Post Number: 65
|Posted on Saturday, June 12, 2004 - 11:39 am: |
I hear ya, but there is something about her dissertation and the response that has been disheartening to me. Are we not allowed to state an opinion, whether it be about a book or an event without credentials? Why must we know what Steph has written, or not written, what's published etc..to validate or discredit what she believes to be true? I, like most on this board are consumers of the written word, not professional readers (though some may boast this) and some of us are writers, and authors. Everyday we say what we like, don't like, what we consider good writing, bad writing...it's our opinion, none better than the other. We agree sometimes, and sometimes we disagree, but it is all good. Why in Steph's case must we check credentials?
BTW, I liked your statement about what the true author would do: "Whereas a true author will fill those same spaces with more intriguing attributes to the substance of the story, dig deeper, and have more depth for the reader to enjoy. "
You couldn't be more right.
BTW - I did read part II as well, and still...