<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: SciFiNow review&#8230;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ricardopinto.com/blog/2010/04/25/scifinow-review/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ricardopinto.com/blog/2010/04/25/scifinow-review/</link>
	<description>the blog of author Ricardo Pinto</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 05 Feb 2012 14:50:06 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Daniel Cardoso</title>
		<link>http://www.ricardopinto.com/blog/2010/04/25/scifinow-review/comment-page-1/#comment-1223</link>
		<dc:creator>Daniel Cardoso</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Apr 2010 23:47:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ricardopinto.com/blog/?p=1691#comment-1223</guid>
		<description>The history of book publishing (and here, allow me to speak &lt;i&gt;ex cathedra&lt;/i&gt;) after the advent of Gutenberg&#039;s press is a history of profit seeking, and one of its most direct effects was the consolidation of specific &quot;print languages&quot; from several smaller idioms that were widely used but were economically inneficient.

The burgoisie was the social class behind the monetary investments in printing, and they very much expected a return. Where there is a limited supply and there is demand, there you see economy appearing (economy of infinities is impossible). I hope that e-books change the game, but I have some doubts, as I see e-books being sold at more expensive price-points than their paper counterparts. And unfortunately I disagree that it&#039;s not the need for distribution that makes it a capitalistic activity (and the &#039;ebook more expensive than book&#039; seems to agree). 
Rather, it is:
1 - The need for publicity (and that the Internet can easily change - well, not easily, but you get the drift);
2 - The scarce resource in books is not the physical object, but the story-telling, the inventiveness (or the lack thereof), the need for someone to re-hash and re-present discourses of a mythological and identitary nature; in short, the competence of the storyteller (as subjective as it may be) is what people pay for, primarily, and from there the social - and hence capitalistic - value is derived.

Piracy is helping change this when it comes to music, but in the literary world, it might take longer. Quite longer, I&#039;m afraid. But, then again, let us please all hope I&#039;m wrong. I want to be.

(OTOH, it&#039;s almost 1 a.m. and I&#039;m preparing a conference/debate for tomorrow, about &quot;Homosexuality, Promiscuity and Polyamory&quot;, so maybe I&#039;m way off-base.)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The history of book publishing (and here, allow me to speak <i>ex cathedra</i>) after the advent of Gutenberg&#8217;s press is a history of profit seeking, and one of its most direct effects was the consolidation of specific &#8220;print languages&#8221; from several smaller idioms that were widely used but were economically inneficient.</p>
<p>The burgoisie was the social class behind the monetary investments in printing, and they very much expected a return. Where there is a limited supply and there is demand, there you see economy appearing (economy of infinities is impossible). I hope that e-books change the game, but I have some doubts, as I see e-books being sold at more expensive price-points than their paper counterparts. And unfortunately I disagree that it&#8217;s not the need for distribution that makes it a capitalistic activity (and the &#8216;ebook more expensive than book&#8217; seems to agree).<br />
Rather, it is:<br />
1 &#8211; The need for publicity (and that the Internet can easily change &#8211; well, not easily, but you get the drift);<br />
2 &#8211; The scarce resource in books is not the physical object, but the story-telling, the inventiveness (or the lack thereof), the need for someone to re-hash and re-present discourses of a mythological and identitary nature; in short, the competence of the storyteller (as subjective as it may be) is what people pay for, primarily, and from there the social &#8211; and hence capitalistic &#8211; value is derived.</p>
<p>Piracy is helping change this when it comes to music, but in the literary world, it might take longer. Quite longer, I&#8217;m afraid. But, then again, let us please all hope I&#8217;m wrong. I want to be.</p>
<p>(OTOH, it&#8217;s almost 1 a.m. and I&#8217;m preparing a conference/debate for tomorrow, about &#8220;Homosexuality, Promiscuity and Polyamory&#8221;, so maybe I&#8217;m way off-base.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ricardo</title>
		<link>http://www.ricardopinto.com/blog/2010/04/25/scifinow-review/comment-page-1/#comment-1216</link>
		<dc:creator>ricardo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Apr 2010 10:57:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ricardopinto.com/blog/?p=1691#comment-1216</guid>
		<description>ah! but what makes publishing a capitalist activity? Surely it&#039;s the requirement (up until now) of manufacturing and distributing the physical objects in which books have resided. I suspect that the advent of ebooks is a game changer...

yes, reading Ricardo Pinto is obviously showing refinement and finesse..... *wide grin*

I don&#039;t really see this review as being a bad one. Mostly he states all kinds of positives, with the caveat of pace - which people will know if it matters to them or not - and the mysterious: &quot;at times serious flaws&quot; - whatever those may be *grin*

I&#039;ve no intention of giving up... though, it has to be said, that the kind of support people like you and Rem have been giving me is helping a lot with that... :O)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>ah! but what makes publishing a capitalist activity? Surely it&#8217;s the requirement (up until now) of manufacturing and distributing the physical objects in which books have resided. I suspect that the advent of ebooks is a game changer&#8230;</p>
<p>yes, reading Ricardo Pinto is obviously showing refinement and finesse&#8230;.. *wide grin*</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t really see this review as being a bad one. Mostly he states all kinds of positives, with the caveat of pace &#8211; which people will know if it matters to them or not &#8211; and the mysterious: &#8220;at times serious flaws&#8221; &#8211; whatever those may be *grin*</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve no intention of giving up&#8230; though, it has to be said, that the kind of support people like you and Rem have been giving me is helping a lot with that&#8230; :O)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Daniel Cardoso</title>
		<link>http://www.ricardopinto.com/blog/2010/04/25/scifinow-review/comment-page-1/#comment-1214</link>
		<dc:creator>Daniel Cardoso</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Apr 2010 17:26:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ricardopinto.com/blog/?p=1691#comment-1214</guid>
		<description>Rem,
I do agree with your points above, but the truth is that we have no other choice but to &#039;let&#039; people vote with their wallets. That&#039;s how capitalism works, and book publishing is a capitalist activity, at the moment at least, so no going around that.

What we can indeed to is try to educate the audience, to show some refinement and finesse. Obviously reading Ricardo Pinto is part of that *grin*.
But these kinds of reviews aren&#039;t helping that. If good books get criticized for not being Tolkien knock-offs, then I&#039;m kinda losing hope on this... Maybe places like goodreads.com might help change this by creating a more personalized experience, but one never knows...

All in all, I just hope people like Ricardo Pinto don&#039;t give up.

Cheers.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Rem,<br />
I do agree with your points above, but the truth is that we have no other choice but to &#8216;let&#8217; people vote with their wallets. That&#8217;s how capitalism works, and book publishing is a capitalist activity, at the moment at least, so no going around that.</p>
<p>What we can indeed to is try to educate the audience, to show some refinement and finesse. Obviously reading Ricardo Pinto is part of that *grin*.<br />
But these kinds of reviews aren&#8217;t helping that. If good books get criticized for not being Tolkien knock-offs, then I&#8217;m kinda losing hope on this&#8230; Maybe places like goodreads.com might help change this by creating a more personalized experience, but one never knows&#8230;</p>
<p>All in all, I just hope people like Ricardo Pinto don&#8217;t give up.</p>
<p>Cheers.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rem</title>
		<link>http://www.ricardopinto.com/blog/2010/04/25/scifinow-review/comment-page-1/#comment-1213</link>
		<dc:creator>Rem</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Apr 2010 15:15:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ricardopinto.com/blog/?p=1691#comment-1213</guid>
		<description>My poking was indeed not directed at Ricardo - 

I&#039;ve always resented the notion of Fantasy as &#039;escapism&#039;, as a comfy, non-demanding escape from difficult daily life... But increasingly I come to the conclusion that this is true for the average reader of Fantasy. Have you noticed how stagnant covers for Fantasy-books are? Nothing has changed the past 30 years - still the same glossy oil-paintey covers with almost children&#039;s book topics and imagery... While if you look on the literature shelf, you see fresh, innovative, covers for intelligent, adult people. 

I&#039;m all for escapism, but it should be worth it. If it&#039;s not innovative in plot/character, it better be very, very well written. To be honest, I rather pick up an old detective (Hammett, Chandler) to escape. 

While Ricardo&#039;s books offer an &#039;escape&#039;, it&#039;s not a comfy one... And that&#039;s okay, since they&#039;re not meant to. What I like about these books is that apart from the joy in reading them (either in one go or spread out), these books have a longer life - the themes and thoughts (and the world) stay with you after finishing reading. 

I&#039;m afraid that if you let &#039;Fantasy readers&#039; vote with their wallet, there&#039;ll be even more Wheels of Times... I think that Ricardoi&#039;s books may have a better life outside of the genre (in the literature-shelf, if you will). 

I&#039;m done now. ;-)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My poking was indeed not directed at Ricardo &#8211; </p>
<p>I&#8217;ve always resented the notion of Fantasy as &#8216;escapism&#8217;, as a comfy, non-demanding escape from difficult daily life&#8230; But increasingly I come to the conclusion that this is true for the average reader of Fantasy. Have you noticed how stagnant covers for Fantasy-books are? Nothing has changed the past 30 years &#8211; still the same glossy oil-paintey covers with almost children&#8217;s book topics and imagery&#8230; While if you look on the literature shelf, you see fresh, innovative, covers for intelligent, adult people. </p>
<p>I&#8217;m all for escapism, but it should be worth it. If it&#8217;s not innovative in plot/character, it better be very, very well written. To be honest, I rather pick up an old detective (Hammett, Chandler) to escape. </p>
<p>While Ricardo&#8217;s books offer an &#8216;escape&#8217;, it&#8217;s not a comfy one&#8230; And that&#8217;s okay, since they&#8217;re not meant to. What I like about these books is that apart from the joy in reading them (either in one go or spread out), these books have a longer life &#8211; the themes and thoughts (and the world) stay with you after finishing reading. </p>
<p>I&#8217;m afraid that if you let &#8216;Fantasy readers&#8217; vote with their wallet, there&#8217;ll be even more Wheels of Times&#8230; I think that Ricardoi&#8217;s books may have a better life outside of the genre (in the literature-shelf, if you will). </p>
<p>I&#8217;m done now. ;-)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Daniel Cardoso</title>
		<link>http://www.ricardopinto.com/blog/2010/04/25/scifinow-review/comment-page-1/#comment-1212</link>
		<dc:creator>Daniel Cardoso</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Apr 2010 16:32:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ricardopinto.com/blog/?p=1691#comment-1212</guid>
		<description>Ricardo:
We, the readers, are the ones who should be thankful, for having someone so masterfully excite our imaginations. The proof is that I can indeed read one of your books (or some books of the Harry Potter series, to name another block of mammoth books) in 1 or 2 sittings - thus proving how non-objective are the needs of the body (food and rest, mainly). This is no feat of mine, but of yours, the writer. *bows deeply*

Altough I agree with Rem on the trilogy-spawning demon that has taken over literature, I don&#039;t think Rem&#039;s counter-example is aimed at what Ricardo was saying deep down: a well thought-out and innovative world &lt;i&gt;does&lt;/i&gt; need lots of words to be described. And if it&#039;s not thought-out or innovative, it&#039;s up to us, the readers/consumers to vote with our wallets: let us make sure such authors/publishers do indeed &#039;starve&#039;. If they do not starve, that says something about our culture, and about our cultural needs; about why people read Fantasy and SciFi in the first place.

I was indeed talking about &lt;b&gt;Perfume&lt;/b&gt;, a brilliant masterpiece, that takes on so many unusual things (smells, first and foremost) - and that was recently butchered into a stupid Hollywood movie, a Politically Correct one, alas. A book that&#039;s all about the construction of identity through metaphors - and such powerful ones! It&#039;s one of those small books that leaves you yearning for more and feeling fulfilled at the same time, it&#039;s a shot of literary adrenaline up one&#039;s brain... Which isn&#039;t to say that only small books accomplish that - your trilogy isn&#039;t certainly easy on the senses, now is it? *grin*</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ricardo:<br />
We, the readers, are the ones who should be thankful, for having someone so masterfully excite our imaginations. The proof is that I can indeed read one of your books (or some books of the Harry Potter series, to name another block of mammoth books) in 1 or 2 sittings &#8211; thus proving how non-objective are the needs of the body (food and rest, mainly). This is no feat of mine, but of yours, the writer. *bows deeply*</p>
<p>Altough I agree with Rem on the trilogy-spawning demon that has taken over literature, I don&#8217;t think Rem&#8217;s counter-example is aimed at what Ricardo was saying deep down: a well thought-out and innovative world <i>does</i> need lots of words to be described. And if it&#8217;s not thought-out or innovative, it&#8217;s up to us, the readers/consumers to vote with our wallets: let us make sure such authors/publishers do indeed &#8216;starve&#8217;. If they do not starve, that says something about our culture, and about our cultural needs; about why people read Fantasy and SciFi in the first place.</p>
<p>I was indeed talking about <b>Perfume</b>, a brilliant masterpiece, that takes on so many unusual things (smells, first and foremost) &#8211; and that was recently butchered into a stupid Hollywood movie, a Politically Correct one, alas. A book that&#8217;s all about the construction of identity through metaphors &#8211; and such powerful ones! It&#8217;s one of those small books that leaves you yearning for more and feeling fulfilled at the same time, it&#8217;s a shot of literary adrenaline up one&#8217;s brain&#8230; Which isn&#8217;t to say that only small books accomplish that &#8211; your trilogy isn&#8217;t certainly easy on the senses, now is it? *grin*</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

