I'm travelling ... I had thought about some suggestions for the feedback, but they are not strictly necessary ;), and I will be able to write more probably only by Tuesday (maybe before in between meetings, but not sure). Looking forward to both reading and the feedback!
My book was "Why Does He Do That" by Lundy Bancroft.
If we need someone to bite the bullet and go first, I would be fine with doing that. I'm also comfortable leaving it up to a randomizer.
I think "necessary" is more how Scott filters out comments that have nothing to do with the subject of the topic of the post, and maybe "relevant" is a better terminology. As long as we stick to either subjects raised by the book or the review thereof, or discussions of the quality of the writing and how it could have been improved, we should be fine.
Content-wise, I think a bit of both the things you mention is what I'd like. Certainly I want to know if I presented the book and its positions clearly and engagingly, and whether there's anything that I made an unconvincing case for. If people are interested in discussing the book and its positions further, further discussion of that would be great (whether in agreement or disagreement - I myself had a pretty major point of disagreement with the author). I did go into some speculation in my review on the book's applicability in modern contexts, and it'd be neat if people had thoughts on that.
I actually had one more question: I had a couple of people proofread my review before submitting it, and I promised I would let them know if it went up on ACX. Would people be comfortable with me telling them about this as well? I ask because I saw some people mentioning that they'd prefer not to have a lot of extra eyes on this. I could invite them to give feedback, or invite them to read but refrain from commenting, or simply not tell them at all. What does the group prefer?
1) To learn how to write book reviews in a way that is entertaining and informative.
2) To understand the differences between reviews that become ACX finalists versus ones that don’t.
3) I would like to see the people in the group here all end up in the finalists in the contest next year.
To that end, I plan on carefully reading the finalists for this year (and last year). I want to figure out what it is that distinguishes non-finalists from the finalists. Book reviews are a new genre to me. As for feedback, I’d hope to know:
1) Were you hooked by the intro?
2) Did the review create some sense of interest? Let me know if you got bored at some point while reading.
3) Was the review entertaining and informative?
Basically, I’d rather focus on discussion of the review rather than the book. Also, my book review is of “Bad News.”
(@eremalalos I originally hit “reply” to the email notification rather than putting this as a comment, please disregard it)
Hey, I was invited early on but seem to have been missed, am I right to join?
I did The Design of Everyday Things review.
Personally I'm mostly interested in discussion on the ideas presented in the book/review itself, but I'd also like to ask commenters if they can identify the reason/s why it wasn't picked as a finalist. The finalists do seem higher quality to me, but I'd like help in pinpointing exactly why.
Like Liam said below, my main goal is to improve my writing, so I'm happy for people to be critical. Anytime they felt bored/annoyed/unconvinced by my review, I'd like to know.
Maybe people could list a few suggestions of things they'd like feedback on specifically before their review goes up.
Hi, thanks a lot Eremolalos for setting this up!
I'm travelling ... I had thought about some suggestions for the feedback, but they are not strictly necessary ;), and I will be able to write more probably only by Tuesday (maybe before in between meetings, but not sure). Looking forward to both reading and the feedback!
Thank you for taking the initiative on this!
My book was "Why Does He Do That" by Lundy Bancroft.
If we need someone to bite the bullet and go first, I would be fine with doing that. I'm also comfortable leaving it up to a randomizer.
I think "necessary" is more how Scott filters out comments that have nothing to do with the subject of the topic of the post, and maybe "relevant" is a better terminology. As long as we stick to either subjects raised by the book or the review thereof, or discussions of the quality of the writing and how it could have been improved, we should be fine.
Content-wise, I think a bit of both the things you mention is what I'd like. Certainly I want to know if I presented the book and its positions clearly and engagingly, and whether there's anything that I made an unconvincing case for. If people are interested in discussing the book and its positions further, further discussion of that would be great (whether in agreement or disagreement - I myself had a pretty major point of disagreement with the author). I did go into some speculation in my review on the book's applicability in modern contexts, and it'd be neat if people had thoughts on that.
I actually had one more question: I had a couple of people proofread my review before submitting it, and I promised I would let them know if it went up on ACX. Would people be comfortable with me telling them about this as well? I ask because I saw some people mentioning that they'd prefer not to have a lot of extra eyes on this. I could invite them to give feedback, or invite them to read but refrain from commenting, or simply not tell them at all. What does the group prefer?
I don't have a problem with more people reading and critiquing.
First, thanks for organizing this!
I’d say that my intention here is three part:
1) To learn how to write book reviews in a way that is entertaining and informative.
2) To understand the differences between reviews that become ACX finalists versus ones that don’t.
3) I would like to see the people in the group here all end up in the finalists in the contest next year.
To that end, I plan on carefully reading the finalists for this year (and last year). I want to figure out what it is that distinguishes non-finalists from the finalists. Book reviews are a new genre to me. As for feedback, I’d hope to know:
1) Were you hooked by the intro?
2) Did the review create some sense of interest? Let me know if you got bored at some point while reading.
3) Was the review entertaining and informative?
Basically, I’d rather focus on discussion of the review rather than the book. Also, my book review is of “Bad News.”
(@eremalalos I originally hit “reply” to the email notification rather than putting this as a comment, please disregard it)
I signed up for the Substack today. The book I reviewed was Atlas Shrugged (review 2).
I'm happy with Scott's old "Buddha Sufi Lite" standard of "each comment should be at least 2 of 3 for Kind, Necessary, and True."
I'm interested in both comments on how to improve my writing and in interesting discussion on the book itself.
Hey, I was invited early on but seem to have been missed, am I right to join?
I did The Design of Everyday Things review.
Personally I'm mostly interested in discussion on the ideas presented in the book/review itself, but I'd also like to ask commenters if they can identify the reason/s why it wasn't picked as a finalist. The finalists do seem higher quality to me, but I'd like help in pinpointing exactly why.
My review was for Bullshit Jobs, but I've revised it a bit since the version on the big google doc with all the reviews. revised version:
https://claycubeomnibus.substack.com/p/bullshit-jobs-review
Like Liam said below, my main goal is to improve my writing, so I'm happy for people to be critical. Anytime they felt bored/annoyed/unconvinced by my review, I'd like to know.
Maybe people could list a few suggestions of things they'd like feedback on specifically before their review goes up.