Bad Review of ENT: Kobayashi Maru at Pink Raygun

[thesadpanda]

It ain't good...

http://www.pinkraygun.com/2008/04/21/portentous-barking-improving-star-trek-novels/

The review takes the upcoming Enterprise article to task for being badly written.

 

[Therin of Andor]

The review takes the upcoming Enterprise article to task for being badly written.

It's obvious Adam Hunault gave up on the ST novels about the time he decided that licensed SF media tie-ins were beneath him. By his own admission that was many years ago. Why would you expect he'd like the latest stuff?

Controversial reviewers have to maintain the controversy. Is there anything he does like?

 

[Sci]

It ain't good...

http://www.pinkraygun.com/2008/04/21/portentous-barking-improving-star-trek-novels/

The review takes the upcoming Enterprise article to task for being badly written.

I find it absolutely hilarious that the reviewer bitches about Mangels and Martin being too verbose... But can't seem to help but go on and on and on about it, long after he's communicated his point.

 

[Therin of Andor]

I find it absolutely hilarious that the reviewer bitches about Mangels and Martin being too verbose... But can't seem to help but go on and on and on about it, long after he's communicated his point.

He's probably paid by the word.

 

[William Leisner]

Well, pinkraygun.com must obviously pay dearly to keep such a brilliant, insightful, betterand-smarter-than-anyone-at-Pocket-Books writer/editor on their roster.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Well, pinkraygun.com must obviously pay dearly to keep such a brilliant, insightful, betterand-smarter-than-anyone-at-Pocket-Books writer/editor on their roster.

So brilliant he can write a long book review on a short extract!

 

[Sxottlan]

While I like M&M, I generally agree with the critique.

And that's not a book review so much as a criticism of their writing style.

 

[Therin of Andor]

And that's not a book review so much as a criticism of their writing style.

Sure, but hopefully you've read at least one of their books.

 

[sithlord]

Yeah, this article is more a rant than a review, which is obvious by the title of said article; "Portentous Barking: Improving Star Trek Novels."

I like M&M's books too, but this fella does have a point. Belabored, but a point nonetheless.

 

[BrotherBenny]

I think that all that back and forth between Archer and Hernandez is intended to convey something of their long relationship (friends and lovers) in addition to letting us know that they are on boring convoy duty. In that respect it's fine.

And lest we forget, the modern Trek novels tend to be written a little verbosely to convey information to readers who may just be getting into Trek and not completely familiar with nearly every aspect of the universe.

Adam should just keep his pen off the paper until the whole book has been released and read (by him). But if he doesn't like modern Treklit, why the hell is he reviewing it?

 

[The Laughing Vulcan]

It`d be a waste of time if everything that was reviewed was only done so by someone who liked it. Incestuous and pointless, it`s self gratification of the ego and nothing else.

On the other hand, it does behoove the reviewer to have a passing familiarity with the subject matter, or if not, to make his lack of knowledge and initial opinion or prejudice clear at the start of the review.

 

[Trek]

Good or bad, that's one of the worst reviews I've ever read!

 

[Therin of Andor]

It`d be a waste of time if everything that was reviewed was only done so by someone who liked it. Incestuous and pointless, it`s self gratification of the ego and nothing else.

Negative reviews can sometimes be pithy, scathingly honest, funny and constructive. The review in question is none of those.

And in any case, it's only a review of a very short extract, not of a novel.

 

[William Leisner]

Yeah, this article is more a rant than a review, which is obvious by the title of said article; "Portentous Barking: Improving Star Trek Novels."

Of course, if one is going to rant about "improving Star Trek novels," it would behoove them not only to read an entire novel, as opposed to an excerpt, but also to read a number of Trek novels. KRAD has a very different writing style from M&M, as do Mack, Wardilmore, PAD, DRG3, CLB, LMNOP, etc.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

You can have the best story in the world, but if your prose is inscrutable to the point where your readers can't connect with it, then your readers will never find your story.

That's what I got out of that blog post.

It's good advice.

I don't know if that second paragraph would make Shakespeare catatonic, but it certainly made me catatonic.

Given that it's a short extract, that may not be typical of the book. It could very well be a quote taken out of context.

That doesn't made Adam's point about "less is more" wrong.

 

[KRAD]

My objection to the piece isn't the critique of the excerpt, it's his jumping from that to a condemnation of the entire line of Trek novels solely based on one excerpt of one novel. It's not even the only excerpt in the booklet he got, seeing as how there are also bits from Greater than the Sum by CLB and Destiny: Gods of Night by that Mack feller in there. I tend not to take seriously book reviews that aren't of the entire book. If you're going to condemn something, it behooves you to be familiar with all of it.

But hey, that's the Internet for ya.

 

[cultcross]

In the defence of the 'reviewer', he at no point attempts to review the book, his piece is solely on the writing style in the excerpt. And I think anyone would admit that the excerpt in question is clunky, and verbose in a way which, purely in my own experience, is quite typical of the early pages of TV tie-in literature. A need, which tends to evaporate as the story unfolds, to set a scene as if it were an episode teaser, detailing every tiny visual clue a TV screen gives instead of realising that such precise detailing is unnecessary in this medium. We can imagine Archer's office, the layout of the desk and monitor, and the details of Porthos eating in the background without having every adjective spelled out for us.
This is not to say the review is without fault - as other's have noted he makes his point a dozen times over, and his pretentious attitude shines through every sentence. But the actual criticism of the extract is not without merit, imho.

 

[Baerbel Haddrell]

Of course the reviewer is entitled to his opinion but I couldn`t disagree with him more. First, I don`t appreciate the lecturing tone in which he dismissed the excerpt as bad writing. Second he should actually know what he is talking about when making comments as at the beginning, like reading some recent Star Trek novels, not to mention some of the books the authors in question have written.

I also don`t like it that he uses overly flowery language in an exaggerated tone I have never seen in the Martin/Mangels books, probably in order to make his lecture more to the point, before starting the quote.

I smiled when I read that excerpt. It is lively, charming, it reflects the mood and takes the reader right into the story. It also gives information to people not too familiar with Enterprise within the natural flow of the text. I enjoyed it and am looking forward to the book.

The reviewer turned this text into something barren and lifeless. I find it much less interesting and engaging than the original excerpt. It is a matter of taste. Me personally, I am a people person. To me, language is something alive and I like it when it is used in new, interesting ways. When I read a story I want to be entertained and not read something written in a style that reminds me more of a school text book.

This article only shows me again that I tend to dislike the work of “professional” reviewers.

 

[Brendan Moody]

I think the reviewer has a point about the prose in the excerpt, and (though there's no way he could actually know this) in some recent novels in general. On the other hand, his "improved" version is no better, and shares the flaw of some other recent novels: it's a lifeless description of what's happening, and prose should be more than merely functional. Given the choice, I would take M&M's slightly awkward approach over this blandness. It's also bad critical form to "fix" the work you're commenting on, of course, regardless of your ability to do so. There's a fine line in any criticism between forceful argument for your position and excessive, smug-seeming knowingness, and openly presenting yourself as better than the artist you write about is an excellent way to cross it.

 

[William Leisner]

On the other hand, his "improved" version is no better, and shares the flaw of some other recent novels: it's a lifeless description of what's happening, and prose should be more than merely functional.

QFT.