| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Dennis |
Posted - 24 Oct 2010 : 09:01:56
With the moderators' permission, I would like to have a place where authors post their own reviews on the novels of their fellow FR writers.
I think so far I only read Erik's review on Jaleigh's new novel.
|
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Dennis |
Posted - 29 Oct 2010 : 17:21:17
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
P.S. On a slightly different note, if you'll pardon me for "reading between the lines" of the OP, I think I understand dennis's initial purpose in proposing this idea as being a way to honor/spotlight author reviews--give them a warm place in the community.
That's one of the reasons.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
I doubt he expected the reactions he got, which were not so much negative as "thanks but no thanks."
Indeed. I hoped at the very least to read a handful of reviews.  But it looks like it's not meant to be. I'm a believer of the Stone Age-old Filipino maxim: “If things are not meant to be, acceptance shall set you free.”  |
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 29 Oct 2010 : 16:47:50
Highly agree with Elaine's post there a couple above this one.
quote:
Originally posted by dennis
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
Dennis, I think you're *proving* my point that authors who post a review can be pigeonholed as approving of that particular book and not the ones they don't review.
I'm only quoting you to point out how you contradict your very own words. That doesn't mean I approve of your opinion ---because I certainly don't. Besides, what's the point of requesting this thread if I'm inclined to think that way?!
I am *NOT* contradicting myself. What I said was that there is a tendency to read too much into an author posting a review, and so I vote that we should not have an "Author's Reviews" thread to distinguish between reviews by readers and authors (which I think should be on the same footing and in the same place). I used my own review as an example to illustrate my point, and you followed up brilliantly (if inadvertently) demonstrating that point.
If *you* would presume to "read between the lines" of my review of Unbroken Chain to determine what books I like and don't, how likely is it that other readers (people who don't know me as well as you do, having read numerous of my posts here at CK) will make assumptions as well? About that author's work and that author as a professional/person?
I think that's a good reason to vote "No" to the OP.
I have absolutely no problem with authors posting reviews--no more than with gamers, teachers, steel workers, or politicians posting reviews. I just don't think that their profession alone (i.e. writing) makes their reviews any more or less worthy than anyone else, and so I vote "No" on creating an "Author's Reviews" thread or similar subsection of CK.
And for the record, my review of Jaleigh's book says nothing about my reading habits, other than that I like good books and fancy a bit of darkness. Also, yeah, I'm putting the word out there for a friend of mine about a novel I really think is strong. I stand by the review 100%.
Cheers
P.S. On a slightly different note, if you'll pardon me for "reading between the lines" of the OP, I think I understand dennis's initial purpose in proposing this idea as being a way to honor/spotlight author reviews--give them a warm place in the community. I doubt he expected the reactions he got, which were not so much negative as "thanks but no thanks."
I acknowledge and appreciate the gracious thought, dennis, and thank you for doing your part to suggest new and cool ways the community can expand. This idea might not have taken root, but that doesn't mean others won't! |
| Dremvek |
Posted - 29 Oct 2010 : 05:47:11
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
I occasionally christen characters in my novels based on reviewers of my work.
Sometimes they die horrible gruesome deaths within 100-200 words.
But if that's the sort of thing you might be into, by all means! Post a review of one of my novels.
Cheers
You don't even need to review his works to have him kill you off. Sometimes he just does it for fun! |
| The Sage |
Posted - 29 Oct 2010 : 03:15:59
An encouraging analysis of the situation, Elaine. As well, it sums up most of the more major points I've been concerned about since this was first raised.
I wholeheartedly agree. |
| ElaineCunningham |
Posted - 29 Oct 2010 : 03:06:48
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by dennis
Anyway, Erik said that “...it is extremely easy for speculation to arise that an author "dislikes" or "disapproves" of a novel he/she fails to review...” that's why his vote for the having this thread is NO. YET he wrote a review for Jaleigh's novel, and NOT for several other novels by other authors. In other words, the fact that he DID write a review for Unbroken Chain MAY mean that he dislikes those that he fails to review. That is the contradiction I meant. See my point now?
No. A review by a single author for a single book is just a single review. It's when an author reviews several books and not others that that we might infer something about the non-reviewed books.
A single review doesn't give us enough data to make a decision on the author's opinion of any other books. Therefore, no contradiction.
In this, as in all things, meaning comes from context. I had no difficulty understanding the context of Erik's review of Jaleigh's book. They are friends and fellow "young dragons" who started out in the Realms at about the same time. Though I have not yet had the chance to read Jaleigh's book, everything I've heard about it suggests that it's a stand-out novel. If a friend of mine wrote what may well be one of the best books in the line, hell yeah, I'd spread the word. That's what friends do.
A single review is a single review. It is whatever it is. A review in a thread dedicated to Forgotten Realms authors' reviews of other Forgotten Realms authors' work, however, is another situation entirely. A dedicated thread establishes a context; namely, reviews will be positive comments about books writers found particularly noteworthy. In that context, the lack of reviews for any given book would be more apparent.
NOT the same thing as a single review. At all.
Context. Very important.
And speaking of context, one should never long forget that most of the Internet's bandwidth is dedicated to things that are taken OUT of context.
I have observed that there are on this Internet--though certainly not in these hallowed halls!--people whose social skills are, shall we say, somewhat lacking. If on the off chance one of these people wandered into Candlekeep and read this hypothetical review thread, he would most likely demand to know why X has not reviewed Y's books, and would not likely be satisfied with general comments of the "so many books, so little time" nature. There must be a REASON why X doesn't read Y! Or maybe X really DOES read Y, and hates Y's books! And since such people are seldom hesitant to speculate and prone to post speculation as fact, we'd soon be reading about "camps" and "cliques" and even "feuds" among FR writers.
And no, I'm not being paranoid. It's called experience. I've been on message boards since CompuServe and by now I can see a pattern shaping up fairly early on. |
| Dennis |
Posted - 29 Oct 2010 : 01:48:37
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
Okay, I think we're heading into territory that might be considered somewhat disrespectful of an author's individual take on things. Or, at the very least, making it awkward for him/her/them to respond to such assumptions.
Let's keep it fair, eh?
|
| The Sage |
Posted - 29 Oct 2010 : 01:28:02
Okay, I think we're heading into territory that might be considered somewhat disrespectful of an author's individual take on things. Or, at the very least, making it awkward for him/her/them to respond to such assumptions.
Let's keep it fair, eh? |
| Dennis |
Posted - 29 Oct 2010 : 01:11:18
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by dennis
Anyway, Erik said that “...it is extremely easy for speculation to arise that an author "dislikes" or "disapproves" of a novel he/she fails to review...” that's why his vote for the having this thread is NO. YET he wrote a review for Jaleigh's novel, and NOT for several other novels by other authors. In other words, the fact that he DID write a review for Unbroken Chain MAY mean that he dislikes those that he fails to review. That is the contradiction I meant. See my point now?
No. A review by a single author for a single book is just a single review. It's when an author reviews several books and not others that that we might infer something about the non-reviewed books.
A single review doesn't give us enough data to make a decision on the author's opinion of any other books. Therefore, no contradiction.
What is enough then? Ten reviews? Twenty? No, the fact that he already wrote one is enough to say 'something.' Maybe that single review is a preliminary to several more reviews he might have planned doing. Who knows – if I didn't request this thread – he might review more novels in this section or mayhap in Book Club?! And that is a REAL POSSIBILITY, specially if he finds and can spare 'enough time.'
|
| Dennis |
Posted - 28 Oct 2010 : 23:14:16
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
Dennis, I think you're *proving* my point that authors who post a review can be pigeonholed as approving of that particular book and not the ones they don't review.
I'm only quoting you to point out how you contradict your very own words. That doesn't mean I approve of your opinion ---because I certainly don't. Besides, what's the point of requesting this thread if I'm inclined to think that way?! |
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 28 Oct 2010 : 22:20:16
I occasionally christen characters in my novels based on reviewers of my work.
Sometimes they die horrible gruesome deaths within 100-200 words.
But if that's the sort of thing you might be into, by all means! Post a review of one of my novels.
Cheers |
| James P. Davis |
Posted - 28 Oct 2010 : 17:28:20
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Lee Byers
Or in my case, if I didn't post a favorable review of a particular novel, it might mean I hadn't been bribed.
So, in that mercenary spirit, I would like to open up the bidding for reviews... |
| Richard Lee Byers |
Posted - 28 Oct 2010 : 16:45:41
Or in my case, if I didn't post a favorable review of a particular novel, it might mean I hadn't been bribed. |
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 28 Oct 2010 : 15:32:14
Dennis, I think you're *proving* my point that authors who post a review can be pigeonholed as approving of that particular book and not the ones they don't review.
If you read on in my post, you'll find where I address the review I wrote of Jaleigh's book (which I don't regret writing at ALL).
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
3) There's a time issue: I know I don't have time to read as much as I should, much less compose thoughtful, interesting reviews. I did write one for Jaleigh's Unbroken Chain, but that was more of a fluke of some free time and a particular joy I took in reading that book. There are lots of books that I love and don't review, simply because I don't have time. What I'd rather be doing is reading more and writing more.
I would love to write more reviews, I just don't have the time to do so.
I could list the books I'd like to review, but again, that goes back to "oh, this author really likes THESE books, and not THOSE books," which is what I'm saying is silly. Of course I don't love all the Realms novels--different strokes for different folks as it were--but if I only have time to review Jaleigh's novel, that doesn't mean I haven't read a dozen other Realms novels in the interim, each of which IMO is just as deserving of a review. Some of which get lots of reviews (because they're big and popular and majorly hyped on the web), some of which don't (because they're small, contained, little marketed stories).
But unfortunately, appearances matter a great deal, and what you put in print affects what people think. Even with the caveats I just posted there, people can and will still think that I favor one novel over another, simply because I reviewed that novel and not another.
I don't want to ascribe any negativity to myself, nor do I want to push my opinions (real or speculated) upon anyone. Hence, I don't write many reviews, and I try to make it very clear that that does NOT mean I don't like many novels.
Cheers |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 28 Oct 2010 : 12:58:45
quote:
Originally posted by dennis
Anyway, Erik said that “...it is extremely easy for speculation to arise that an author "dislikes" or "disapproves" of a novel he/she fails to review...” that's why his vote for the having this thread is NO. YET he wrote a review for Jaleigh's novel, and NOT for several other novels by other authors. In other words, the fact that he DID write a review for Unbroken Chain MAY mean that he dislikes those that he fails to review. That is the contradiction I meant. See my point now?
No. A review by a single author for a single book is just a single review. It's when an author reviews several books and not others that that we might infer something about the non-reviewed books.
A single review doesn't give us enough data to make a decision on the author's opinion of any other books. Therefore, no contradiction. |
| Dennis |
Posted - 28 Oct 2010 : 12:33:00
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by dennis
'Tis plain that the authors themselves desire this not at all. So just dropping by to say my most probably last message in this thread...
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
...it is extremely easy for speculation to arise that an author "dislikes" or "disapproves" of a novel he/she fails to review...
Speculation, eh? Then why write a review for Jaleigh's newest novel? Time factor, I understand. But by writing it, you've just contradicted your own words (the very ones I quoted).
I fail to understand how writing a review contradicts how people can misinterpret the lack of a review for another book.
And I thought it's going to be my last post...
Anyway, Erik said that “...it is extremely easy for speculation to arise that an author "dislikes" or "disapproves" of a novel he/she fails to review...” that's why his vote for the having this thread is NO. YET he wrote a review for Jaleigh's novel, and NOT for several other novels by other authors. In other words, the fact that he DID write a review for Unbroken Chain MAY mean that he dislikes those that he fails to review. That is the contradiction I meant. See my point now? |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 28 Oct 2010 : 11:49:35
quote:
Originally posted by dennis
'Tis plain that the authors themselves desire this not at all. So just dropping by to say my most probably last message in this thread...
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
...it is extremely easy for speculation to arise that an author "dislikes" or "disapproves" of a novel he/she fails to review...
Speculation, eh? Then why write a review for Jaleigh's newest novel? Time factor, I understand. But by writing it, you've just contradicted your own words (the very ones I quoted).
I fail to understand how writing a review contradicts how people can misinterpret the lack of a review for another book. |
| Dennis |
Posted - 28 Oct 2010 : 10:16:54
'Tis plain that the authors themselves desire this not at all. So just dropping by to say my most probably last message in this thread...
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
...it is extremely easy for speculation to arise that an author "dislikes" or "disapproves" of a novel he/she fails to review...
Speculation, eh? Then why write a review for Jaleigh's newest novel? Time factor, I understand. But by writing it, you've just contradicted your own words (the very ones I quoted). |
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 26 Oct 2010 : 16:19:48
Nope.
Between writing, a full-time day job, running an FR campaign, and my ever-growing to-read list from all sorts of genres, I can't manage all the new releases.
I make sure to read those things that are particularly relevant to something I'm working on. For instance, I read Unbroken Chain partly because Jaleigh's a great friend and a good writer, but admittedly mostly because I was working on the Shadowfell boxed set, and the Shadar-kai are kinda significant. And I'm really glad I did.
I am currently reading Wrath of the Blue Lady, as I'm outlining a novel set in Westgate and its environs.
Cheers |
| ElaineCunningham |
Posted - 26 Oct 2010 : 15:42:52
quote:
Originally posted by Sandro
One quick (and perhaps stupid) question: do the authors read all of the new releases?
I used to read everything TSR published. Everything. Every novel, every game product, in every setting--Dragonlance, Ravenloft, Dark Sun, Spelljammer. My first editor, Jim Lowder, once observed that among the FR writers, I probably was second only to Ed when it came to knowledge of the setting.
Those days are past.
For several years now, I have not been nearly as faithful about keeping up with new releases and new lines. Though I applaude the notion of YA novels set in the Realms, I have not yet picked up Geno Salvatore's books. Nor have I read any of the Eberron books, though I did purchase and attempt to read Marcy Rockwell's debut novel (only to be thwarted by too-small print....) I still read books by old friends, and there are several talented newcomers whose books I'm looking forward to reading. But every release? No. |
| Richard Lee Byers |
Posted - 26 Oct 2010 : 14:53:00
Hi, Sandro. I can only speak for myself, but I don't read all the new releases, at least, not in a timely manner. I'd like to, but I'm simply too busy. |
| Sandro |
Posted - 26 Oct 2010 : 10:19:22
One quick (and perhaps stupid) question: do the authors read all of the new releases? If not, that already handicaps the concept a great deal. Like I said, possibly stupid, but equally possibly relevant question.
Also, I think turning to authors for some manner of "superior" review somewhat puts down the many members of the forum who are also extremely competent at expressing their views on novels: we have many members who have (somehow) read every FR novel/sourcebook/comic/press release, and many more who keep up with new releases enough to discuss them at length in this very forum in a mature manner. In my experience, authors have never been shy in sharing praise for novels that are being discussed, which is great. As has been said ad nauseum, professional courtesy dictates that authors not slam each other, which is the right thing to do and generally goes without saying. With this in mind, what would an author's review offer us but merely more praise of the novel, which they already offer elsewhere?
In short, why ask authors to merely parrot their positive opinions that can be (and are) aired elsewhere when you can turn to well read forumers who are capable of offering more balanced reviews, based both on having an outside perspective and not being obliged (after a fashion) to not criticize novels too harshly?
(If anything I've said, or assumptions I've made, are incorrect, my deepest apologies to you authors. I mean well, if naught else ) |
| James P. Davis |
Posted - 25 Oct 2010 : 18:26:59
For reasons already expressed: no reviews from me. In all cases I leave it to the readers. |
| The Red Walker |
Posted - 25 Oct 2010 : 17:00:24
quote:
Originally posted by dennis
To Elaine and Ed:
It seems like I wasn't clear enough as to my intended purpose to have this scroll...
First, I don't expect the authors, even if they have the time in the world, to read and review all the FR novels of their peers. Second, I expect them to review those novels that appeal to them, so that ALL words will be in favor to the books. One-sided, I know, but we, the scribes, the majority of the readers, already have much negativity to say about certain published books. And we don't need any more negative comments, specially from the authors themselves, about the books in question. So the purpose of this scroll – as I hope and wish – is to encourage us, FR fans, to read the novels, specially those we think (for several reasons) we'll find less interesting, but the authors themselves consider highly.
Its fairly forward to expect that from them, their time is pressed as is and if an author has time to read (and hopefully enjoy) a noel, the last thing they need is an "obligation" to commit even more time to 1. do a good review and 2. Take the time to post it here.
There is plenty of opportunity and space in the bookclub and the Novels scrolls to bring encouragment for others to read them. If you have a particular book you think is slipping under the radar and is under appreciated...by all means start a new scroll and start trumpeting its virtues.
Most importantly you seem to have missed the point that no review = didnt like it. Is that fair? No , but you must admit that if many novels draw rave reviews from other FR authors, but a handfull get few if any...it would easily seem to be a book that is not well thought of when it could be any of a grocery list of reasons why no reveiws. Take a novel written by A...its a novel that deals with alot of what has come before.....so he consults Ed, Steven Schend, Elaine, etc... etc.. none of those may either feel it honorable or fiar to write a review of something they have an interest in doing well(let alone legal reasons) so there you coule easily reduce the number of authors who might do a review by half or more! |
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 25 Oct 2010 : 15:20:00
The OP outs me as part of the origin of this concept, and while it isn't a bad idea, I do want to note a few things:
1) As Elaine said (and Ed and RLB echoed), it is extremely easy for speculation to arise that an author "dislikes" or "disapproves" of a novel he/she fails to review. As an example:
Hypothetically, if I review a Paul Kemp novel, for instance, but not one of RAS's novels, then you might assume I dislike Bob's style or (worse) lump me in with the "anti-Drizzt" crowd. That could not, however, be farther from the truth: RAS and Drizzt have had a profound effect on my writing (basically inspiring me to do it in the first place), and though I don't read much Drizzt any more (being at a different place in my literary life, one that is more in line with Paul's fiction), I see RAS's work as powerful and important to the Realms and to fantasy in general. But it's entirely conceivable (in fact, I can guarantee it will happen) that someone takes my review out of context and "reads between the lines" to "figure out" that I dislike RAS's work. This is not fair to me or to RAS, or to the hundreds of potential readers of his series.
Hence, I would prefer to say nothing on the subject.
2) Your agreement or disagreement with an author's opinion on a review can color your perceptions of that author's work.
Say I wrote a review of a novel you love, but I extremely disliked the style and called it a snore-fest. Alternately, say I wrote a really glowing review of a novel you despise. Either way, it is easy for you (or any other reader of my review) to have preconceived notions about my work (that my style emulates something I admire or eschews something I criticize) or about me as a person (that I'm a jerk for writing a negative review of a book you like, or a dummy for writing a positive review of a novel you conside tripe, and not read me either way). Either way, that's not fair to you or to me: I prefer to let my work speak for itself, but there's no way to divorce my name from my work, other than reviewing under a pseudonym (which goes against the whole point in the first place).
3) There's a time issue: I know I don't have time to read as much as I should, much less compose thoughtful, interesting reviews. I did write one for Jaleigh's Unbroken Chain, but that was more of a fluke of some free time and a particular joy I took in reading that book. There are lots of books that I love and don't review, simply because I don't have time. What I'd rather be doing is reading more and writing more.
4) Professional courtesy: as noted above, it's just not cool to denigrate my fellow authors in the setting, all of whom I admire and respect and am proud to be working with. I admit that I like some of their work better than others, but I'm not going to go on the boards and say that. It just wouldn't be professional.
5) Authors are just people: The concept of creating a "author review" thread or area assumes, at its core, that the reviews written by us FR authors would somehow be "superior" or at least "different" from the reviews written by people who DON'T write FR novels. This isn't a valid premise. Maybe they'd be really great reviews, maybe not, but that's because of the individual author, not some magic mantle we all get in the mail from TSR/WotC that makes us a "great reviewer." The opinion of an author amounts to just as much as the opinion of anyone else, no more and no less. And frankly, I'd prefer to read professional reviews and those written by readers with a really sharp passion for a novel, rather than spend time trying to emulate them.
Also, again, hearkening back to #2, if an author is only a passable reviewer (or worse), then that might reflect poorly on that author's work, which might be of surpassing brilliance.
Conclusion:
In summation, I'm not in favor of an author review thread for the following reasons: It puts too much pressure on authors, it has a tendency to prejudice readers for or against work that should be left to speak for itself, and authors are not necessarily better (or worse) reviewers than anyone else. It should be an author's choice to review a novel, not a matter of pressure to participate, and an author's choice not to post reviews.
I would prefer it if authors wanted to post reviews, they do so just like everyone else: in the FR novel thread, General FR discussion, or up on Amazon.
Finally, I consider non-author reader reviews much more effective at encouraging people to read a book. I love reading reviews of what you guys like to read, whether it's my work or someone else's. Partly, it helps the setting, and partly it helps me by suggesting some new writing ideas I may not have considered.
If you are really interested in encouraging more people to pick up FR novels, it is your prerogative to talk them up or post reviews. We authors have a job, and that's writing more of them for you to review--we'll do that, and we'd prefer it if you readers would handle the reviewing end.
Cheers |
| Dennis |
Posted - 25 Oct 2010 : 03:07:22
To Elaine and Ed:
It seems like I wasn't clear enough as to my intended purpose to have this scroll...
First, I don't expect the authors, even if they have the time in the world, to read and review all the FR novels of their peers. Second, I expect them to review those novels that appeal to them, so that ALL words will be in favor to the books. One-sided, I know, but we, the scribes, the majority of the readers, already have much negativity to say about certain published books. And we don't need any more negative comments, specially from the authors themselves, about the books in question. So the purpose of this scroll – as I hope and wish – is to encourage us, FR fans, to read the novels, specially those we think (for several reasons) we'll find less interesting, but the authors themselves consider highly.
|
| Richard Lee Byers |
Posted - 25 Oct 2010 : 03:06:43
As usual, I agree with Elaine and Ed, so you won't be seeing any reviews from me. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 25 Oct 2010 : 02:33:44
quote:
Originally posted by The Hooded One
There IS such a thing as professional courtesy (see Elaine Cunningham's post, above).
love to all,
THO
This is exactly what I was thinking when I found this particular scroll floating in the ether between shelves. At first, I was inclined to deny it overall. However, I also believe strongly in providing the scribes of Candlekeep with an opportunity to voice their opinions on such subjects, so I decided to recover the discussion and post it here.
|
| The Hooded One |
Posted - 25 Oct 2010 : 02:29:14
Hi. I sent this thread thus far to Ed, for his response, and he says:
I agree with Elaine (as I usually do!). I concur with every word of her post.
To which I'll add the factors pertaining to my unique position: having worked on some books as an editor, complicates things; I usually have contractual reasons for silences on some matters; I often provide behind-the-scenes lore, but not equally from book to book; and there's always the "did the author read my mind and somehow capture the 'real' Realms in my head" factor, too, which is unfair to everyone.
Not to mention the way I was brought up: in public, if you can't say something nice, say nothing at all. (A decidedly foreign style to many who post on the Internet, but there it is.) Which inevitably results in my expressed opinions being dismissed as "nothing but cheerleading" by some readers.
All of which leaves me voting nay, too.
So saith Ed. Who surprises me not with this position. There IS such a thing as professional courtesy (see Elaine Cunningham's post, above).
love to all,
THO |
| ElaineCunningham |
Posted - 24 Oct 2010 : 22:46:34
I'd rather not. If I give rave reviews to X, acknowledged Y, and did not review Z, many people (including Z) might draw innaccurate conclusions about my opinions. And for that matter, sometimes those conclusions WOULD be accurate. No one's going to love every FR book, not even the people who write for the Realms. For that matter, not everyone who writes for the Realms READS all the FR books.
IMO, if you're a working writer and you don't like another book in the line, the only appropriate response is silence. But since no one's going to be able to tell whether silence stems from disapproval or lack of reading time, a thread that shines a spotlight on author reviews puts a certain amount of pressure on writers to review EVERY book.
So. I vote nay.
|
| The Sage |
Posted - 24 Oct 2010 : 15:02:10
I'm inclined to agree.
For the time being though, I'll open this up to input from the authors themselves. Would they prefer their own review scroll, or are they content to maintain posting in existing scrolls?
|
|
|
