tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3383938214852108244.post4248014367122516590..comments2024-03-27T16:48:21.039-05:00Comments on Wuthering <br>Expectations: I don't think it very likely that you could make us believe it - why Chesnutt repeats himselfAmateur Reader (Tom)http://www.blogger.com/profile/13675275555757408496noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3383938214852108244.post-19636917433693145312010-02-28T20:28:38.285-06:002010-02-28T20:28:38.285-06:00Rebecca - give Chesnutt a chance!
Did I mention...Rebecca - give Chesnutt a chance! <br /><br />Did I mention that <i>The Conjure Woman</i> is only 98 pages long (Library of America pages)? A low cost book.Amateur Reader (Tom)https://www.blogger.com/profile/13675275555757408496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3383938214852108244.post-24518899381750010992010-02-26T11:45:22.722-06:002010-02-26T11:45:22.722-06:00I agree with Emily that your original use of "...I agree with Emily that your original use of "formulaic" seemed fine and descriptive, but I'm glad you have elaborated. Because now I sort of want to read these.<br /><br />"Variation within the formula"...yep, that's what it's all about...nicolehttp://www.bibliographing.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3383938214852108244.post-2183514955504920022010-02-26T07:55:43.775-06:002010-02-26T07:55:43.775-06:00I don't consider what I write as book reviews ...I don't consider what I write as book reviews either. I just like to write about books. I do think you do a great job of capturing the issues behind literature, so keep doing what you are doing. <br /><br />Maybe I will give Chesnutt a chance!Rebecca Reidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06062252252301802298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3383938214852108244.post-73687038856437038602010-02-25T23:10:15.378-06:002010-02-25T23:10:15.378-06:00"Variation within the Formula" would no..."Variation within the Formula" would not be such a bad name for a pretentious band, or a pretentious litblog.<br /><br />I think of book reviews as the format found in Book sections of newspapers. Or that were once found etc. They<br />are <a rel="nofollow">self-contained</a>. They contain plot summaries. They are mildly encouraging, except for a pro forma criticism, and end with a lukewarm recommendation, and perhaps a star rating.<br /><br />Or there is the academic journal version, the analytical summary, written for people who need to know that a book exists but do not necessarily need to actually read it. See <a href="http://littleprofessor.typepad.com/the_little_professor/2010/02/a-monsters-notes.html" rel="nofollow">The Little Professor</a>. That books sounds like something else.<br /><br />Or maybe you are thinking of someone like Woolf? Now there's an aspiration!<br /><br />I spent a week in April last year writing, every day, what I considered a book review. Well, four days - I <a href="http://wutheringexpectations.blogspot.com/2009/04/ive-run-out-of-reviews-which-is-fine.html" rel="nofollow">ran out of reviews</a>.<br /><br />Maybe this is something I should wrte about more. I'm not the fellow to re-evaluate the canon, though, since I like everything.Amateur Reader (Tom)https://www.blogger.com/profile/13675275555757408496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3383938214852108244.post-57893343230672024022010-02-25T18:51:37.159-06:002010-02-25T18:51:37.159-06:00I've been enjoying these Chesnutt posts of you...I've been enjoying these Chesnutt posts of yours, Amateur Reader, and just wanted to add that I think <em>The Conjure Woman</em> is a hell of a title. As far as formulas go, I'm all for sticking with the <em>good</em> ones myself: sub-three minute Chuck Berry songs and sub-two minute Ramones songs never grow old, for example, but I don't need to hear a five-minute version for the artists to show me they're "maturing" or "progressing." "Variation <em>within</em> the formula" and all that, definitely!Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01746599416342846897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3383938214852108244.post-16781582722657435422010-02-25T16:36:24.783-06:002010-02-25T16:36:24.783-06:00Interesting that you characterize what you normall...Interesting that you characterize what you normally do as different than book-reviewing. I don't consider what I normally do as book-reviewing either, but I think of yours as one of the more review-ish book blogs, in that you seem interested in comparing the critical status of different works, evaluating & re-evaluating the canon (which I generally consider a goal of reviewers more than plain ol' readers...or whatever we in the blogging world are). Perhaps I should reconsider?<br /><br />For what it's worth, I thought your use of "formulaic" as purely descriptive came across. Slightly provocative - enough to grab the reader's attention - but clear in the context of the rest of your post.Emilyhttp://www.eveningallafternoon.comnoreply@blogger.com