Comes under that old saying ... if you don't have anything
good to say don't say anything. Since she's not being paid to
review anything and it's just a hobby of hers there is no
obligation for her to post negative reviews. Now if The
Washington Post's Book World was doing the same thing then
somethings wrong. But lying by omission? Please. I think some
are pushing their rights to bitch a bit too far in this
matter. If you don't like her reviews don't read them.
Personally I have more problem with someone who reads a book
in the morning and a book in the evening actually having read
someone adequately to give me any info, but that's my problem
not theirs.
-- Anthony Dauer http://www.adau.net/judas_ezine/
-----Original Message----- From: Mark Sullivan Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2000 2:01 PM
I hadn't known who Klausner was either. Thanks for posting the article.
Now how does this help?
"What's scary about doing this is the power the reader bestows on you," says Klausner, 48. "I never forget the responsibility I have to the readers. I have to be honest. If I don't like a book in the first 50 pages, I won't review it.""
Now I know I'm making way too big a deal about this one person, but it raised an interesting question: Isn't omitting that she disliked some books "a lie"? How helpful, or trustworthy, is someone who likes everything?
-- # To unsubscribe, say "unsubscribe rara-avis" to majordomo@icomm.ca. # The web pages for the list are at http://www.miskatonic.org/rara-avis/ .
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 06 Jul 2000 EDT