22 thoughts on “*

  1. This thread you are now reading was originally entitled ‘Mark Kermode / Frank Kermode’, and changed to ‘Reviewing Issues’ today.
    I intend to post any future thoughts of mine about all aspects of Book Reviewing in this comment stream alone…

    Yesterday, I salted away a more specific post containing a statement upon the long-term issue between myself and Theaker’s, an issue connected to this reviewing subject. As far as I can tell, there have been no further public attacks on me by them for the last month or so, although there remain in public their unjustified personal comments about me from a few years ago, comments which I shall continue to request should be deleted.

    Not necessarily connected to the “Theaker’s issue”, here are some recent and past posts of mine on this Book Reviewing subject:
    And many of my book-specific real-time reviews since 2008 extrapolate and debate, from many angles, the subject of fiction reviewing, as well as the nature of literature, philosophical aesthetics and the physical book etc.

  2. Strictly as a reviewing issue, I presume that Mr Theaker was also starting a (perhaps necessary) critical debate upon my gestalt (connective) real-time reviewing and lifelong ‘intentional fallacy’ techniques / beliefs when he made this comment yesterday at 4.11 pm.

  3. An extract from a couple of days ago in my still on-going daily review of Rhys Hughes’ ‘Flash in the Pantheon’:

    Last night I wrote this about RH’s ‘The Rook and the Jackdaw’ in my real-tale review of his Rhysop’s Fables. Serendipitously, I read the next flash fiction this morning, the one entitled The Moon and the Well. Exquisite and definitely my favourite so far.
    When I started what turned out to be my dreamcatcher real-time reviews in 2008, I had no idea that they would serve me as well as I hope they serve the authors and readers of the books that I trawl for dreams and haunting memories. And, instead of novels and stories slipping in and out of my ageing mind as they used to do (however good they were), they are now caught in some net forever, I feel. I know ‘forever’ is a long time, but this flash fiction read this morning makes me feel somehow that ‘forever’ is at last attainable

  4. Congratulations to Stephen Theaker regarding this announcement: http://theakersquarterly.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/interzone-252-coming-soon-featuring.html
    As an aside, I find the second sentence of his first paragraph thought-provoking with regard to the nature of book reviewing and literary criticism. Generally speaking, I think one can indeed adapt one’s review or critique or analysis to suit the publication where it is appearing, but no doubt keeping in mind that the book being reviewed is set in stone and thus one’s views about it would also naturally be set in stone, even if expressed differently from publication venue to publication venue. But then I think about one’s own changing taste from time to time? Yes, thought-provoking indeed.

  5. Yesterday, I had an email from someone asking my permission to attribute the real-time reviewing method to me as he proposed to use the same method (in a different field from fiction). I feel it would be an honour to be thus attributed but there would be no need to attribute it to me.

  6. As an additional, separate, inevitably theoretical point, I’d say any problems regarding Negativity, Gender, Political Correctness, Personality, Nepotism, Personal Grievances, Self-Promotion etc would be potentially eased if all writers as a matter of course had their work published initially in the old Nemonymous way, with late-labelling of their by-lines following the reviews and any awards etc.
    [Yesterday, you see, I had cause to think about that ‘old Nemonymous way’.]

  7. Christopher Priest’s review of a novel entitled BARRICADE reminds me that I am only concerned with the hothouse and as this novel is published by Gollancz I say let them fight it out beyond our hothouse barricades – big author against big publisher. Having said that, though, if I had been the reviewer, I would not have wanted to write a public review of it. My usually dependable instinct would have indeed been not to read it at all.

Comments are closed.