Positional Judgement 2 / Dynamics - Review by the Author

[Bill Spight]

But any thread that starts as an outrageous publicity stunt deserves all the scorn it gets.

I beg to differ about this thread. Robert is no publicity hound.

[oren]

Are we arguing over semantics here?

It is semantics, but when I see a line from the author like this one...

Since the author has learnt much while exploring and writing the contents, in his opinion, this is the first English theory book also specifically written for dan players

I can't help but laugh a little bit by the wording in third person.

[longshanks]

It is semantics, but when I see a line from the author like this one...

Since the author has learnt much while exploring and writing the contents, in his opinion, this is the first English theory book also specifically written for dan players

I can't help but laugh a little bit by the wording in third person.

Why?

Shouldn't Go players be MORE interested in the fact that this is a first in the English language? Or disproving this assertion?

[wineandgolover]

But any thread that starts as an outrageous publicity stunt deserves all the scorn it gets.

I beg to differ about this thread. Robert is no publicity hound.

Really? Why post this new thread if not for marketing or public relations purposes?

Would you prefer me to replace "publicity stunt" with "laughably-titled self-promotion" in my post? That might be more accurate descriptor.

But to defend my characterization, I don't have an issue with self-promotion. Other than the self back-patting and odd title, I don't think anybody raised any issues with Robert's post. But, that title raised people's hackles, and created the stunt-like aspect IMHO. A non-controversial title might have yielded just a few thanks, compliments, and inquiries. But the controversy has kept the thread going two pages, with more likely to come.

Whatever, it's all cool. I truly hope the book is a game-changer and very successful. Merry Christmas!

[belikewater]

The contention is not simply about semantics, nor about objectivity. I think we can all agree that there will always be a bias, no matter whether it is the author remarking on their own book or an independent reviewer. At the heart of the contention is that a review should be done by someone other than the author. It is this independence that is important when stating that one is writing a review. Anything written by the author will be seen as further describing their work or promoting it. Ideally, the review is done by someone who engages the work and is able to locate it in the wider body of literature to which the book belongs.

[belikewater]

A review is a dialogue with the author. An analogy from Go may be useful here, with the person writing the review akin to your opponent across the board. You may play a game against yourself, and that will have merits, but what you saw as a living group will not be refuted by yourself. You need another person who will enter into dialogue with you and who will bring different ideas and help you refine your own. You cannot be both the actor and the audience. I would not be satisfied with just a change in the title. I think the entire aim of the original post is to engage in a type of 'self-review' that I don't think is possible or advisable. The argument that it is a restriction of freedom of speech is weak. That would be similar to saying that a critique of a stone that you placed is restricting your freedom on the Go board. You are free to play anywhere on the board, but the question would be whether your move is a good one and whether it helps achieve your overall aim.

[Kirby]

My goodness! What a lively discussion

My comment earlier in this thread was mostly a joke, but since this seems to be an interesting topic to people here, I'll give my take on the situation.

1. I reviewed Robert's book on reading awhile ago. It was a good book - unique, too. Based on the review/description/whatever here, this one is probably a good book, too.

2. Robert's method of reviewing, while unconventional, is systematic. If you look at his other book reviews of books by different authors, he uses the same style. So while these books show only Robert's opinion, you can compare any given "self-review" to his other reviews to get an understanding of what to expect from the book.

3. That being said, when Robert uses very positive language about his work in the third person, it comes across as arrogant. That's probably what sets people off.

So I would say that Robert's reviews are useful, informative, valuable, but also arrogantly expressed.

I am willing to live with reading an arrogant writing style, if it means that I can get an informative and useful review.

[Knotwilg]

Or do a few want to also restrict my freedom of speech by changing the contents of such descriptive texts? If so, I rather prefer to hold up the basic human right of freedom of speech than bow to intolerance, which must not rule the world.

You continue arguing with people who are trying to explain why a self review putts off most people, especially those who are not acquainted with your style, which I assume is the majority of your targeted audience.

Regardless of the title, the contents is a self-review.

Fair enough. The point is that even a sincere self review is considered pointless and awkward by most people.

BTW, I have spent almost 2 days on writing this particular self-review to be sure that every statement is correct. Who else spends that much time when writing reviews of go books?

I'm sure you did your utmost best to make sure every statement be correct. The point is that this is your objective, while most people couldn't care less if a self review is correct or not. It is pointless and awkward. Pointless, because whatever you review as positive, is a kind of tautology, and whatever you consider to be negative, seems like a missed opportunity to improve the book. Awkward ... well look at the reactions here.

It would be very different if instead of a self review, you'd publish something like a story of the conception of the book. Where did it go easy, where did you have to research a lot, where have you been frustrated by not reaching the kind of quality you aspire ... A lot of this kind of stuff is present in your self review, but if told as a story, it would not come across as awkward as a self review, which remains a failed attempt to impersonate a reader who takes a position different than the author's.

Why do I feel a need to write self-reviews? Because there are by far too few reviews of go books, and often delayed by too many years. Please everybody do write reviews!

The problem of too few reviews is not solved by authors self reviewing their books. I'd add "much like too few sales are not solved by the author buying some copies" if it weren't for my dislike of analogies to prove a point.

Good luch with your book. If I ever come across a copy (by buying one for example) I'll surely review it.

[Jhyn]

Is writing a self-review for one's own book inhabitual? Definitely. But why wouldn't it be acceptable and ethical? It is definitely publicity, but the author is perfectly transparent about it, so I don't see how this can even remotely be called a "stunt" or "outrageous" (which I find borderline insulting, althought I'm not a native english speaker).

I for one welcome some variety in the writing style I read. I would personally never write in the third person as the author does in this review, but can't we put our presuppositions aside and accept a few quirks of language? Telling the author we find his writing choices weird is okay, but after he persisted in his opinions, we should either give up or go away, not try to argue and make him conform to what we see as the good way of writing or doing things.

To quote Kirby, "Who cares?".

[DrStraw]

Let's put it this way. If multiple people tell you that you are XXXX and you say "I am not XXXX' then you probalby are XXXX. If you say, "thank you I will try not to be XXXX" then you may still be XXXX but the chances are that you will soon stop being XXXX and will become more acceptable to more people.

(Substitute whatever adjective you want for XXXX.)

[Joaz Banbeck]

[admin]
There are a handful of posts in this thread that are violating or at least skirting the TOS's admonition about not criticizing other members.
Please keep the TOS in mind.
Thanks,
JB
[/admin]

[Kirby]

To quote Kirby, "Who cares?".

Out of all the things I've posted on this forum, I've got to say that this phrase has potential to be the most often quoted.

[DrStraw]

To quote Kirby, "Who cares?".

Out of all the things I've posted on this forum, I've got to say that this phrase has potential to be the most often quoted.

So you are a fan of the good doctor?

[RobertJasiek]

It would be very different if [...] you'd publish something like a story of the conception of the book. Where did it go easy, where did you have to research a lot, where have you been frustrated by not reaching the kind of quality you aspire

I have considered writing (also) such and predicted that I'd need another 2 days. Maybe you understand that, especially on xmas, I do not have the time to write it immediately. In general, there have been several requests in this thread expecting me to spend much extra time, which necessarily delays writing the next book.

***

Third person reference to the writer: apparently not everybody is aware of the meaning of this style of de-emphasising(!) the writer for the sake of emphasising the contents. Maybe it is more common in formal texts (of science).

[Cassandra]

Third person reference to the writer: apparently not everybody is aware of the meaning of this style of de-emphasising(!) the writer for the sake of emphasising the contents.

This is not true, Robert !

Since the author has learnt much while exploring and writing the contents, ...

Is a statement that can only be done be the author.
I do not assume that you have a section "How I wrote this work" in your book. Therefore, no other reviewer will be able to devolop the conclusion cited above.

A "usual" reviewer will write their statements in the first person. E.g. "I have learnt much will reading the book and working with the problems, so I would like to recommend this book even for Dan players."
Writing in the first person will appear very natural, because this satisfies the expections of the readers of a review.