Someone has addressed some of the points, I take it back, but please if you
going to return, return with mature sensible debate?
Either way, I still maintain, there is a lot I believe, which could be
improved upon, I am not about to shift from that position, but then I do not
blindly follow any one individual, even the writers - I most admire, I
believe should be open to criticism to where their work can be improved upon
of
course.
I think in actuality, with any writer or person, you do them a disservice,
when you place them on such a high insurmountable position, and deem their
work beyond criticism!
In a message dated 28/01/2012 09:13:01 GMT Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:
Hi,
I approached your site, making some challenging questions, all I see
hear on the whole is people jealously defending Feists work...
Which is a usually a sign of a poor argument!!!
No one, and do not get me wrong, has challenged my points rationally -
you've just stuck Feist on this proverbial pedestal, and worshipped him from
afar, and to me - as none of you seem to have addressed my points, it seems
absolutely unjustifiable - particularly in light of many of your responses!
As I said I wanted to enjoy Feists works, I did not wish to find these
flaws. Can I suggest if many of you are so aggrieved with what I saying, you
address my points sensibly?
Or take up these flaws with Feitst himself, but as I said, the first signs
that someone unfortunately is not sure of their argument, and the ground
they stand on, is to resort to personal put-downs!
I came to the sight to pose challenging questions, I am not about to
apologise for not being sycophantic and worshiping the wholly pedestal that is
Feists work, without due criticism where I see genuine flaws.
I am going to go through the rest of these emails, briefly, and see if
anyone actually makes any rational sensible points instead of blindly
defending Raymond's Feists work, without rhyme or reason, then I'd be pleased
to
know.
But, again I have to say vehemently and viciously defending Feists work,
not being open to criticism, it hardly endears me - at all... if being a fan
means, you have to be closed minded, and aggressively defend your stance.
Personally, in my own work, I am always open to criticism and improvement,
but perhaps I regard my own work as stronger?
Nevertheless, I expected and hoped for reasoned balanced argument, I see
unfortunately little of that! To the contrary, it re-affirmed my convictions,
that people are readers are perhaps not discerning enough as to the flaws,
and do not care.
As I said, I approached this forum with a balanced and open mind, it is a
shame that this was not similarly reciprocated.
How do I submit to the forum itself please, instead of these emails? Also,
if people have got nothing worthwhile to say, and as I said if they are
just going to resort to petty personal put-downs, because perhaps you cannot
accept the fact Feist is not infallable, then please do not bother!
Reasoned sensible argument, I am prepared to listen to?
In a message dated 28/01/2012 00:22:23 GMT Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:
I only decided to have a look once I was sure it wasn't a nasty virus
link... I think I would now prefer a virus then what I just read.
Personally I think he needs to put the thesaurus down and to choose an
adjective instead of putting down all that come to mind..
> Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 23:18:06 +0000
> Subject: Re: Possible answer
> From: [email protected]
> To: [email protected]
>
> Wow, against advice I went to his blog and read the first paragraph
> there before my head exploded...
>
> "Recently, I - for my sins… the sacrifices we have to make for the
> sake of our penmanship and promotion, yes I did it – no not murder –
> an only admittedly a slightly less misdemeanour - invested myself in
> Facebook and Twitter, but I struggle greatly to see the appeal! On
> Facebook, you seem to get bombarded with other people messages, which
> at times verge on the on your own page, which are often at times – I
> gotta say, about
>
> Nevertheless, it sticks in the proverbial claw to be frank…"
>
> Umm...what?
>
> Unless he's going for the "stream of thought / consciousness" approach
> of Joyce, that's got to be some of the worst structure I've ever read.
>
>
