Most recent public comments by Alex Pitre https://nowcomment.com/users/23582 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56405?scroll_to=634223 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56405?scroll_to=634223 I imagine reviewers putting little stickie notes of this quote on their bathroom mirrors for daily inspiration. Sat, 17 Dec 2016 07:29:42 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56405?scroll_to=628392 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56405?scroll_to=628392 Sat, 17 Dec 2016 07:28:24 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56403?scroll_to=628318 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56403?scroll_to=628318 Sat, 10 Dec 2016 14:57:59 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56403?scroll_to=628316 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56403?scroll_to=628316 They probably mostly appeal to the curious and the literary enthusiasts which is not a negative thing, just a niche afterlife. Sat, 10 Dec 2016 14:57:59 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56402?scroll_to=620839 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56402?scroll_to=620839 I have the most notes on this chapter. I'm so sure what about this chapter sparked my interest. I suspect it is the discussion on objectivity. I buck against required objectivity. It seems attached to the philosophical hierarchy of logic over passion. (I'm putting it very simple...) I just started reading Jeanne Randolph's ficto-criticism. She is an art critic, mainly, and a student of psychoanalysis. She toys with the concept that a better review is one given from an obvious bias. To know exactly the attachment that a reviewer has to the work or creator allows for a better review as we might learn things we wouldn't otherwise have access to through a standard objective review. She proposes that to allow our subjectivity leads to a more engaging and exciting review. Tue, 13 Dec 2016 23:38:23 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56402?scroll_to=620838 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56402?scroll_to=620838 Sat, 19 Nov 2016 06:45:50 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56401?scroll_to=613481 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56401?scroll_to=613481 Fri, 09 Dec 2016 17:16:15 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56401?scroll_to=613478 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56401?scroll_to=613478 Fri, 11 Nov 2016 06:20:53 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56400?scroll_to=598674 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56400?scroll_to=598674 The editorial process seems so impossible. Not only does the editor have to choose a book from a drowning amount of titles (that choice could fall through for various reasons), the editor must then pick a review from another sea and who knows how that's going to work out. I imagine all editors take heartburn or migraine medication daily. Sat, 17 Dec 2016 07:10:39 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56400?scroll_to=598668 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56400?scroll_to=598668 Wed, 30 Nov 2016 07:18:43 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56359?scroll_to=598666 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56359?scroll_to=598666 It is important to know what knowledge, bias, motivations, professional ground, grudges, or acclaim the reviewer may or may not have because these will influence the review. Knowing that many reviewers wear other hats /because/ the pay is not enough or whether they were chosen because /of/ those other hats makes a big difference in the reviews written. Thu, 20 Oct 2016 07:54:14 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56359?scroll_to=598665 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56359?scroll_to=598665 Thu, 15 Dec 2016 20:53:53 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56408?scroll_to=588004 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56408?scroll_to=588004 I don't think that the reviewer is taking any particular position just stating the position of other biographers. This paragraph has a slightly forgiving tone towards Hughes, but only because the reviewer is referencing the work of someone who does excuse Hughes. Also, I don't think the reviewer was particularly harsh towards Hughes in previous paragraphs, not as harsh as they could have been. Fri, 07 Oct 2016 07:06:15 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56408?scroll_to=588003 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56408?scroll_to=588003 When I saw the last word of the last sentence the same as the last word of the first sentence, I rolled my eyes. Especially since it is such a recognizable word and so specific. Just because it’s uncommon (dare I say pretentious) doesn’t make it the right word. I also don’t particularly agree with the usage which is maybe why it sticks out so much to me. If the agon is pointing to a struggle or contest between Hughes and Plath, I’m not really sure what they were trying to win. Two different prizes? Hughes: Assia and Plath: Hughes. I don’t think that is a agon. In some ways I guess agon references the spectacle that Plath and Hughes marital explosion became. Fri, 07 Oct 2016 07:05:00 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56408?scroll_to=588002 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56408?scroll_to=588002 "The World" makes the whole situation much more epic and potentially worthy of being written about. Fri, 07 Oct 2016 07:03:50 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56408?scroll_to=588001 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56408?scroll_to=588001 This paragraph gives more credential to Assia's reputation as a femme fatale intent on stealing Hughes. Fri, 07 Oct 2016 07:03:22 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56408?scroll_to=588000 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56408?scroll_to=588000 It seems like he created/encouraged instability to prolong the pre-wife period and to make it easy to end relationships. But he probably just didn't know how to proceed between seeking his "poetic spirit" and caring for his two children. (I'm also a little confused about the children. His child with Assia was born before Plath committed suicide? I think that is beyond the scope of this review though.) Fri, 07 Oct 2016 07:02:34 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56357?scroll_to=581260 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56357?scroll_to=581260 The Rorschach method of criticism could work in two ways: the reviewer only passes over the book and gets a general impression or the reviewer sees a general theme and then finds only the relevant items to support their initial impression. Fri, 23 Sep 2016 06:29:30 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56357?scroll_to=581255 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56357?scroll_to=581255 Consumer advice helps us decide where to spend our monetary capital and cultural guidance shows us what we are valuing on an ideological, moral, entertain level. Consumer advice helps place the intrinsic value on the book while cultural guidance determines the extrinsic value. Fri, 23 Sep 2016 06:25:50 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56406?scroll_to=572762 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56406?scroll_to=572762 Mon, 12 Sep 2016 13:09:46 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56406?scroll_to=572761 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56406?scroll_to=572761 If one considers Anne Frank's writings not simply as a well-written diary, but as a sculpted piece of writing, one starts to move away from a characterization imposed by dominate sexist and ageist ideals. It is easy for the dominate narrative to say, "Anne Frank was a young girl victimized by the Nazi regime and found solace in her personal diary." It is more difficult for the dominate narrative to say, "Anne Frank was an independent artist and expressed her experiences through the medium of the written word." The second statement challenges the notion that young girls are passive (and often placed in a victim role) and that one does not need to reach adulthood/receive a formal education to create art. Switching the view of Anne Frank's work to art changes her diary to something to be studied not only for historical purposes, but to be studied in all the ways art is studied, such as continued relevance, political statement, expressing the artist's intention, effective use of medium, and on and on. Switching the view of Anne Frank also helps in switching the view of all young adult artists. Something I think Anne Frank would support. Wed, 14 Sep 2016 12:53:39 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56406?scroll_to=572753 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56406?scroll_to=572753 There seem to be two issues raised: - Maybe, hidden information/interpretation has escaped the potential over-exposure of Anne Frank's life story. - The information/interpretation may not even be relevant/necessary at this point. Mon, 12 Sep 2016 12:44:19 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56356?scroll_to=568833 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56356?scroll_to=568833 The quotation serves the paragraph by bringing Marilyn Monroe's words back to the forefront of the review — just as the collection is her own words. The quotation highlights Monroe's insightful side and supports the assertion of Monroe as "thoughtful and accomplished." I think it connects the second paragraph to the first paragraph more than wrapping up the second paragraph nicely. Fri, 09 Sep 2016 06:51:51 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56355?scroll_to=556248 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56355?scroll_to=556248 A compendium is a collection of precise details concerning one particular subject matter, in this case Frank Sinatra. Tue, 30 Aug 2016 13:01:35 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56355?scroll_to=556246 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56355?scroll_to=556246 I would characterize the last paragraph as unconvincing in it's description as a good start. I trust Rollyson's experience in reading Sintra biographies, so I would trust that Rollyson is correct that Sinatra's story is still waiting. But after reading the rest of the review, I see no evidence that it is a good start. A "compendium" seems like a terrible way to be introduced to a subject matter. A book written without "grace or critical skills" seems like a waste of time, not a good start. Thu, 01 Sep 2016 12:17:01 -0400