lady_schrapnell: (Default)
[personal profile] lady_schrapnell
I've seen that Patrick Ness made a note on his diary that the Guardian deleted a 'self-deprecating' sentence from his review in which he 'fully acknowledged' that his own books were 'hardly Penelope Fitzgerald miniatures'.  In all fairness, having written a review 'the gist of [which] is defending it against potential accusations (levelled at a number of children's books) that it might be too long', it could be quite embarrassing having that cut made.  I still feel about his review essentially as I did yesterday, and wonder if he's possibly thinking a bit less than clearly about a) the purpose of a book review; b) what he's actually said in the review.  For one thing, 'blame JK if there just happens to be more of it than there used to be' is defending Gullstruck Island against potential accusations that it might be too long -- how?


From:
Anonymous( )Anonymous This account has disabled anonymous posting.
OpenID( )OpenID You can comment on this post while signed in with an account from many other sites, once you have confirmed your email address. Sign in using OpenID.
User
Account name:
Password:
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
Subject:
HTML doesn't work in the subject.

Message:

 
Notice: This account is set to log the IP addresses of everyone who comments.
Links will be displayed as unclickable URLs to help prevent spam.

Profile

lady_schrapnell: (Default)
lady_schrapnell

April 2009

S M T W T F S
   1234
5678910 11
12 13 14 15161718
192021 22232425
2627282930  

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jun. 23rd, 2017 03:40 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios