daviddavidkatzman's review against another edition
4.0
This review will be a review of this review. Let’s begin by reviewing that first sentence. It contained a significant redundancy. Could it have been shortened to “This will be a review of this review”? It could have been but then it wouldn’t have had as much impact. And the “this” becomes slightly ambiguous. This what? This word? No, as it stands I think it was the most striking introductory sentence I could come up with to indicate that what follows the first sentence will be a review of the review I am currently writing. I’ll give that first sentence 5 stars.
Now let’s review that first paragraph. Really fucking boring. Seriously, could I have come up with a better way to suck the life out of the energy of the first sentence? I suppose if I had followed the first sentence with excerpts from an An Accountant’s Guide to Tax Form 1SJ-3 It might’ve been even more boring. But if my intention was to stay on topic (was it?), then I did a fine job of killing the life out of the first sentence. I’ll give that first paragraph 2 stars because at least it didn’t make me vomit, and I didn’t use offensive language like “retarded,” which I hate.
This is the first sentence of the third paragraph of this review. It seems to be just a placeholder sentence. It served no purpose other than identifying its place in the review. Not a very interesting sentence, is it? No it ent. And I’m not talking about this Ent:
I’m using a colloquialism to show that I’m “down with the people.” And I put quotes around “down with the people” to show I intended that ironically. Who’s going to see The Hobbit? Anyone? Is there a place for The Hobbit in this review? There is now. Does it feel arbitrary and forced in? Yes! Good!
So back to this review. To this point it contains 1417 characters without spaces, which make up 325 words. I think I definitely could have deworded it a bit. Does it really need every word that I included? I should thin this out. But I won’t, I’m just going to keep going until you tear your eyeballs out. Or you vote to Like it, then you’re permitted to go. I challenge you, dear reader, to vault this review into the stratosphere of most Liked reviews. It would be a vote for irony because this review is about nothing at all. Rather like a snake eating its own tale (sic) or the incestuous backslapping and backstabbing that occur in English Departments at major universities where profs duel over theories about abstract theories. I’m going to give the previous paragraph 2 stars for the picture of an Ent.
Although the previous paragraph was a bit dry overall, and the suggestion that this review could actually garner a tremendous number of votes is highly improbable, I’m going to give that last paragraph 3 stars because I liked the clever bit about a snake eating it’s own “tale.” And the reference to incestuous English Depts is Truth! I got a Master’s degree from University of Wisconsin-Madison in English Lit, and wow did I hate it. Not the school but grad school. Unlike studying English Lit as an undergrad where you are immersed in the reading and analysis of literature, the world of grad students is that of critical theory. Instead of analyzing literature, you spend your time analyzing literary theory and learning it’s esoteric language. It’s garbage.
Wow, bitter much, Katzman? Maybe tone down the rhetoric a little bit there. Don’t want to get overheated; after all, this needs to be a family-friendly review to garner the kind of stupendous voting that will put me on the most-popular reviewer list of Goodreads. I got there once, actually. About a year ago I magically found myself on the list, in the top 25 for vote getters. Since then I’ve been on a downward slide and in fact last week found myself on the list of least voted reviewers just behind Calvin Bunderpants who actually had -239 votes and and Terg Mechanipstick who is imaginary. I’m going to give this paragraph 4 stars for the name “Calvin Bunderpants” and “Terg.”
In summation, this review has overstayed its welcome. Probably too long and with too many words. Some clever bits here and there, maybe a chuckle’s worth. I’ll give it 3 stars. What do you think?
Now let’s review that first paragraph. Really fucking boring. Seriously, could I have come up with a better way to suck the life out of the energy of the first sentence? I suppose if I had followed the first sentence with excerpts from an An Accountant’s Guide to Tax Form 1SJ-3 It might’ve been even more boring. But if my intention was to stay on topic (was it?), then I did a fine job of killing the life out of the first sentence. I’ll give that first paragraph 2 stars because at least it didn’t make me vomit, and I didn’t use offensive language like “retarded,” which I hate.
This is the first sentence of the third paragraph of this review. It seems to be just a placeholder sentence. It served no purpose other than identifying its place in the review. Not a very interesting sentence, is it? No it ent. And I’m not talking about this Ent:
I’m using a colloquialism to show that I’m “down with the people.” And I put quotes around “down with the people” to show I intended that ironically. Who’s going to see The Hobbit? Anyone? Is there a place for The Hobbit in this review? There is now. Does it feel arbitrary and forced in? Yes! Good!
So back to this review. To this point it contains 1417 characters without spaces, which make up 325 words. I think I definitely could have deworded it a bit. Does it really need every word that I included? I should thin this out. But I won’t, I’m just going to keep going until you tear your eyeballs out. Or you vote to Like it, then you’re permitted to go. I challenge you, dear reader, to vault this review into the stratosphere of most Liked reviews. It would be a vote for irony because this review is about nothing at all. Rather like a snake eating its own tale (sic) or the incestuous backslapping and backstabbing that occur in English Departments at major universities where profs duel over theories about abstract theories. I’m going to give the previous paragraph 2 stars for the picture of an Ent.
Although the previous paragraph was a bit dry overall, and the suggestion that this review could actually garner a tremendous number of votes is highly improbable, I’m going to give that last paragraph 3 stars because I liked the clever bit about a snake eating it’s own “tale.” And the reference to incestuous English Depts is Truth! I got a Master’s degree from University of Wisconsin-Madison in English Lit, and wow did I hate it. Not the school but grad school. Unlike studying English Lit as an undergrad where you are immersed in the reading and analysis of literature, the world of grad students is that of critical theory. Instead of analyzing literature, you spend your time analyzing literary theory and learning it’s esoteric language. It’s garbage.
Wow, bitter much, Katzman? Maybe tone down the rhetoric a little bit there. Don’t want to get overheated; after all, this needs to be a family-friendly review to garner the kind of stupendous voting that will put me on the most-popular reviewer list of Goodreads. I got there once, actually. About a year ago I magically found myself on the list, in the top 25 for vote getters. Since then I’ve been on a downward slide and in fact last week found myself on the list of least voted reviewers just behind Calvin Bunderpants who actually had -239 votes and and Terg Mechanipstick who is imaginary. I’m going to give this paragraph 4 stars for the name “Calvin Bunderpants” and “Terg.”
In summation, this review has overstayed its welcome. Probably too long and with too many words. Some clever bits here and there, maybe a chuckle’s worth. I’ll give it 3 stars. What do you think?
More...