REVIEW: LNH Comics Presents # 91 (ILC 56)
phippsmartin at hotmail.com
Wed Jun 27 06:42:31 PDT 2007
On Jun 27, 11:38 am, Tom Russell <milos_par... at yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 26, 10:16 pm, Martin Phipps <martinphip... at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 27, 8:51 am, Tom Russell <milos_par... at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Thank you for your concern, but your example is a poor one. I would
> > > never make that kind of statement-- and, as I said, I don't. I never
> > > comment on things that can be expressed in "better than" or "worse
> > > than" terms.
> > Any qualitative comparison can be expressed in those terms.
> But, in general, I don't make qualitative comparisons. On occasion, I
> compare works and authors, but I'm more likely to compare and contrast
> the different qualities-- that is, the stylistic choices, moods,
> quirks, methods of characterizations, the textures-- than anything
> qualitative. If it would help get the point across on a purely
> semantic level, then I'll say that I compare and contrast the textures
> of the works-- no better than or worse than need apply or implied.
> Let me give you an example-- I'll compare the prose styles and the
> attitude towards exposition present in the works of three different
> RACCers-- Saxon Brenton, myself, and Martin Phipps.
I was talking about direct comparisons. Separate comparisons
obviously are not comparisons. If you say "X is good" and "Y is good"
then you haven't compared X and Y in any way. You have to be careful
when you make direct comparisons such as:
"Some authors are very good at always delivering on that essential
premise-- Saxon, Rob, and Jamas are quite masterful at it. Mitchell
was really able to deliver with the PC Person story-- less-so with the
Bad Timing Boy one."
I'm just telling you that you need to be careful. I've made this
mistake myself. :)
More information about the racc