wombat@uicsl.UUCP (05/19/84)
#R:sri-arpa:-40300:uicsl:10700105:000:1678 uicsl!wombat May 19 12:33:00 1984 ***** uicsl:net.sf-lovers / sri-arpa!ARPA / 5:53 am May 10, 1984 >And, yes, it was an editorial slipup >which saw R.A. MacAvoy's first name in print. Perhaps on her publisher's part? I notice Fantasy Review/Newsletter/&SFBR also gave her first name in a review. > The other point I wish to make now is that it is the reviewer's >responsibility (yes, there are responsibilities to this job) to have >a thorough grasp of a book's strengths and weaknesses. In most cases, >two readings should be enough. If there is not time for reading the >book twice, there is not enough time for a review. If the book is not >worth reading twice (which is where Mr. Seeley and I disagree most >regarding TEA), then the review should say just that. People writing reviews over the net are not generally professional reviewers. It's more like a conversation where someone says, "Oh, I read such-and-such last week and I thought thus-and-thus about it." Many of us read because we like to, not because we feel a need to write an in-depth paper on a book. Many of us would prefer to spend the time required for a second reading on reading a second book. Most readers of net-notes learn to take these reviews with a grain of salt, the size of the grain depending on the reader's previous experiences with the particular reviewer. I think MacAvoy overreacted to Seeley's review; she certainly didn't show her best side. For readers who have learned through experience that they have tastes similar to (or opposite from!) Seeley's the review gave them useful information about the book. And any review is an opinion; it should go without saying. Wombat ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!wombat