Post by account_disabled on Dec 27, 2023 1:13:37 GMT -5
When you publish a book, you must obviously consider the risk that it will be panned by some readers . There are 2 irrefutable rules in the publishing world (which can also be applied in other sectors): Reading is personal We can't please everyone There is also a third rule, which I have never agreed with. It's a rule of communication: if someone doesn't understand what I write (or say), it's my fault for expressing myself poorly. This is not true at all and this is demonstrated, for example, by yet another request to write a guest post that I received a few days ago from a complete stranger (and on a topic that I don't deal with). But let's leave aside the controversy.
If someone doesn't understand what we write (or say), there can be 2 causes: We expressed ourselves poorly Our readers (or interlocutors) did not understand well It is clear that the fault can Special Data also be ours, as it is clear that it can be that of those who read or listen to us. Out there, functional illiteracy claims its victims every day. The same functional illiteracy that causes some books to be panned. The alleged harm of some reviews Here are 2 reviews of the novel Cloud Atlas by David Mitchell: A set of little stories whose famous connection to each other is tenuous and often forced. The structure of the book is terrible. A story begins, then when it starts to get interesting it is cut short and we move on to the next story.
You have to spend half the book (fighting the temptation to stop reading) to understand that the stories will then be resumed later. First of all, they are not jokes , but stories. The link between one and the other is tenuous, this is true. But let's talk about the structure: terrible ? It is the structure of a sextet: A, B, C, D, E, F, E, D, C, B, A. There is also an index in the book, which makes the reader understand that story A (Adam Ewing's Pacific Journal) continues, as does story B (Letters from Zedelghem) and so on, while story F (Sloosha Crossing and all the rest) begins and ends there. Let's move on to the next negative review of the novel: Suppose you are a novelist who has started many works and has not been able to finish them.
If someone doesn't understand what we write (or say), there can be 2 causes: We expressed ourselves poorly Our readers (or interlocutors) did not understand well It is clear that the fault can Special Data also be ours, as it is clear that it can be that of those who read or listen to us. Out there, functional illiteracy claims its victims every day. The same functional illiteracy that causes some books to be panned. The alleged harm of some reviews Here are 2 reviews of the novel Cloud Atlas by David Mitchell: A set of little stories whose famous connection to each other is tenuous and often forced. The structure of the book is terrible. A story begins, then when it starts to get interesting it is cut short and we move on to the next story.
You have to spend half the book (fighting the temptation to stop reading) to understand that the stories will then be resumed later. First of all, they are not jokes , but stories. The link between one and the other is tenuous, this is true. But let's talk about the structure: terrible ? It is the structure of a sextet: A, B, C, D, E, F, E, D, C, B, A. There is also an index in the book, which makes the reader understand that story A (Adam Ewing's Pacific Journal) continues, as does story B (Letters from Zedelghem) and so on, while story F (Sloosha Crossing and all the rest) begins and ends there. Let's move on to the next negative review of the novel: Suppose you are a novelist who has started many works and has not been able to finish them.