|
|
|
Comment |
Sorted by
Date Written |
Re: Re: I'd guess...... (Reply to this comment)
by copernicus
No worries - I suppose that's just my latent, very hidden scholarly side peeping out. It needs air now and again, so if making snide comments is how it survives, then that'll just have to do. Anyway, have a great Christmas -'tis nice and hot here!
~Adam~
|
Dec 21 '02
3:34 am PST
|
|
Re: I'd guess...... (Reply to this comment)
by lyagushka
Yes, Adam, he did use a "K" numbering system, and I'm not familiar with it. But that was just one of my grievances, obviously. Thanks for leaving a comment here.
|
Dec 20 '02
1:26 pm PST
|
|
Re:A Good skewering is a beautiful thing (Reply to this comment)
by lyagushka
Me too, Nick. I was mystified how it got through the editorial process. He also wrote (apparently) a book on Wagner. Maybe that one was good (though I doubt it) and Mozart got published on the strength of an earlier success.
|
Dec 20 '02
1:23 pm PST
|
|
Re: Gutman (Reply to this comment)
by lyagushka
Y'know, Rouchelle? I used Gutman for that very purpose at times. For sheer slumber inducing stupefaction, I'd say Gutman is trumped only by archaeological articles detailing pottery shard sequencing. In fact, just thinking about either of these texts is placing my ability to finish my replies to these comments in jeopardy. Thanks for your comment.
|
Dec 20 '02
1:20 pm PST
|
|
Re: What A Consumerlicious Pleasure To Read-- (Reply to this comment)
by lyagushka
29th, you actually received a personal, direct communication from the muthasite? You're obviously a notch above the rest of us peons. As such, I suppose I'll have to grant you my "generous indulgence," for now. Thanks for having the fortitude to persevere through two of your attacks and taking the time to comment.
cheers,
Kate
|
Dec 20 '02
1:16 pm PST
|
|
Re: Flay Gutman (Reply to this comment)
by lyagushka
Jack, I wouldn't see you saddened for the world. Got my flaying knife a-ready. You?
|
Dec 20 '02
1:12 pm PST
|
|
I'd guess...... (Reply to this comment)
by copernicus
you're talking about the number system using a "K" prefix - it's extremely common, actually, but I suppose if you're unfamiliar with it, 'twould look dodgy. Anyway, he's done a marvellous job if he managed to be boring about a character like Mozart - damn the historians, I say! Anyway, I know to avoid this one at least, you made that clear enough ;)
~Adam~
|
Dec 20 '02
3:29 am PST
|
|
Good skewering. (Reply to this comment)
by NFP
I find it difficult to comprehend how someone who has presumably taken the time to delve into the life of someone so fascinating and influential as Mozart could miss the mark so badly, and be allowed to do so by his editor and publisher.
cheers,
nick
|
Dec 18 '02
5:47 pm PST
|
|
Gutman (Reply to this comment)
by LEDOMAINE
...strikes me as a prime example of author whose writing style was meant for the insomniac type of reader. Wouldn't take long for him or her (the sleep-eluded reader) to mercifully find their way to slumberland, would it?
Thanks for a superb review. I try desperately, myself, to steer clear of books written by such relics of a, thankfully, dying breed of our trade. :)
Rouchelle
|
Dec 15 '02
9:16 am PST
|
|
What A Consumerlicious Pleasure To Read-- (Reply to this comment)
by 29th_Candidate
["For good measure, Gutman has the really annoying habit of using impossibly esoteric words for ordinary things. I don't mind it when an author uses a bunch of technical terms or a rare word that has a very specific meaning that no other word approximates. I'll happily look words up in my dictionary. I certainly cannot fault his abundant use of musical terms, even if he doesn't condescend to explain them. But when an author continuously uses toffee-nosed words like "whilom" instead of the lowly "former," "congé" rather than "leave of absence," "sottise" rather than the ordinary "blunder," and "gallimaufry," "spatchcock" and "farrago" in preference to the too-too mundane "hodgepodge" then I start to become really irritated. Am I supposed to believe this is how Gutman speaks? Or am I meant to be duly impressed at his ability to navigate a thesaurus?" ]
The similarity this paragraph bears to the response I received from Epinions Customer Care, explaining why my request to be promoted to "Advisor Apprentice, 2nd Class" was rejected, is uncanny! Were you and Alexis Johnson born under the same Zodiac sign?
Having read your articulate review and having noted your name in one or two of my reviews' rating sections, I must request that you either abandon any further reading of any subsequent reviews I write, or swear to me that you won't tell other readers how many made-up words I regularly pump into my sentences. The burden of pretending to have a toffee-nosed vocabulary is absolutely excruciating! It's ALL in the name of being consumerly-helpful, you know. I keep meaning to buy a dictionary, but I always procrastinate the task by persuading myself that I'll get it at the same time I buy a thesaurus. (Why make two tasks out of one?) Then I put off buying a thesaurus by using the same rationalization I used to push back buying the dictionary. Now that you see why it isn't my fault I write gibberish, I hope you'll incline towards obliging my request.
In case I haven't yet cultivated enough pity and compassion to persuade you to accommodate my request, I feel compelled to advise you I suffer from "Acute Post Traumatic Stress Indolence." It's a horribly debilitating mental handicap wherein the sufferer collapses in paroxysms of pain and anguish whenever confronted by a situation that appears to require labor or extended action of any kind. (I collapsed TWICE just attempting to leave you this comment!) I-I-I'm feeling a bit light-headed again, so I'd best end this here.
Thank You In Advance For Your Anticipated Generous Indulgence,
--29th
|
Dec 14 '02
5:00 am PST
|
|
Flay Gutman (Reply to this comment)
by jackai
People who use big words make me sad.
:(
|
Dec 10 '02
10:38 am PST
|
|
Re: The author sounds like a pompous ass to me. (Reply to this comment)
by lyagushka
Well, yeah, exactly. What moviechick said. Thanks for your two cents, which is probably more than I'll ever earn from this review.
Kate
|
Dec 10 '02
2:04 am PST
|
|
Re: I wonder... (Reply to this comment)
by lyagushka
It's certainly possible. I suppose it should have been a tip-off that the dustjacket had no laudatory quotes from bona fide book critics, just a mealymouthed blurb from the publisher.
|
Dec 10 '02
2:02 am PST
|
|
Re: I admire your dedication, (Reply to this comment)
by lyagushka
Panguitch, when a book is this bad, I figure the only enjoyment to be had from it, the only way to justify my expenses in purchasing it, is to write a review about it. At least I have the satisfaction of knowing that yes, I plowed through every goddam page of that awful book; I know what I'm writing about; and the opportunity now exists for other, more cautious book buyers to avoid the mistake I made. That's more than I would have had if I'd quit at page 200.
cheers,
Kate
|
Dec 10 '02
2:00 am PST
|
|
Re: I, myself, rather like (Reply to this comment)
by lyagushka
C'mon: for real?!? I figured trotting out those examples was an invitation for this sort of thing. I'm perfectly willing to concede the limitations of my own vocabulary, but I did think his verbal diarrhoea went a bit far. There are numerous other examples I could have included, but enough. Kudos to you for your elocution and thanks for leaving a comment.
Kate
|
Dec 10 '02
1:56 am PST
|
|
Re: poppycock (Reply to this comment)
by lyagushka
O Exalted Purveyor of Scads of Consumerly Helpfulocity, allow me to abase myself at the font of your bounteous discernment, which verily, I say to the masses, runneth over as a young hart in spring, in the diapason of new life, bounds, fleet footed through the verdant dells and byways of nature's unparalleled, eternal beauty, even as I must, though your most humble and obedient flunky, respectfully point out that the chocolate delectables which most delight my heart and senses are utterly bereft of alcoholic supplements and are therefore more appropriately styled pralines, and not the unpardonably vague, as Your Exalted Helpfulocity had it, "liqueur candies."
But thanks for the comment.
|
Dec 10 '02
1:47 am PST
|
|
The author sounds like a pompous ass to me. (Reply to this comment)
by themoviechick
No doubt he writes college-level history textbooks for a living.
The thing is, it's no crime to have a large and flexible vocabulary--witness Markham Shaw Pyle's work--as long as your writing is actually good. Readers are all too willing to forgive the author an occasional sesquipedalian word if it makes sense in context, and if the sentences around it are clear, flowing and eminently readable.
Unfortunately, there are too many authors out there who cleave to the old "if you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, befuddle them with bullshit" line. They can't write and they know it, so they launch into endless posturing to appear clever. Feh.
|
Dec 09 '02
8:34 pm PST
|
|
I admire your dedication, (Reply to this comment)
by panguitch
but have to wonder if sometimes the prospect of writing a review just isn't worth it. But you persevered, and your review not only expresses your dislike, but it does so artfully, and methodically. You've left no stone unturned. Remind me never to get your hackles up myself!
|
Dec 09 '02
3:24 pm PST
|
|
I, myself, rather like (Reply to this comment)
by scmrak,  in Books
the word "whilom" and use it often -- almost as often as "erstwhile." I used to rather like "gallimaufry," that is until it hit some internet word-of-the-day list and every teenager online began tossing it about with kittenish abandon.
Oh, and the first of the sentences you cite looks remarkably like something I might write...
Chortle.
scmrak
|
Dec 09 '02
1:34 pm PST
|
|
poppycock (Reply to this comment)
by Sordid-1
I'm sorry you thought the WPR (Words per Paragraph Ratio) was too high. Perhaps if you weren't so intoxicated by delectable Belgian chocolate liqueur candies, you could better appreciate the nearly boundless beauty of endless streams of words placed one after the other without end into perpetuity merely separated by the occasional punctuation mark, but I guess the very fabric of your way of thinking has been infiltrated by the insidiously anal mindset of the despicable Belgian people, which is truly a shame.
TOO MANY WORDS, PSHAW!
Sordid "Big Nasty" One
|
Dec 09 '02
1:09 pm PST
|
|
|
|
