Showing posts with label Conantics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Conantics. Show all posts

Thursday 14 February 2013

Just in time for Valentine's Day!


CONAN THE BARBARIAN #16
Brian Wood (W), Davide Gianfelice (A), Dave Stewart (C), and Massimo Carnevale (Cover)
On sale May 15
FC, 32 pages
$3.50
Ongoing
After a series of trials that nearly tore them apart, Conan and Bêlit use a brief respite to embark on a vision quest. But with violence, pain, and death their constant companions, the vision quickly becomes a nightmare!
• New story arc from Northlanders team Brian Wood and Davide Gianfelice!
 - Solititation from Newsarama

Presented entirely without comment. Happy Valentine's!

Thursday 12 January 2012

On Reviewing, Critiquing, Analysing and So Forth

Mark Finn posted a most intriguing piece on the art of reviewing.  I'm glad I missed the kerfuffle on Good Reads, as it's exactly the sort of thing that would have me spluttering in disbelief and indignation, but Mark uses it as a background to an issue I'd been pondering:

When I was a book seller (for years and years) I was called upon to give my opinion about books on a daily basis. Now, this can be tricky. If I tell someone about a book that I hated, that I think sucked, and I say it's the greatest thing ever, then that's a lie. And if they buy that book based on my lie, and hate the book, then guess what? I've lost all of my credibility.

Over the years, I learned the value of tact. It's perfectly okay to say to someone asking about, say, Henry Miller, that "I'm not the best person to ask for a recommendation. I don't personally care for him. I think he's a little too gimmicky." If they asked for more, I'd tell them what made Miller's writing more of a blog trick than actual prose. But I'd always end with, "But that's just me. Other folks here love Miller and can tell you why he's great." I'm not putting down anyone who likes Miller. I'm just explaining why I don't. See how that works? Let me say this out loud, so there can be no misunderstanding: if you're not capable of doing that every time you hit a movie, or book, or record that you don't like, then you're not going to be an effective critic. You're just going to be another nameless, faceless voice in an already crowded Internet yelling "IT SUCKS" from the other side of the lake.

Take a moment to decide if you're a reviewer, or if you're just a reader. If you want to be a reviewer, then you've got to be brilliant. Or gifted. Or both. But if you just want to be a reader, and just want to be able to say what you think, without all of that other stuff getting in the way, then make the effort to say what you mean and mean what you say. Use your words. You're a reader. You of all people should know the value of written communication.

An issue I'd been wrestling with a bit: am I a reader, or a critic?  I've done a bit of both: I've offered my opinions on things without necessarily critiquing them, and I've also done breakdowns and analyses. But which of the two am I aiming for? In fact, why choose?

Wednesday 11 August 2010

Pastiches 'R' Us: Ryan Harvey Inadvertently Destroys De Camp

Full confession time: I haven't read Conan of the Isles.  I have, however, read Roy Thomas' adaptations of various De Camp/Carter pastiches in the recent Marvel reprints courtesy of Dark Horse, and from what I can gather, Thomas was - unfortunately - as faithful to De Camp as he was to Howard. Admirable on Thomas' part, but leads to a lot of infuriated spluttering on my part. Like Conan the Liberator. To hell with that.