I was going to write a long post about the differences between slush piles and published, award-winning novels. But really, why bother? It’s irrelevant to anybody who understands the real world and meaningless to those who deny reality.
Changing the antecedent doesn’t move the goalposts? :dubious:
An author’s work can’t (or couldn’t for most of modern history) become awardwinning without first getting past gatekeepers.
Were you aware that the original Tom Swift books were written by Howard Garis, most famous for Uncle Wiggly? I’ve read maybe 10 of them recently, and while their age shows (and their racism, but not as bad as original Nancy Drew) they are more readable - and more scientific - than the '50s and '60s vintage Tom Swift Jr. books.
Better than Willis? I’ve read all three Hugo Winners, and I’m not a super big fan but not because of writing style. “To Say Nothing of the Dog” might be the most fun, but I think you have to have a soft spot for novels from the time in which it is set.
No, no it doesn’t. Nor does it move the goalposts instead of admitting error to, y’know, say, “Yes, I was wrong about exactly which author you were trying to condemn through this dumb argument; my apologies.”
Admitting an error and correcting it is, and this is important, exactly the opposite of moving the goalposts instead of admitting error.
Now, a tip: if you want to go for some sort of ourobourean irony, you should, instead of admitting your mistake here, pretend that you were actually making an entirely different accusation and urge me to defend myself against that. That would be cool.
Interesting. So does that include the one I quoted from (“Motor-Cycle”)?
Hmm. :dubious:
Woulld you deny that the above quote is identical in meaning to a slightly reworded version as follows:
?
If you don’t deny it, then please watch this very short video clip:
Oh great, LHOD, now you’ve got homework.
It’s literally less than five seconds long.
I bought The Fifth Season; reading it now. So far she hasn’t repeated any of that ultra-informal Twitter-y nonsense, which makes the prose much better. And the story is interesting even if it’s more in the fantasy realm (in fact, I find it more absorbing than any fantasy I’ve encountered outside of the Game of Thrones HBO series). But this makes it even more unfathomable that no editor prevailed upon her to ditch that silliness in the crucial opening passages of the novel.
It is clear that you believe you’re making a point–and it’s just as clear that you don’t understand what “moving the goalposts” means, or what “admitting error” means. Props for actually looking something up, though.
I guess you don’t know what “horseshit” is.
[Moderating]
I just got a report for one particular post in this thread, but skimming over the last page for context, I found that the whole thread appeared to be a pissing contest. Looking back through the middle of the previous page, I find that it was mostly a pissing contest even then. I think it’s safe to say that anything worthwhile to say here has already been said. If I had seen the thread earlier, it might have been salvageable: Please, if folks see a thread starting to crash, report it sooner rather than later.