linking links to links

reviewing my review of this book’s fiction:



Filed under Uncategorized

20 responses to “linking links to links

  1. I think my review-bites are much more substantial than tweets.

  2. Yep, but they’re not as substantial as reader-response analysis, hence them “lying somewhere between” the two.

    Cheers for the review, by the way!

  3. Still, fair enough. But – with more time today to think about it – I think there is a debate to be had about a comparison of reader-response analysis and the Intentional Fallacy considerations (to which I’ve adhered since the Sixties) and the latter are more related to considering only the text itself as a ‘thing-in-itself’ (New Criticism?). Thinking about it (and thanks to Mr. Theaker for stirring me to think about it!) I seem to be bringing these two aspects together – perhaps a new literary theory pending! As to tweets, I think they may be red herrings. Tweets form into specialised stream-of-consciouness of the Twitter population (someone has composed music based on the tweets coming in second by second). An interesting point though. One perhaps worth pursuing… (Still thinking…)

    I don’t really relate to the ‘free association’ description. This sounds more like automatic writing or something indisciplined. I think my RTRs have a logical underpinning based on the text itself, as the text affects me and, as is rightly said, on me as a particular person and my unique experiences. (Each of us is unique in this way).

  4. Lots of people tweet about books as they are reading them, often quite insightfully. That’s very similar to what you’re doing, so far as I can see.

  5. Yes, I agree, but if you take what I do in the round, sorry, I can’t really see the comparison.
    We’ll have to differ on this. Tweeting is necessarily – by their rules – more bitty and interactive. Please have a look at my review of MASTER IN THE CAFE MORPHINE. Tweeting may be an ingredient of comparison, at a push. It may be a leitmotif in the gestalt. But to make the comparison at all seems to give the wrong impression of be-bitty-ment. As does ‘free association’. imo.

  6. Also tweets carry tinyurl links. Is that something to which you are referring?

  7. If you are saying tweets are only the 140 characters in each tweet, what I said above is relevant.
    But if you’re saying that a tweet is the 140 characters *plus* what is in the link that that tweet carries, then that’s a different argument.

  8. I think people who use Twitter a bit more than you will understand the comparison – it sounds like you don’t follow anyone who does this kind of thing.

  9. I am quite clear.
    (A) Tweet = 140 characters. No link.
    (B) Tweet = 140 characters including link (link may lead to a whole essay or review about a book)

    Do you mean (A) or (B)?

  10. That’s what I mean – that you have to ask the question suggests you don’t follow anyone on Twitter who does this kind of thing.

    You blog about books as you go along, other people tweet. The point of comparison is that both happen in “real-time” as you move through the books.

    Yes, there are differences, but there is a clear similarity in the way that the public can follow a reader on a journey through a book.

    But go ahead and take offence if you like!

  11. I’m not taking offence. Just trying to get it clear in my mind. So what do you mean – (A) or (B)?
    or both? Then I’ll take my argument another stage. If you have the patience.

  12. It’s not a question of offence – but me being educated. Again, if you have the patience. This is only the ‘tweet’ point, though. I raised other issues above.

  13. No, it’s alright – it’s enough for me to establish that you didn’t understand the comparison you were criticising – I’m quite happy to leave you in the dark!

  14. Well, it is discourteous to start a line of argument in your blog post and then say something like that when your interlocutor queries what you are saying. Reread what I said, please.
    Not everyone has the knowledge of Twitter that you seem to have.

  15. This link now needs to be added to above list:

    PS: (6/10/11): Not the whole thread but just the first page.

  16. I passworded this thread a few minutes ago plus some others germane to this issue.