Customer Discussions > fiction discussion forum

Writer reviews


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 151-175 of 193 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 13 Nov 2012 18:07:00 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Nov 2012 17:58:38 GMT
I Readalot says:
Actually I am not screaming anything just making an educated assumption based on the fact that I have come to know a large number of posters on this forum over the years. I am well aware of the intelligence of the others on this thread, some have similar tastes to me others don't, one thing we do have in common is that we can disagree without resorting to insults.

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Nov 2012 17:49:20 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Nov 2012 17:34:13 GMT
I Readalot says:
Yep and to insult us in the process. One thing I can assert no posters here are ever going to buy his book. I have met quite a few authors over the years through working in the shop, mid-list to best sellers and they have all been friendly, approachable and always thank us for our efforts on their behalf. They would never insult readers or would be readers as they know they are selling themselves as much as their product. A lesson that all would be authors would be advised to learn.

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Nov 2012 17:24:12 GMT
Originally I was here for discussion. Now, I'm conducting research for my new novel. "Alone in the company of fish-wives."

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Nov 2012 17:10:28 GMT
Anita says:
He's not here for a discussion, I Readalot. He is here to teach babies in their prams what life is about

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Nov 2012 16:14:59 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Nov 2012 15:52:04 GMT
I Readalot says:
Whatever. You are an expert on all things so why bother starting discussions with mere mortals on Amazon.

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Nov 2012 13:11:23 GMT
Iread, 'to state forcefully that something is true'. To state; an act of giving (information).

Ethereal, good point. However, a reviewer's opinion contains the reviewer's own personal baggage. Some say a review says more about the reviewer than it does about the work.

Posted on 13 Nov 2012 12:33:23 GMT
Ethereal says:
"Surely if there's one expert on that particular work - it's the person who wrote it."

It could be argued the reader is the expert, bringing their own interpretation to a piece which doesn't have to be what the author intended. It's a collaboration. Coming at it from outside, readers may see the writer's unconscious at work since what they write must be a process of their culture ... I expect many famous authors would have been amazed by subsequent analyses of their works.

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Nov 2012 10:16:48 GMT
I Readalot says:
Are you sure that assert means to give? Definitions I am aware of are more on the lines of 'to state forcefully that something is true'. I know that legal meanings can sometimes be obscure but ...

Posted on 13 Nov 2012 02:35:41 GMT
Beyond Will's post it becomes intriguing. The conversation show a great deal of insight into the mind of a certain category of people. Even with Google *some* people just ain't that smart. Surtsey and Ana Krakatoa are two separate volcanoes, one's by Iceland and the other's west of Java. I'll let the *in crowd* speculate over the details.

Then there's a hilarious debate over the wording of a copyright notice. To 'assume' means to take, once taken, ownership is implied. To 'assert' means to give, once you have asserted something, doesn't mean you own it. So, without the OED or a lawyer present. There are books and films which are available for free because somebody made an error in the copyright notice.

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Nov 2012 02:19:20 GMT
Will, the point of posting a review of book that is not on Amazon is so as all the AM cronies do not accuse you of advertising a product. It focuses on the the original point rather than any particular work.

Posted on 13 Nov 2012 00:15:21 GMT
Anita says:
Methinks the OP is just having fun winding you up, folks. Next time you throw your toys out of the pram try hitting his toes, or something.

He'll hardly bother answering my post - what's the point of talking to a vocal goldfish - but if he does, perhaps you'll have some more fun

Posted on 12 Nov 2012 23:30:41 GMT
Has to be Vesuvius. School boy memories of reading Pliny's account of the famous eruption. In latin, of course.

(Not that I could manage that now.)

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Nov 2012 23:18:52 GMT
monica says:
In that case, tell me something about your favourite volcano.

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Nov 2012 22:44:23 GMT
Moi?

*innocent expression*

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Nov 2012 22:34:36 GMT
monica says:
Will, you aren't by any chance trying to derail this thread, are you?

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Nov 2012 22:32:10 GMT
Last edited by the author on 12 Nov 2012 22:35:34 GMT
monica says:
Excellent point & tomorrow I shall look in OED to find when 'assume' took on faintly unpleasant connotation ( or for the most part lost it). As for tonight, I looked again to find that the para which of course you weren't referring to did in fact use 'assert'--my quote had Freudian slip.

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Nov 2012 22:22:45 GMT
gille liath says:
I guess the reason is that they're the same words everyone else uses.

Posted on 12 Nov 2012 22:20:02 GMT
My publisher uses the same sort of wording. And he lectures in international copyright law, so he probably has a good reason for it. Not that i've ever been so bored as to bother asking why, tbh...

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Nov 2012 22:11:40 GMT
Last edited by the author on 12 Nov 2012 22:12:10 GMT
gille liath says:
I take Monica's point though - asserting moral rights is unlikely to get you anywhere with pirates (or landlords); legal rights are what matter. Put another way, the word 'moral' is redundant. But jargon didn't get where it is today without being littered with redundant terms...

Posted on 12 Nov 2012 22:08:20 GMT
It just seems to be the present preferred phrasing, I think, of saying 'I've written this so keep your thieving fingers off!'

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Nov 2012 22:02:44 GMT
gille liath says:
Think it's just a conventional bit of phraseology. Usually 'asserts' rather than 'assumes', though - not sure what that could mean...

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Nov 2012 21:50:52 GMT
monica says:
I've forgotten what the Fido reference means, but the same paragraph bothers me a bit: 'The author assumes the moral right . . . ' : legally, is a 'moral' right stronger than 'the right' or is that a remnant of phraseology used in court two centuries ago? Or is it a reference to the author being a Pentecostal extreme Republican, if that's not a tautology?
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  fiction discussion forum
Participants:  22
Total posts:  193
Initial post:  12 Nov 2012
Latest post:  13 Dec 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 3 customers

Search Customer Discussions