Datingservice 18414 ft 00 0700

reviewed on the cover of the New York Times Book Review in 1990 when it was reissued in an expanded edition, now reads like a long-winded relic of the ’60s, philosophy for junior high kids.

It’s always nice to hear from the next generation, especially when they barely had begun attending junior high school when reviews with which they disagree and would reassess and have us discard came out.

Silver” In article , “Gaeltach” wrote: That they might be “younger” doesn’t make them necessarily ignorant, but it might make them a little less than sophisticated reviewers of writings.

Timberg, writer of the review quoted, for example, has a background of having written mainly music with some related media (movies, music videos, performances) reviews. But it is pretty clear, from what he wrote, that Timberg relied heavily on another young lightweight named Newitz who is burdened with her own agendas. I suppose “long-winded” is akin to the criticism that Mozart’s music has “too many notes.” The question is whether the words or notes are wasted in production of an irrelevant or immaterial impact, not how many they may be.

Someone at the Times thought he was ready to try a review of a writer of SF. But I don’t know with any certainty that “relic of the ’60s” means anything significant.

Shakespeare’s plays are relics of the end of the sixteenth century, the Elizabethan Age; Swift’s essays and stories, particularly including _Gulliver’s Travels_, are relics of early eighteenth century; Hemingway’s writings a relic of the first half of the twentieth century.

datingservice 18414 ft 00 0700-89

Exactly what was the “philosophy for junior high school kids” that Timberg attacks? ” Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA ’29 Lt.(jg), USN, R’td Subject: Re: February 21, 2008 meeting–Reading Group From: “Gaeltach” be.Sometimes it helps to provide some further insight regarding difficult novels (such as SIASL) and previously disenchanted readers may achieve a more appreciative perspective. brain cells was deemed by him to be truly a grievous fault.I don’t think if SIASL was written today by any other author it would achieve anywhere near the same success. I’m sure there is an equation in there somewhere to demonstrate this. I don’t really understand the point about “philosophy for junior high school kids”, so haven’t addressed it.It would be most unusual if opinions of reviewers remained unchanged over forty plus years.Subject: Re: February 21, 2008 meeting–Reading Group From: “David M.

Leave a Reply