REVIEW: LNH Comics Presents # 91 (ILC 56)
martinphipps2 at yahoo.com
Wed Jun 27 06:52:37 PDT 2007
On Jun 27, 9:42 pm, Martin <phippsmar... at hotmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
Sorry. I should have said "separate descriptions". My bad. :)
More information about the racc