I find it curious that nobody (except Dan) disagrees with my reviews either privately or publicly. Does that mean everyone is usually in agreement with the reveiws then?
Index of the Reviews:
Full Version: Novelty DOR reviews
Your reviews suck!
(just kidding)
(just kidding)
QUOTE (dkstories @ April 30 2005, 12:38 PM)
Your reviews suck!
(just kidding)
Heh, great way to encourage discussion... not! *shrug* Point taken. Dan doesn't want us discussion my reviews... (just kidding)
Sorry, Nov, I was just joking around...discuss away!
Oh, and WHERE'S THE LATEST REVIEW?
Oh, and WHERE'S THE LATEST REVIEW?
It's not here since I've been told that it shouldn't be, but it's at where it's supposed to be.
QUOTE (Novelty @ April 30 2005, 02:35 PM)
I find it curious that nobody (except Dan) disagrees with my reviews either privately or publicly. Does that mean everyone is usually in agreement with the reviews then?
It's just that we are all so gobsmacked by them, Your Grace, that we proletariats can't think of anything appropriate to say.
Oh, and I agree with you, it's easier if your reviews are here rather than at that other place.
And while we are all being so agreeable (Dan, please take note!), thank you so much, Monseigneur Le Duc, for prevailing upon Le Monarch Imperiuse de la DOR, to permit His own forum to be erected by you in His honour. Such a grande gesture!
I guess it just shows that with strong leadership (such as that provided by Your Grace), we prols can exert enough influence on Le Monarch to get a few cumbs from his table.
And not just any crumbs, but cake crumbs at that!
QUOTE (primewordsmith @ May 6 2005, 10:42 AM)
It's just that we are all so gobsmacked by them
For being gobsmacked, you sure have a lot of things to say.QUOTE (primewordsmith @ May 6 2005, 10:42 AM)
And not just any crumbs, but cake crumbs at that!
"Let them eat Cake." Attributed to Queen Marie-Antoinette when she heard about the French Revolution, or something stupid like that.Edit: And the review for Chapter 18 is at here.
I just finished reading your review Novelty, and appreciate it as always.
Regarding the latter part and Davey's...joking. I'll tell you this, what you're reading into the situation is intentional. What it means...well y'all can conjecture for a while.
Regarding the latter part and Davey's...joking. I'll tell you this, what you're reading into the situation is intentional. What it means...well y'all can conjecture for a while.
QUOTE (Novelty @ April 29 2005, 09:35 PM)
I find it curious that nobody (except Dan) disagrees with my reviews either privately or publicly. Does that mean everyone is usually in agreement with the reveiws then?
Novelty, are you asking for a review of the reviews? LOL
I wouldn't say that I am in agreement or disagreement with your reviews, but I actually *try* not to read them.
For the few authors and stories that I really like, I like to feel that the stories are ‘real’ and that the author is just telling us 'how it is'. Reviews allow for possible future changes to a story. The thought of having the ability to make changes to a story I’ve become engrossed in sort of kills the buzz for me. I know it’s crazy, but in my mind the story is already ‘written’ and Dan is just doling out the servings. No need for future changes because Dan would just be changing ‘facts’.
Reviews are part of the process here at GA (where author’s help each other; reviewers and editors help authors improve their writing), but for the good stories that I have bought into, I just like being a reader who enjoys them for the experience they provide.
I feel that way about most of Dan’s stuff. It’s kind of selfish that I won’t provide the feedback that some authors crave or look for, but that’s what keeps the good stories ‘real’ for me. For stories or authors that I haven’t bought into, I’ll be more willing to give them this type feedback or review.
Vic the Danimal
QUOTE (naper_vic @ May 9 2005, 11:19 AM)
QUOTE (Novelty @ April 29 2005, 09:35 PM)
I find it curious that nobody (except Dan) disagrees with my reviews either privately or publicly. Does that mean everyone is usually in agreement with the reveiws then?
Novelty, are you asking for a review of the reviews? LOL
I wouldn't say that I am in agreement or disagreement with your reviews, but I actually *try* not to read them.
For the few authors and stories that I really like, I like to feel that the stories are ‘real’ and that the author is just telling us 'how it is'. Reviews allow for possible future changes to a story. The thought of having the ability to make changes to a story I’ve become engrossed in sort of kills the buzz for me. I know it’s crazy, but in my mind the story is already ‘written’ and Dan is just doling out the servings. No need for future changes because Dan would just be changing ‘facts’.
Reviews are part of the process here at GA (where author’s help each other; reviewers and editors help authors improve their writing), but for the good stories that I have bought into, I just like being a reader who enjoys them for the experience they provide.
I feel that way about most of Dan’s stuff. It’s kind of selfish that I won’t provide the feedback that some authors crave or look for, but that’s what keeps the good stories ‘real’ for me. For stories or authors that I haven’t bought into, I’ll be more willing to give them this type feedback or review.
Vic the Danimal
I understand where you are coming from, Vic. For me, I think the serial format makes the chapter by chapter reviews unsatisfying conceptually. Each chapter isn't really meant to be taken on its own.
I'm comfortable asking an author privately about story development as its going on, but like Vic said, making that choice in some ways takes me out of my disbelief when reading the fiction, much the same way that reading recaps of ongoing television episodes by snarky recappers changes the way I view that show when I continue to watch it.
I'd be very interested in reading a full and honest review of the story when the whole thing is complete. At that point, it can be interesting to see if other people understood it the same way or had different comments about it. Until then, I'm skeptical of public reviews and discussions they may prompt.
QUOTE (Novelty @ May 6 2005, 07:11 PM)
QUOTE (primewordsmith @ May 6 2005, 10:42 AM)
And not just any crumbs, but cake crumbs at that!
"Let them eat Cake." Attributed to Queen Marie-Antoinette when she heard about the French Revolution, or something stupid like that.
I understand Her Majesty was thought to have made that infamous comment, when told the general population were starving, because they had no bread. It was probably this attitude she shared with others of the aristocracy, which permitted the French revolution to succeed.
Which leads one to wonder, with the level of poverty, ill-health, uneducation, no shelter, and lack of food and heating, found in so many major North American cities for so many people, just how long it might be before North America suffers its next revolution, and subsequential civil war.
When we hear some of the extraordinary utterances made by His Majesty the current emperor of North America, it could seem that an attitude, similar to Marie-Antoinette's, might still prevail in some high circles.
Of course, that well-known Australian export, Rupert the Fox, never informs the North American public of anything which might upset his cosy relationship with the currently governing cabal.
People need to reside outside Florida and its other united states to hear those sorts of things.
One has to wonder!
PWS
hehehehehehe
QUOTE (primewordsmith @ May 15 2005, 04:12 PM)
When we hear some of the extraordinary utterances made by His Majesty the current emperor of North America, it could seem that an attitude, similar to Marie-Antoinette's, might still prevail in some high circles.
I hope you're talking about GWB, because I'm nowhere near North America. Besides, I've been told that the famous English translation of "Let them eat cake" contains a translation deficiency from the original French words that were uttered. Remember history is written by the victors, or in this case, some ignorant dweeb who can't even translate the original French properly into English. Or was the mistake deliberate so as to cast a bad light at Marie-Antoinette?
Oh and remember when you wrote:
QUOTE (primewordsmith @ May 6 2005, 09:26 PM)
Yeah, I think you're right Nov. Don't bother writing a review this time. DOR 19 really is a brilliant chapter.
You only have yourself to blame for not getting a review of 19 out early. It's posted now, the link can be found on the first post in this thread.
QUOTE (Novelty @ May 17 2005, 06:17 AM)
Besides, I've been told that the famous English translation of "Let them eat cake" contains a translation deficiency from the original French words that were uttered. Remember history is written by the victors, or in this case, some ignorant dweeb who can't even translate the original French properly into English. Or was the mistake deliberate so as to cast a bad light at Marie-Antoinette?
Well said Novelty, and totally correct. Marie Antoinette was vilified during her time for being Austrian, and after her time for being Queen. I think her greatest deficiencies were homesickness and immaturity, plus constant nagging from a dominating mother (Empress Maria Theresa).
Well, I googled for this and got the following pages:
From The Straight Dope:
From Ask Yahoo:
What is "brioche"? I asked my friend who is ethnic French and is currently living in Paris, and he confirms that brioche isn't cake. Cake is gâteau. Please do keep in mind that the french are very specific (to the point of almost being anal) about describing objects. For example: bubbly white wine can only be called champagne if it comes from a certain geographical region in France.
So what is "brioche"? Again from The Straight Dope:
OK, now I'm hungry And that's your Foreign language lesson of the day courtesy of moi and Google.
From The Straight Dope:
QUOTE
While Marie Antoinette was certainly enough of a bubblehead to have said the phrase in question, there is no evidence that she actually did so, and in any case she did not originate it. The peasants-have-no-bread story was in common currency at least since the 1760s as an illustration of the decadence of the aristocracy. The political philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau mentions it in his Confessions in connection with an incident that occurred in 1740. (He stole wine while working as a tutor in Lyons and then had problems trying to scrounge up something to eat along with it.) He concludes thusly: "Finally I remembered the way out suggested by a great princess when told that the peasants had no bread: 'Well, let them eat cake.'"
Now, J.-J. may have been embroidering this yarn with a line he had really heard many years later. But even so, at the time he was writing--early 1766--Marie Antoinette was only ten years old and still four years away from her marriage to the future Louis XVI.
Now, J.-J. may have been embroidering this yarn with a line he had really heard many years later. But even so, at the time he was writing--early 1766--Marie Antoinette was only ten years old and still four years away from her marriage to the future Louis XVI.
From Ask Yahoo:
QUOTE
However, "Let them eat brioche" isn't quite as cold a sentiment as you might imagine. At the time, French law required bakers to sell fancy breads at the same low price as the plain breads if they ran out of the latter. The goal was to prevent bakers from making very little cheap bread and then profiting off the fancy, expensive bread. Whoever really said "Let them eat brioche" may have meant that the bakery laws should be enforced so the poor could eat the fancy bread if there wasn't enough plain bread to go around.
What is "brioche"? I asked my friend who is ethnic French and is currently living in Paris, and he confirms that brioche isn't cake. Cake is gâteau. Please do keep in mind that the french are very specific (to the point of almost being anal) about describing objects. For example: bubbly white wine can only be called champagne if it comes from a certain geographical region in France.
So what is "brioche"? Again from The Straight Dope:
QUOTE
Brioche is a sort of crusty bun, typically containing milk, flour, eggs, sugar, butter, and whatnot. It's considered a delicacy, and as far as I can determine (which is pretty far) has been since the Middle Ages. According to one cooking historian, brioche originally contained brie cheese, whence the name. Nicolas Bonnefons, writing in Delices de la campagne in 1679, gives a recipe for brioche that calls for butter and soft cheese, plus a glaze containing beaten eggs and (if desired) honey.
OK, now I'm hungry
And that's your Foreign language lesson of the day courtesy of moi and Google.
QUOTE (Novelty @ May 17 2005, 12:40 PM)
Well, I googled for this and got the following pages:
From The Straight Dope:
From Ask Yahoo:
What is "brioche"? I asked my friend who is ethnic French and is currently living in Paris, and he confirms that brioche isn't cake. Cake is gâteau. Please do keep in mind that the french are very specific (to the point of almost being anal) about describing objects. For example: bubbly white wine can only be called champagne if it comes from a certain geographical region in France.
So what is "brioche"? Again from The Straight Dope:
OK, now I'm hungry And that's your Foreign language lesson of the day courtesy of moi and Google.
From The Straight Dope:
QUOTE
While Marie Antoinette was certainly enough of a bubblehead to have said the phrase in question, there is no evidence that she actually did so, and in any case she did not originate it. The peasants-have-no-bread story was in common currency at least since the 1760s as an illustration of the decadence of the aristocracy. The political philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau mentions it in his Confessions in connection with an incident that occurred in 1740. (He stole wine while working as a tutor in Lyons and then had problems trying to scrounge up something to eat along with it.) He concludes thusly: "Finally I remembered the way out suggested by a great princess when told that the peasants had no bread: 'Well, let them eat cake.'"
Now, J.-J. may have been embroidering this yarn with a line he had really heard many years later. But even so, at the time he was writing--early 1766--Marie Antoinette was only ten years old and still four years away from her marriage to the future Louis XVI.
Now, J.-J. may have been embroidering this yarn with a line he had really heard many years later. But even so, at the time he was writing--early 1766--Marie Antoinette was only ten years old and still four years away from her marriage to the future Louis XVI.
From Ask Yahoo:
QUOTE
However, "Let them eat brioche" isn't quite as cold a sentiment as you might imagine. At the time, French law required bakers to sell fancy breads at the same low price as the plain breads if they ran out of the latter. The goal was to prevent bakers from making very little cheap bread and then profiting off the fancy, expensive bread. Whoever really said "Let them eat brioche" may have meant that the bakery laws should be enforced so the poor could eat the fancy bread if there wasn't enough plain bread to go around.
What is "brioche"? I asked my friend who is ethnic French and is currently living in Paris, and he confirms that brioche isn't cake. Cake is gâteau. Please do keep in mind that the french are very specific (to the point of almost being anal) about describing objects. For example: bubbly white wine can only be called champagne if it comes from a certain geographical region in France.
So what is "brioche"? Again from The Straight Dope:
QUOTE
Brioche is a sort of crusty bun, typically containing milk, flour, eggs, sugar, butter, and whatnot. It's considered a delicacy, and as far as I can determine (which is pretty far) has been since the Middle Ages. According to one cooking historian, brioche originally contained brie cheese, whence the name. Nicolas Bonnefons, writing in Delices de la campagne in 1679, gives a recipe for brioche that calls for butter and soft cheese, plus a glaze containing beaten eggs and (if desired) honey.
OK, now I'm hungry
And that's your Foreign language lesson of the day courtesy of moi and Google.Fantastic information, but the quote "..illustration of the decadence of the aristocracy." is in fact an error. Marie-Antoinette was Queen, a member of the Royal Family by both birth and marriage, and not a member of the aristocracy. Sounds nitpicky? It is, but as you noted, French society in the Ancien Regime was highly structured and segmented. The King was God's annointed ruler, and French society, under him, was divided up into three groups: The Church, The Nobility, and the rest (the 3rd estate). Movement between the three groups was possible, but movement from the three groups to the Royal Family was virtually unheard of.
It is much more likely that the second quote is accurate. Despite their reputations, both Louis XVI and Marie-Antoinette were deeply troubled by famine in the kingdom, both for humanitarian reasons and for the unrest it caused.
I might note, tongue in cheek, that it pays to research before you post.
Nice job Novelty.
QUOTE
...French society in the Ancien Regime ...
I was wondering where in France was "Ancien", since there is an "Amiens" and then I realised you meant "Ancient". Doh, I'm slow.And I had to read your tongue in cheek comments about 5 times before I finally got the joke!
BTW, I only quoted part of the two articles I found. You might want to read the full articles before you pass judgement on them. (I found a lot more, but those two are from respected - by me at least - sites).
The review for Chapter 22 is up, if anyone is interested. And it's a bit harsh than usual, I'm sure.
Flame on, buddy.
Nice to see it up...
Nice to see it up...
Heh, I'll pass the torch on to ya, Dan.
And the review for 23 is up (links are all edited into the first post of this thread) - 2 more to go...
And the review for 23 is up (links are all edited into the first post of this thread) - 2 more to go...
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.