tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9050528436539921312.post5520706669459011970..comments2024-03-11T16:29:13.619-05:00Comments on Lingwë - Musings of a Fish: New York Times review — spoilers redactedJason Fisherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05809154870762268253noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9050528436539921312.post-79825820502799465372007-07-26T09:18:00.000-05:002007-07-26T09:18:00.000-05:00Thanks! I enjoyed doing it. It was sort of therape...Thanks! I enjoyed doing it. It was sort of therapeutic in a way, kind of like a retroactive revenge on Those-Who-Would-Spoil. :) Reviews, by their very nature, always spoil <I>something</I>, but this review really did give away much more than it should have.<BR/><BR/>I can see people’s points — to some extent — about the exposition. But exposition is one of the most difficult things in writing! To say that some of who exposition was “lumpy” or “clunky” is really not that bad a criticism. It’s probably fair. But of course, given the immensity of Rowling’s imagination, a little “lumpy” exposition is a very small price to pay.Jason Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05809154870762268253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9050528436539921312.post-74233450017008913882007-07-26T08:41:00.000-05:002007-07-26T08:41:00.000-05:00Shame on the NY Times! I'm glad I didn't read this...Shame on the NY Times! I'm glad I didn't read this before I read book 7.<BR/><BR/>Re "some lumpy passages of exposition and a couple of clunky detours" -- did the reviewer not understand the concept of wrapping up everything from the first six books?<BR/><BR/>I love your redaction. :)The Cat Bastethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08766507614966971022noreply@blogger.com