Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

I confess, it's difficult to read this without suspecting that homophobia is at the root of your distaste.

Although the world evoked in the book is indeed akin to that of Dangerous Liaisons, there quite certainly ARE heroes as well as villains, and Kushner addresses questions of what constitutes morality and integrity within the political as well as the private sphere - and, moreover, the ways in which class and privilege inform people's values and perspectives.

This is not some the glib and glittering text you appear to take it for, nor is the story the the cynical or shallow thing you have assumed.

It is a poor writer that lays all their cards on the table from the beginning of a book, and leaves the readers with nothing new to discover in terms of character or plot. Kushner is a considerably better writer, and a much less superficial person, than you give her credit for.

I stand by my review, including the part that says some will enjoy the book.

I'm coming in long after the fact here, but....how in the world can you rate this at one star, when you admit both that it is well written and that you never even read most of it?? That just doesn't make any sense to me at all.

Think about it. I'm rating it on my experience and my taste. The feel of the book, the characters, the entire world in the book leaves me cold. It's negative. You'll note (if you check) that I've said the same about other books. Of Mice and Men, very well written, but I dislike it. It's nihilistic and depressing. I review and rate based on my experience of a given book. Objective judgement does little to help anyone decide if they'd care to read the book or not. If someone finds they agree with most of my reviews, then they get an idea if they will like books I like and so on

By the same token if they most often disagree with me that tells them something to.

I found this book depressing, negative and I didn't get involved with any of the characters. I didn't want to burn anymore of my time with it. A 1 star experience.

You didn't even *read* the book. How can you say it was depressing, negative, had boring characters, or anything else about it?

I'm afraid I'm beginning to agree with Fayjay. I suspect that your real problem with this book is it's inclusion of homosexuality. Could you at least be honest about your objections to it?

Look, I didn't finish the book, I didn't like it. Don't put words in my mouth. I said I read little of it. After a while if you don't care for a book you skim.

I get it. You sort of like the book. I don't. That's cool. I believe we can disagree here and stay civil, but please don't say I said things I didn't say.

Fayjay wrote: "I confess, it's difficult to read this without suspecting that homophobia is at the root of your distaste.

Although the world evoked in the book is indeed akin to that of Dangerous Liaisons, ther..."

Contrarius wrote: "You didn't even *read* the book. How can you say it was depressing, negative, had boring characters, or anything else about it?

I'm afraid I'm beginning to agree with Fayjay. I suspect that your r..."

I really wish you wouldn't spread accusations if you don't know what you are talking about. He didn't like the book. End of story. I have another friend who gave it 2 stars and mentioned that it's focal point was drama and intrigue. If you follow Mike's reviews you would know that isn't his area of interest.

*sheesh*

I just updated it MrsJ. Hopefully it will make more clear what it was about the book that got it a low rating. It's hard for people who like a book to see it criticized... I know from personal experience. LOL

MrsJoseph wrote: "Fayjay wrote: "I confess, it's difficult to read this without suspecting that homophobia is at the root of your distaste.

Although the world evoked in the book is indeed akin to that of Dangerous..."

It has to be okay to "not like" a book if any ratings are to be precived as valid. Mike, you have a right to judge books on your own experiences, as do I.

If you don't like Mike's reviews, don't follow them.

I'm with you MrsJoe,

*Sheesh*

I've got no problems with people criticizing books that I happen to like. I read such reviews all the time -- for example, there are several other 1 star reviews on this book alone, which I have not felt any need to comment on. I *do*, however, have serious problems with people criticizing books that they didn't even read. And, unfortunately (I checked after posting last night), that seems to happen with Mike quite frequently.

edited to add - MrsJoseph wrote: "I really wish you wouldn't spread accusations if you don't know what you are talking about."

Well, that's exactly what Mike is doing. If he criticizes a book he hasn't read, he is spreading accusations about a book when he doesn't actually know what he's talking about. So you should take him to task for that, right?

Contrarius wrote: "edited to add - MrsJoseph wrote: "I really wish you wouldn't spread accusations if you don't know what you are talking about."

Well, that's exactly what Mike is doing. If he criticizes a book he hasn't read, he is spreading accusations about a book when he doesn't actually know what he's talking about. So you should take him to task for that, right? "


Are you serious?? I mean...really! It's a book for goodness sakes! It has no feelings! There are no emotions there. WTH.

This is a book review...otherwise known as an opinion piece.

*rolls eyes*

I tried. Again Contrarius I didn't say I hadn't read it. It's true that if a book fails to interest me or draw me in I will skim through it and give my reaction. I then say that's what it is. I asked once and I'll ask again, please don't "put words in my mouth". You are free to have your opinion and to state it. You are free to disagree with me and to say so, here. But please don't set up an argument I never made so you can refute it.

To wit: That I never read the book.

I did not read the entire book in detail. I didn't like it. I have limited time to read. I decided not to put anymore time into the book.

Okay I've tried. You don't agree, that's fine. I'll not belabor this further. I'll discuss but I don't care to go over the same ground.

So, you are saying that, to comment on a book, so you can express your opinion that you didn't like it, you MUST read all of it?

That's rediculous. At the point you can't continue, you stop, rate it and tell why.

Mike and I don't agree on a whole lot of things. I don't care if your worst thoughts about Mike are true (though I think they aren't) you don't get to dictate what's a valid reason to like or dislike a book. This is an individuals opinion, not a government's or a corporations or a political committee.

One Person, One opinion. That's all. I don't see any disparaging remarks about the author, only about the book and, Mike has taken ownership of his opinion.

And what's he accusing the book of doing? A statement of not liking something is not an accusation of criminal or immoral activity. I don't like Yogurt, but I still buy it for my kids.

You have the right to "unlike-mike."

I haven't seen an argument presented that says "Yea, it's like that in the begining, but the end is way different." So, if the things Mike didn't like in the book aren't going to change, does he really have to read the entire thing to "earn" his opinion and state it on a review?

I don't see anywhere Mike says "I didn't like the ending."

Curmudgeon wrote: "Curmudgeon (A.K.A. Hugh) So, you are saying that, to comment on a book, so you can express your opinion that you didn't like it, you MUST read all of it?

That's rediculous. At the point you can't continue, you stop, rate it and tell why.

Mike and I don't agree on a whole lot of things. I don't care if your worst thoughts about Mike are true (though I think they aren't) you don't get to dictate what's a valid reason to like or dislike a book. This is an individuals opinion, not a government's or a corporations or a political committee.

One Person, One opinion. That's all. I don't see any disparaging remarks about the author, only about the book and, Mike has taken ownership of his opinion.

And what's he accusing the book of doing? A statement of not liking something is not an accusation of criminal or immoral activity. I don't like Yogurt, but I still buy it for my kids.

You have the right to "unlike-mike."

I haven't seen an argument presented that says "Yea, it's like that in the begining, but the end is way different." So, if the things Mike didn't like in the book aren't going to change, does he really have to read the entire thing to "earn" his opinion and state it on a review?

I don't see anywhere Mike says "I didn't like the ending." "


Agreed.

Just so everyone knows I ignored the "questions" about my attitude toward homosexuality in the book. I saw no reason to answer it as it draws attention.

Okay...I don't hate, dislike or frown on homosexuals. I suppose that does add to my lack of identification with the character but I don't put books down simply because there's a homosexual character. I generally don't care as much for any book with a heavily romantic plot line of any kind.

You find homosexual or gay characters and themes in books like the Death's head series, Left Hand of Darkness even the Picture of Dorian Gray. Believe it or not I don't burn or even avoid them.

Okay it's answered I tried to take the high road, but I've given in and answered. This is like a situation where you disagree with someone and instead of your arguments being looked at you're accused of hating the person you disagree with. It's silly.

Mike (the Paladin) wrote: "Just so everyone knows I ignored the "questions" about my attitude toward homosexuality in the book. I saw no reason to answer it as it draws attention.

Okay...I don't hate, dislike or frown on h..."



News at 11: You no longer to hate ketchup. That is tomato discrimination and it is frowned upon.

Mike (the Paladin) wrote: "This is like a situation where you disagree with someone and instead of your arguments being looked at you're accused of hating the person you disagree with."

Is that the ad hominem logical fallacy?

Mike, I didn't even read the book and I had an idea that either homosexuality or matters of religion and faith might be one of the issues. (It just didn't seem like a government over reach just yet.)

As a person who usually finds himself on the other side of argument, this is a strange place for me, but I have two thoughts, then, It's time to move on, I think.

A) Suppose for a moment, that, mike could be forced to either not write a review, or to change his review, what would you have you have gained? The issue isn't what mike writes or doesn't write in his review, it's that you wish Mike could be more open to Gay leading characters, or maybe romance, or both. Forcing him to change or restate his opinion, even if it was harsh and unfair, would only make him more entrenched in his position, just gagged.

How could you argument for openness be valid if the other side of the argument had no voice? Then, wouldn't you be guilty of exactly what you're working against?

Second, there is a lesson from the Movie "Ivictus." I believe that movie is, at least, based on factual occurrances. I actully know that this event really happened. I do not know that the quotes in the movie are actually Mandela Quotes though I suspect it is close to his thinking.

There was a time, just after the end of aparthied when Black South African's had taken over the government (through free elections) and voted Mandela into power as the new head of the South African Government. At the time, South Africa had always been reprsented in World Rugby by the "Springboks (Springbucks)" who have a long tradition of being very an amazingly good Rugby side. Except, until times recent to the end of Aparthied, it was an all white team. And even though that had ended, there was only one black rugby player on the Springbucks, yet, the Springbucks represented the Nation of South Africa in World Cup Play and, they were slated to host the World Cup.

There was a committee that was the authority over sports in South Africa that had met, and voted to stripe the Springbucks of their National colours and deny them the right to respresnet South Africa in the World Cup. The argument was, that they ave been an "all white" team for so long, and even now they only have one black player. How could they represent us, a nation that is mostly Black in population?"

When Mandela heard about the vote, he got in the limo and went to the committee. He had to be moving fast because he got there before they adjourned and argued on behalf of the Springbucks. His argument was compelling and the committee voted to reopen the vote, then, the moslty black committee voted to reinstate the Springbucks as the National Rugby team.

This was his argument. "We are now in power, on the basis that our government should be fair. The battle was long and hard, and cost many people their lives. The other side belived that once in power, we will strip them of everything and take it for ourselves. This is not a government of fairness. The Springbucks are the national team. They are now open to blacks. If we take them away now, as important as they are to the identy of white South Africa then all of their fears will have been realized and they will feel justified in their. We are one nation, not two, where citizens are equal, regardless of the colour of thier skin. We have an opportunity now, for healing. Why don't we choose that?

Of course, if you have seen the movie, or just paid attention to the sports news around the world what happened is history. The Sprinbucks only included in the tournament because they were the host nation, went on to win the world cup. When Debeers (Team captian of the Springbucks) was asked "How does it feel to have a stadium full of 60,000 fans cheering for you?" He answered, "I don't have 60,000 fans cheering for us, we have a nation of Six Hundred Thousand fans cheering for us!"

I think, and this is my opinion, that the lesson there is, that, if the way you seek inclusion in to days scociety, by that I mean, to be liked as much as your neighbor, that you don't get there by pointing fingers and making accusations, even if those accusations are accurate. That's how you make sure you don't loose your rights as a citizen, and fight getting thrown in Jail without due process or cause.

You get there by embracing what's important to the other side, that you can agree upon, and start working from there.

Again, that's just me.

Sorry to hog the thread Mike.

conversation is conversation. I believe mostly in letting civil dialogue go on unfettered. Your stating what you think. Cool.

Mike (the Paladin) wrote: "I tried. Again Contrarius I didn't say I hadn't read it."

Mike -- your exact words were: "I read very little of this book."

I'll repeat myself again: I have no problem with people who don't like a particular book. I DO have problems with people who criticize books that they haven't even read.

Also -- I know, from checking through some of your many other 1 star reviews, that you don't like certain themes in books -- and you tend to give out 1 star reviews just because you don't like that "kind" of book, even when you admit that the books are well written or when you haven't read the entire book. IMVHO, that doesn't make any sense at all. If you don't like that "kind" of book, why are you reviewing them at all? For comparison: I don't care for books about military history. So would it make any sense for me to give 1 star reviews to every military history book I can find?? Nope, that would be a pretty dumb thing for me to do. Similarly, I despise Ann Coulter -- but I haven't actually read her books, so I don't go around writing 1 star reviews just because I hate her political beliefs. Get the idea here?

So -- there's actually two things I object to here. I don't "expect" you to change anything -- I am just, as John Cleese would say, registering my complaint. My complaint is two-fold:

1. One should not criticize books that one has not read (see relevant quote from you above). If you do so, to paraphrase MrsJoseph from earlier, you are simply spreading accusations without knowledge; and

2. One should not give books poor reviews just because they present themes you don't happen to like (for example, several of your 1 star reviews specifically stated variations on the idea that you don't like books with a "life is hard" theme).

Feel free to ignore me, as I'm sure you will. As I said, I don't expect you to change -- but I'm a firm believer in speaking up when I see something wrong, whether or not someone else agrees with me. Now I've had my say, and I'm sure you'll go right back to doing whatever you wanted to do in the first place. ;)

But that's the beauty of reviews, Contrarius. What about the people who feel the exact same as Mike does about books and they know that if he really didn't like this, they won't either. This review, even if it's as bad as you say, still serves its purpose.

I don't like that people rate/review books that haven't even been published yet, but people do and luckily neither of us is in charge of how they do things.

If I could in print I'd sigh. Yes I said I read very little of the book. By that I mean I read the book in detail to the point that I knew it wasn't going to interest me and I wasn't into it at all. Skimming a book is not that unusual. You read a book so far and then read it by skimming the chapters to pick up story or plot line out come.

Feel free to disagree, but again your point of disagreement seems to be that I didn't like the book enough to finish it so I shouldn't comment on it. Also if I don't like a books point of view or attitude I should also refrain from commenting.

For example, as I have noted in several reviews I will rate low a "life is crap and then you die" book. That does not mean any book with a sad or heavy ending however. Again for example, the book Julius Winsome: A Novel (http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...) is a very sad book but the theme isn't simply "life is painful and then gets worse" there's no overriding nihilism.

I said before my reviews are for readers or perspective readers. If you've read my reviews before and find you agree with my taste they help that way. If by the same token you seem to disagree a lot that tells you something also.

Reviews are opinions we will disagree. Otherwise there wouldn't be such violent disagreement on lists like "The Best Books Ever" where Twilight constantly gets more votes than C.S.Lewis, George Orwell or Harper Lee (and a lot of other books I'd rate much higher than the voters on the list do).

So I will continue to review and comment based on my taste in books. Feel free to do so or not yourself as you see fit.

Nobody has the right to tell someone else how to go about doing reviews on their own profiles...they only have the right to choose whether or not they want to read those reviews.

Linette wrote: "Nobody has the right to tell someone else how to go about doing reviews on their own profiles...they only have the right to choose whether or not they want to read those reviews."

Great. Then perhaps I will go trash all of Ann Coulter's books without reading them, after all... ;)

This'll be my last post on this thread (round of applause, everyone). I've had my say, and as I mentioned above I don't really expect Mike to change. I do want to mention, though, that one thing I very much *appreciate* about Mike is his stalwart civility. I strongly disagree with the way he goes about writing many of his reviews, but I recognize and respect the tone in which he discusses them. So, Mike, my thumbs are both strongly down and strongly up here.

btw -- I noticed that you're in Hermitage. I don't remember if it's anywhere on my profile, but I'm in Lebanon -- just next door. Sometime we ought to meet somewhere and civilly argue about something. ;)

Yeah I saw you were in Lebanon. I read a book once (a history) where someone mentioned that Lebanon was a days ride from Nashville. How times change.

I'm not angry here but the one frustrating thing you've continued to say is that I "didn't read the book". I said I didn't read a lot of the book. I'll say again that if "a person" reads enough of a book to know they don't like it, then they say so. If you want to dis Ann (and you won't be alone if you do) that's your right. A LOT of people rate and review her books badly REALLY without reading them.

But my last word...I didn't say I didn't read the book. (Or I read very little of the book) I said I didn't read a lot of the book. There is a lot of the book I didn't bother to read once I saw I wasn't interested and didn't care for it...

Linette wrote: "Nobody has the right to tell someone else how to go about doing reviews on their own profiles...they only have the right to choose whether or not they want to read those reviews."

^This

I would be rather upset if Mike changed the way he reviews. I also dislike the "life is hard and then you die" themes. I appreciate that he's upfront with this information. You may not like his reviews but those of us who follow him do. And even though the lists are down, Mike is consistently on the top the reviewers list.

I think what bugs me about this conversation is not what's being said, it's what's not being said.

I seems to me, and I'm a blockheaded idiot sometimes so you don't have to take this as gospel, that the major concern here is not about rating a book after only reading a bit of it. because:

1) it's not logical
2) it's not against any Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ guidence or policies
3) knowing what the issue is we can also know that Mike would still not have liked the book if he had read all of it.
4) Even if he had, we'd still be having this conversation.

See, to me it seems, and I'm talking about a perception (as best I can try and see though someone else's eyes) which is neither accurate nor false (the perception, not my interpetation wich could be both accurate and wrong)...uh... yea, perception

There's a perception that the reason this review was posted was, in a way, sort of a socio-political-judgmental-(maybe mild condemnation) of a certain life style. I'm not going to call it a life style choice because I believe it's too complicated for that, though choice is certainly part of it.

The idea being not so much "how could you post a review without finishing the book?" which is what the argument appears to be, but more "Why did you post this particular review. The question infers that there is motive beyond what is printed on the review. "Why is this book important enough to rate one star, yet others you may have given up on do not get any review at all?" So the concern is, that this review is posted because it's an opportunity to say "I don't like that." Not simply because it's on the read list.

Though I think it may not be fair to pin this motivation on Mike (only mike knows for sure) I do believe it is a valid concern because people really do things like that. One of the reasons is, it's sort of a back door to provide a subtle argument and take a stance that is no longer considered appropriate in general in todays society and pass it off as "just a book review."

The benifit of this strategy is, that it leaves very little opportunity for rebuttle as long as the poster keeps saying, it's about the book...not that other thing.

It's the same thing as when an administration says "we aren't going to "say" that this is unpatriotic." And everybody over the age of 4 can see that this is just symantic code that hides the unspoken words, "but it is." neatly hiddin by the silence that follows.

It's also the same kind of thing that happens in cases of harrassment and discrimination. The company or agency no longer "says" this is our policy, but they still use code words that suggest it is. Like when NBC News got caught rigging a pick up truck to explode from a side impact so they could get it tape and say "See their dangerous." Their statement was, "It is no longer our policy to..." No longer your policy? what the hell was your policy before?

These are extreem examples, but in the extreme it is made clear (to be honest there are even more extreme examples). The problem with the examples I gave is that they show intent to decieve and intent to willfully interfere or sensationalize for profit.

The problem is, that people do this all the time, when there is no libel, or deciet intended. Heck, one could make that accusation over "any" review on goodreads. We vote with the all mighty dollar. We "like" other reviews, we "share" on face book. We eat more of Mrs. Devons Cherry Cobbler because it's way better than our wifes only we can't tell our wife that so we say..."I'm stuffed." Instead of "That filling would eat the chrome off a trailer hitch."

I'm just saying the notion that such a thing is always dishonorable, unethical, imoral or defacto hate whispering, is not really accurate. If it "always is" then we are all guilty of espousing it. Yet, sometimes, it really is all of these things.

So, the issue doesn't seem to be the content of the book (not directly) or the content of the review (not directly) but the intentions behind the review. (Hence the suggestion that this book was picked out of the barrel (chosen for review) over other nasty rags that didn't deserve to be wirtten "Because" it includes a primary character who lives a certain life style.

There is no way to prove, or disprove a person's intent, but, that does not mean it's not important why people choose to do things that they do.

So, yes, you could rate and review every Anne Coulter book you could find, thus throwing dirt on her message in the name of "rating books and expressing an opinion" when really it's a socio-political counter argument defending a particular way of life.

Compounding this, is the idea that "I write reviews so poeple who's tastes match mine will not waist their time on a book that they won't enjoy."

It almost seems like that coded language that could be read (could be) as "If you like this, you are supporting that which we believe is wrong."

And even if there is no intent to decieve, and no conscious thought given to this unspoken idea and no will or desire to make a political statement, such a thing could still, accurately be described as just that, simply because, without intenting to, that still happens all the time. One could say by commenting on "this review" rather than passing it by is doing exactly the same thing.

Everybody picks their battles because an argument calls attention to the fight. If you want to highlight hate speech about Elves, and target the dwarves as Haters, all you have to do is wayt for a dwarf to post his review on Lord of the Rings and attach him for elf bashing. Wallah, instant notoriety. We get ten comments about it for every one of ours.

See when the pot calls the kettle black, the pot is actually right. Yet, it could have gone the other way.

so, lets say, the worst again this is some socio-politico message. Why isn't it a valid reason not to like this book or how does that become wrong if there is a review written? One man's opinion, one review, freedome of speach, a lawfully acceptable way to voice an opinion. Even Hitler was able to publsih Mien Kampf and any collegiate or high schooler can get a copy and read it. He is the Feuhrer of Hate with abominable intentions but, his book is still out there.

Now for the record. I've written this with the intent of giving my take on what's really going on here. Not because I think Mike is posting reviews based on some hidden agenda, nor do I believe that the negative posts her are mere nitpicking folly. Contrarius's concerns are very valid, even here. Having a concern does not make it a fact, but, since these things really happen, it's valid to express those concerns here. As valid as writing a review on the book, right?

Having said that, my experience with Mike is that he rates nearly every book he touches and honestly "tries" to read. he's panned books that I loved, remember Event?.

It is also true that mike has accepted a life style that is "spiritually" at odds with that life style which made it hard to identify with the main characters and this shows in some of his reviews.

I also no, from Mikes reviews, that he takes great pains to present his own beliefs and life style, in a way that doesn't condem those who do not have that life style, nor condem others for likeing a book that he doesn't, for whatever reason.

And, like I've said, even if the worst were true, Mike's reasons for rating the book a 1 is still just as valid as any other reviewers.

The problem is, that, even if somebody tells you what their intentions are, you can never really know if that's true. And, if you are right, Contrarias (or anyone who is affected by Mike's Review) by attacking it, you are doing the same thing that you accuse him of. The pot really is black but then again, so is the kettle.

Matters of faith are not something you can prove or disprove. To those people of faith these things simply are, you either see it or you do not.

So, therefore, the best part of this conversation is not the argument over the review (the intent of the review) but the part where Contrairius said, "your from Lebenon, that's right over the hill, maybe we could get together over coffee and have a civil argument. (unless you were being sarcastic).

The way to handle this, in my opinion, is not to argue that a person's opinions or beliefs should not find their way into their reviews, but to find a way to both see that they are human, inside, just like you, and to show that we are human as well, and, if noting else deserving of empathy and compassion.

Again, just my opinion. Sorry for the rant on your thread Mike.

Eh, it's just hard for people who really like a book to see a 1-star "this wasn't my thing and so I didn't finish it" review as the top review on a book's Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ page. Of course it's not like Mike deliberately put it there; he has the right to give whatever reviews and ratings he likes regardless of what portion of the book he's read, and evidently several people have found his review helpful. Hell, I give the occasional "this wasn't my thing and I didn't finish it" 1-star review myself. And sometimes I "like" similar reviews. But it's still irritating when I see them so prominently displayed for my favorite books (of which this is not one, although I liked it well enough).

What can we as the Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ community do about this? Dunno. I hope the similar reviews I've written don't get #1 spots, or they'll be in for some understandable flames....

Why is it irritating? It's not helpful for you but its helpful for others.


The thing is this: Mike is very honest and that shines through. If we now want to sniffle conversation because we didn't agree...life will get and stay very difficult.

Hi Mike, thanks for your review. This book was recommended to me, but after reading your review I'll try something else. I seem to have similar taste to you in stories and your opinion is valuable to me. Disliking a book enough to stop reading is a degree of dislike that says something to me (same as when I tell my friends that I hated a movie so much I walked out, or this meal was so bad I didn't eat all of it). Cheers.

"I haven't blushed so much since Madam Pomfrey told me she liked my new earmuffs."

:)

EXAMPLE: I read all of Ready Player One and detested it. I pushed my way through because SO MANY of my friends and co-readers adored it and I wanted to see if it improved at any point; in the end, I could only bring myself to finish it by switching to the audio version and listening to that while biking (and I suspect the only reason I didn't give it 1 star was because Wil Wheaton read the audio version and that man knows how to perform). Did my opinion change in any way because I forced myself through? No. If anything, it deepened my disgust and contempt for that book. Was my time well-spent by forcing myself through a book i actively disliked? No. In fact, I'd submit that my time was wasted. I could've been reading/listening to a book I genuinely enjoyed, but instead I wasted hours and hours of my life.

I learned from that mistake however and when, about half-way through Blood and Chocolate I decided I didn't enjoy the book, I stopped wasting my time and went looking for something to ENJOY.

Reading a work of fiction past the point at which you realize you aren't enjoying it? THIS IS A WASTE OF TIME!

I think the thing that a lot of people don't recognise is that reading is entirely a personal thing. An author writes a book, puts their ideas and thoughts into it but when someone picks up a book they are then interpreting that book according to their own world-view. I like the fact that Mike's reviews are based on how he found the book and again that he expresses outright that he liked the book for a specific reason. It's something I've always tried to do is to explain myself in my emotional response and the writing of a book! When it comes down to it all reviews will be subjective since 'good writing' and 'good plotting' are things that everyone sees differently. I've read books that the writing was raved about and thought they were terribly written. Then I've read books people had trashed and thought it was decently written!

I can't remember if it's a later edition or not, but Tolkien wrote in the preface to LotR that his writing was "applicable". As Jonathan said Tolkien acknowledged that each reader would read the book differently and see different meanings in the book that the writer himself never saw. I have friends here who dislike Tolkien, something that's beyond me.

Books are personal that's why I often recommend that people see how much they've agreed with me in other reviews of books they've read when wondering if they'll agree with me.

To each as they say.

Tolkien and Lewis both noted that I believe...

I think authors have to be willing to accept that their values, their personalities and their writing will not be liked by all readers. As such their books won't be either. I've recommended books to other readers that I didn't like and not-recommended books I loved. It all comes down to personal taste as Mike says.

the first paragraph of this review led me to buy the book...

Oh boy... Certainly I've often been told when I say "no thanks, I can't stand raw onion" that I must finish eating the salad to have a valid opinion on it. I'm lucky that I have a friend who loves raw onion so I can just save the salad for him.

The ingredient I don't like is almost guaranteed to mean that he will love it.

If it's cooked, I can eat onion, but it depends what mood I'm in and how it's cooked.

In other news. I liked this book.

I love onion to....

There was a time when if I started a book it was a "point of honor" to finish it. At some point I realized that my time is limited so...

If a book is not to my taste I try to give it a chance, skim through it and so on. Then I tell people I didn't care for it. many people here and elsewhere will know by that they'll either be likely to like or dislike it. LOL.

If you mostly agree with me it helps, if you mostly disagree with me it helps.

Poor Mike. Need a hug?LOL

sigh, no you're married.

Mike, dont you know how people are on the internet? If you dont like what they like, then you re wrong and your opinion doesnt matter lol

Yeah, I get it.

Thanks--this is the kind of opinion I want, since I don't care to read cynical books nor those full of debauchery. Two counts against.

Yeah....everyone wasn't as happy with this review, LOL.

It really annoys me when people have to make negative comments on a review or make judgements about what the reviewer might mean because they disagree with the reviewers opinion. It's your review and you are entitled to your opinion just as they are. They are free to write whatever they want in their own reviews. I find your reviews very polite, even when you dislike something. Thank you for writing good, thoughtful reviews.

Yes thank you because it actually does sound like my kind of book!

I always say "to each their own". If we all liked the same books there would soon be a smaller selection...

Enjoy, this one just isn't for me.

Thanks.

How boring that would be!

Wow. I am so disheartened by a lot of this thread.

It's...sad.

Also sad were my many typos! I should go back and fix them but...it tells me how upset I was at the attacks you were getting, Mike. The faster I type, the more typos.

I seem to leave typos no matter the speed I type...