy that grips modern American society. To close, this review is as bad, or worse, in its domain, as Isis’s book is in its. That’s not anything to revel in.
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.