I flung the first Covenant book against the wall after the first 100 pages. It was, as dolorous_ett said above, unreadable.
It saddens me, though, that people -- at least some of them -- who make decisions as to which books will or will not be published can't stand for a book to rise or fall on its own merits, without comparison to something else. It is absurd, as your "blurb" demonstrates. I think it reflects badly on the reviewer/editor/whoever: it says to me that the individual hasn't the intellectual apparatus to come up with fresh and original things to say in a review.
That kinda turns things on their heads, doesn't it? After all, one of the demands put on writers is that their work be fresh and original, no?
H'mmmm . . .
Makes me glad I'm doing non-fiction; we don't run into that so much as fiction writers do.
no subject
It saddens me, though, that people -- at least some of them -- who make decisions as to which books will or will not be published can't stand for a book to rise or fall on its own merits, without comparison to something else. It is absurd, as your "blurb" demonstrates. I think it reflects badly on the reviewer/editor/whoever: it says to me that the individual hasn't the intellectual apparatus to come up with fresh and original things to say in a review.
That kinda turns things on their heads, doesn't it? After all, one of the demands put on writers is that their work be fresh and original, no?
H'mmmm . . .
Makes me glad I'm doing non-fiction; we don't run into that so much as fiction writers do.