From Henry Gee's blog:
I had thought that people who write marketing and advertising blurb for publishers occupied a rung on the scala naturae slightly above creationists. This may be true, but whatever the height of their perch, it is still below that of estate agents, as judged from this flyer from Oxford University Press promoting James D. Watson’s latest effusion, Avoid Boring People, in which you’ll see this puff:
’...an engaging writer…’ – Dr Henry Gee, Focus
Well, it’s quite true that I reviewed the book for Focus, and also true that I said Watson was ‘an engaging writer’, because he is.
But it’s very annoying, and, indeed, quite offensive, to see this quote plastered all over the web in support of this book, when the rest of my review made it clear, given the circumlocutions required when one is offered a lead review slot and one doesn’t want to cast too much of a downer on things, that, in my humble opinion, Avoid Boring People by James D Watson is an arrogant, illiterate, narcissistic, pompous, pustulocrustaceous, shrill, noisome, vile, risible and above all steamingly feculent carcass of a book whose purpose can only be to distract me from listening to my collection of tapes of kittens being impaled on red-hot skewers. Now, I’d like to see OUP put that in their publicity.
- Log in to post comments
I believe it's because of the low standard of publishers' pimping of books that Greg Egan won't let his books carry reviews on their covers. Good for him.
(Some editions of his books do have reviews on the covers, but I think only by mistake, or before he got important enough to stop the practice, or something like that.)
... but did he like it?
"... in support of this book ..." - Dr Henry Gee, The End of the Pier Show blog
OUP used this quote from me on Dupre's Darwin's Descandants :
"John Dupre has been one of the philosophers in the forefront of this rethinking of science. He has helped us to rethink what science is, in the light of biology and of evolution. More recently, however, he has turned from defending the biological sciences from those who would disparage them, to
attacking them."
I said nice things about the book in the review. But that quote says absolutely nothing about the book. WTF?
That reminds me of the time when I was in graduate school and my dissertation advisor's new book appeared in print. He was one of the original Cold Warriors and was looked down on by the so-called "revisionists" for his interpretations of Russian history before 1924. One of his critics published a review in which he stated that the book would become the standard work for the next generation. My advisor's publisher promptly put this quotation on the jacket. In context, however, it is clear that the reviewer was lamenting this fact rather than praising the book for its staying power.
Old-school quote-mining. Gotta love it.
On his website, Peter Watts keep a pro & con blurb-list. My favorite is still:
"Whenever I find my will to live becoming too strong, I read Peter Watts."
-James Nicoll
Wow. At least I can be relieved that I can write a book, and no matter how brutal Henry Gee's opinion might be, I might be able to salvage three words out of it.
I've seen worse before! I read a pre-release review for a computer game in the UK mag PC Gamer and it drubbed a badly made game. Part of it said something along the lines of: 'while Generic Company has described it in their press release as "the most exciting game since Amazing Shooter 2" we found it to be execrable'.
When the game came out in stores, there was: "the most exciting game since Amazing Shooter 2" - PC Gamer, loudly printed across it.
"The Wasp Factory" by Iain Banks features what is probably a uniquely honest collection of review quotes on the first few pages of the paperback edition. It mixes stuff like "A Gothic horror story of quite exceptional quality ... an outstandingly good read." with stuff like "A literary equivalent of the nastiest brand of juvenile delinquency: inflicting outrages on animals." in roughly equal proportions.
It's probably safe to say critical reception of the book was mixed.
An uncle of mine, who was a theatre critic, once wrote a notice which began (from memory): "In case there is any phrase, or part of a phrase, in the following review which can be taken out of context as being favourable, I wish to state at the outset that this is entirely unintentional."
Perhaps everyone should use disclaimers like that.
If it's any consolation, when I see a snipped blurb like that, I assume it's because there was nothing more favorable in the review.
I think if readers, reviewers, and marketers would join forces, they would come to realize that it isn't possible to do a bad review of the autobiography of a Nobel prize winner.
People won't allow it. The title itself suggests the writer is disenchanted with some of us. Avoid Boring People elicits sympathy and not interest and I wholeheartedly agree with Dr. Wilkins interest in the writer as "engaging" because someone who has made a contribution of this magnitude deserves to be chisseled and wrestled with so that his constitution and demeanor can be improved by those who know him or of him and wish to acquaint themselves further.
Engaging him in arguments or disapproval is more important the correcting those who witness the exchange. Ride the wave. . . Hang Ten
I would also add the question, "How can we be less boring around him?" and since I am known for my work with THE SECRET DOCTRINE (a book title as well), "What's the big secret?"
I believe that Nature is one of the magazines that qualifies as a source for Templeton honors. If I could get my idea published in a magazine of which the Templeton Award committee approves, I could get nominated for the Templeton prize.
While researcher, founder, discoverer, investigator, initiator, inventor, and maker are all words which refer to stumbling upon a law, theory, or event that can broaden the human field of knowledge, I think we need a new word. In fact, I think we need more than a few new words.
I would like to see girasas added to the dictionary and since I still appear to be one of only a few who use it, having the word in a dictionary would be sure to give it a boost.
Instead of any of the typical words used to describe the process of new idea generation, such as "winner" or "prize winner," I would prefer a new word be coined to describe what I was capable of doing with the literature I was reading. The new word or new usage for an old term could be something such as "recuperator" or "decipherer". It would refer to a process of reading material generated by the girasas kingdom and pulling out the essential bits and pieces that comprise a package which qualifies as new material.
In the process of gathering the data through reading, we learn to 1) absorb the shock from the concept itself as well as learn to 2) take the necessary steps for releasing that new thought among the intellectual communities.
And believe me, because we have leaped from the ladder of gradual ascent, promotion, or advancement, the whole entire process of engaging a girasas for the express purpose of 2) (above), needs to be called something to.
I have foresaken all of my past acquaintances and alliances as I set out to forge new ground for human beings to walk upon and it is not like anything you can imagine. I hesitate greatly to plunge into girasas usage because of my family commitments and my reluctance to depart from norms established by society.
I need reassurance that this path is the one which will be honored and preferred among paths. If there are girasas, would everyone agree that to engage them is of inestimable value and an effort which will be rewarded to the degree that it satisfies current needs in the population?
Sorry for the overposting, but I just thought you might like to think about this:
Your best students in the future might assume a slightly different type of position regarding their advancements (other than maneuvering towards the winning argument against creationists).
The students in this new order that I have envisioned would be keen to try to position themselves to be the "receivers" of the books that the girasas are blessing us with. Anyone wanting to advance human knowledge would work towards becoming capable of writing down or channeling books such as various authors in the past have done - Edna Ballard, H.P. Blavatsky, Guy Ballard (wrote of his experiences), Maurice Cooke, and many others.
Whether or not the person is a capable channeler will be up to the readers to decide. However, the prospect of purifying the life enough to host the girasas kingdom and participate with them inside of us might not agree with everyone and some people may choose to attempt to search out those individuals who have this gift rather than to develop it in themselves.
Either way, the economics of the situation don't always produce a payoff when the outcome is so doubtful. Just producing a book doesn't appear to be worth the investment, however when a person comes forth who makes sense of what is written in one or more of these books and steps it down into a working form for others to use, that certainly seems to be of great value to the population at large.
Whether or not there are large numbers of people capable or desiring to produce according to this new order, the order has to be approved to the point that it becomes economically feasible.
Personally, I don't want to see a repeat of what happened with Mary and Jesus Christ. I would much prefer that people learn from their mistakes and not allow anyone to die (before their time) by overdoing the demonstration in order to foster belief in a general sense.
For when we read the Bible, we know that we may miss the meaning that is there, and so we ask God to bless us with the reading so that true light will be discerned in the process.
Such as this: Ezekiel 34:23 "And I will set up one shepherd over them, and he shall feed them, even my servant David; he shall feed them, and he shall be their shepherd." and Ezekiel 37:24 "And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgements, and observe my statutes, and do them."
The Lord makes our leaders.
and also in Isaiah 56:8-13 "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater: So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it. For ye shall go out with joy, and be led forth with peace: the mountains and the hills shall break forth before you into singing, and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands. Instead of the thorn shall come up the fir tree, and instead of the brier shall come up the myrtle tree: and it shall be to the Lord for a name, for an everlasting sign that shall not be cut off."
So by these words that are received in channeled books, we will learn and flourish and as we progress in knowledge and in good ways, we shall overcome great obstacles of nature and nature shall be commanded into obeisance because we shall have joined forces with greater beings than ourselves who can command it. And then, if the battles turn to not mankind's foes, but to foes of the girasas kingdom, then we shall do what we can to prevent any danger to them, however great their foes, but the time will still come when we have to part and go on our way again to work our way through the animal kingdom so that it may grow and evolve and learn from us. Each higher kingdom teaching the lower.
This theory says that while an animal kingdom resided here at one time, that now there are no longer animals on this earth and that what we see as animals are shistas of the animals and that humans create a type of virtual reality with angels possessing the forms that are too great as of yet for the animal kingdom to hold and that when we descend through the animals, the forms have some use even though no animal could occupy them as they are in the middle of their evolutionary stages and the animals which humans live with consist of all of the animal stages up to the greatest of the stages.
Don't look now, John, but your blog seems to have come down with a nasty case of spammed theosophy...
Brenda has been warned.
I'd like to read the book "How to avoid fake scientist - who steals other scientists photos of DNA - and having the Nobel Prize for it"
BTW - it was funny to read how the publisher reads the reviews. I also read the blog of Henry Gee. But I am afraid that I'd look like a spammer if I write it both here - and there...
;-)