These are time sensitive. You do not receive credit if you write them after the deadline each week. Furthermore, if you are in the habit of writing everything on Saturday you will not receive full credit. Why? There would be no time for others to interact with your writing. Write early; write often! Right? Right!
First, there's a blog entry (about 250 words) which will have you respond to a hopefully thought-provoking question. Each week, you must do the blog entry with enough time left in the week to be able to enter into dialogue online with your classmates. Write, reply, write more, reply more, and then write and reply more.
Second, there's a reading. There’s no blog entry associated with this. Just read.
Third, there's a written response to the reading. Your reading and writing on the blog must be completed by the SATURDAY (by midnight) of the week in which the reading falls. This entry should be a long paragraph. YOU DO NOT NEED TO RESPOND TO OTHER STUDENTS' PART THREE EACH WEEK.
Sunday, May 4, 2014
WEEK SIX WRITING ABOUT WHAT YOU READ
What did you think of the book review? What should a good book review do?
I don’t like this review. It is opinionated in a way that attacks the author. You should not make personal attacks on an author who writes the work, but on the work of the author. I do not like the comparison to the Grapes of Wrath either. Spencer is trying to make Boyle look worse by comparison. Spencer pays homage to Steinbeck but down-plays Boyle. He then continues to attack him politically. I thought this was a review on a book, not a review on a person’s political beliefs. Book signings do not need political agendas when they are trying to sell to everyone. The book shows a different perspective, is well written, and is a quick read. That makes for a bestselling book. Usually bestselling books represent a good book because people would not pay money unless they thought there was value in the book. It feels like Spencer attacks Boyle more than his work, especially in the last sentence. A good book review will dissect the book. It will look into the characters, plot, theme, beginning, middle, and end. The style will also be dissected. Looking in depth at the various troughs and waves of the storyline that make up the book will allow the underlying message to shine through. Perhaps even explaining the title and what it means would have made Spencer’s review more enjoyable. He highlighted the word curtain throughout the review but it was hard to ascertain what that meant. Overall a book review should make you want crack open the book and see for yourself why it was good or bad. Ad hominem does not support a good book review, it only makes the author of the review look like he doesn't know how to objectively review a book.
I didn't like the book review because I didn't seem like a review. I thought it was more like a critique than a book review. This book review seemed more like a review on the author than the book. The review mostly focused on Boyle's personal life than on the book itself. The review should have focused on the book, not on Boyle's personal life. A good book review would be to review the book from the first sentence to the last sentence. It would look into the characters, the setting, and the theme of the book. A good book review can also explain the reasons behind everything in the book, including the title. That's what was missing in the book review I read. The review was not even about the book at all. The review wasn't too great to read, it was like reading an attack on someone.
I think this was a pretty mediocre book review. The author focused more on critiquing Boyle as a person and how he treats his characters than the plot or development of the story. They judged the book mostly on first impressions and listed sentences that they hated. A book is comprised of many sentences, characters, and storylines, and should be judged as a whole instead of nit-picked at. I also disagree with how this author describes Delaney and Kyra’s characters. Boyle did not paint any character in the book to be black and white. These couples are not solely spoiled rich white people living in the suburbs or illegal Mexicans on a noble quest. I think Boyle did a rather fantastic job showing how diverse each character is. No one is perfect and no one is a villain; these characters are only human and humans can be selfish, and crazy, and angry, and misunderstood. Boyle’s book does have undertones of anger but I do not think it is anger towards a specific character. The anger is aimed at the system and how society works and the unfairness and hypocrisy of it all. A good book review is focused on how well the story was developed. It focuses on the pacing and how detailed each chapter was. Most importantly, it focuses on how the novel affected the reader. The review is for the public, not for the reviewer to attack the writer personally.
I sort of agree with my fellow classmates. Spencer attacks Boyle in that it doesn't make his "book review" a review anymore. Rather, it is more of a very hateful critique. My first impression of his book review what that oh he is comparing Boyle to Steinbeck a famous author. Then as i read on he actually downplays Boyle by making that comparison to Steinbeck. I don't know why he decided to do this, but every author is distinct in their own way. Not every person is a Steinbeck and not every person is a Boyle everyone has their own way of portraying a story. On the other hand, Spencer does praise Boyle for his portrayal of capturing the terror of looking for working in an alien society. He seem to approve more of the way Boyle depicted America and Candido's side of the story rather than the Mossbachers' side of the story. In his book review, he mentions that when Delaney was introduced in a sarcastic way that made it seem like he was not going to be an important character in the story. This is where i disagree with Spencer's review. He says that Boyle fastened one of the stories at the expense of the other. Boyle did an amazing job on portraying the plot, characters, conflict etc for both sides of the couples. He was able to mesh the too stories together that not only seemed interesting, but brought up important themes such as racism and the American Dream. Overall, he pointed out some great aspects about the book, and scrutinized Boyle for some, but i don't understand why he would called Boyle the most contemptuous of our well-known novelists. I think Spencer has some animosity towards Boyle by the way he introduces his review and the way he ends his review. I think a good book review should talk about the different aspects of a book. Like the characters, plot, conflict, setting etc and from there create arguments that signify why you disagree or agree with the author. Not only state why you completely hate a section, but back it up with your reasoning behind your disagreement. Spencer did make some good remarks about Boyle's book, but the way he stated them on his book review made it seem like he was personally attacking Boyle.
In all honesty, I agree that this review is simply mediocre. While any review lends itself to be biased and unfair in part, since it is an opinion of a work, the reasons for Spencer’s opinion are rather vague. While Spencer may not have enjoyed the read, and finds Boyle to be “contemptuous”, there is very little proof for his opinions of his writing. Unlike other reviews, I did not feel that this one aided in my understanding of the concepts presented in the work. There was no remark about themes or ideas in the book. Spencer calls Boyle out on his “hollow” and “rude” descriptions of his characters. While they are a bit sarcastic, this sarcasm is every bit relevant to the story being told. Not only was the characterization relevant, but it seemed to be told in the perspective of certain characters, not by Boyle. For example, when we learn about Kyra, it seems that we see her from Delaney’s perspective and thus are offered Delaney’s opinion of her, not Boyle’s. The narrator seems almost unbiased, since the story is told in two very different perspectives. It would be different if the story was told in a way biased to one character’s viewpoint, but it is in fact the complete opposite. There is quite a bit more harshness in the descriptions of Kyra and Delaney than other characters, but there is relevance in their description to the plot. I do agree, however, that there is a small amount of bias toward the Rincons, but not nearly as much as Spencer claims. This bias strengthens the plot and themes presented in the work, not just the personal opinion of the author.
In my opinion, the book review by Scott Spencer focused a lot on criticizing and attacking the flaws within the novel. It was describing the shallowness of two of the main characters, and how we have to keep reading about them for the rest of the novel. In addition, how the Boyle feels disdain towards them. That being said, if Boyle does not personally like the main characters himself, why include Delaney and Kyra in the novel? At some point within the review, it seemed like the Spencer was attacking the author personally, and how the novel itself is a lesser version of John Steinbeck’s “Grapes of Wrath.” I agree with some of the things mentioned in the review. I am not a fan of the novel. I appreciate the vivid clarity of the details, but its not one of my ultimately favorite books. I believe that a book review should incorporate a concise and short summary of the novel free of any bias and judgment. A book review should serve as a tool to give the reader information and insight on the novel.
In my opinion, this book review does not seem to be a book review at all but rather a criticism. The author did not really explain what he thinks about the book itself, but mainly focus on the author Boyle. He should have not compared another author’s writing because every writer has different styles of writing which makes them unique as a book writer. He simply focused on Boyle’s personal life rather than his work. Boyle received many compliments about his book, but Spencer seemed to attack how it should not have deserved good reviews from different authors because he thinks it was a humiliation to other writers. I simply think that this book was an easy to read. It sure made me have different emotions from different characters from the book, which made it more interesting to me. I believed that Spencer’s opinionated criticism on Boyle’s book was simply an envious because he did not seem to see how the book was about what other author sees. He just thinks that the book itself did not have any meaning of it, but he should’ve thought that the book itself was to give us readers a hint that life is unfair. He should have not compared the book “Grapes of Wrath” to this book because it is written by different authors and they have different meaning of it. Spencer should have given more insights of what he thinks about the book, not the author, because the author was just giving us an idea that people can be cruel, crazy and selfish.
Scott Spencer has a greatly biased opinion for a person who is supposed to be doing a book review. He makes assumptions about Boyle's writing that distort the true meaning of the book. He talks in length about how contemptuous Boyle is and how unlikable the main characters are. But in the context of this book, the contempt for the Mossbachers is warranted. Boyle is trying to develop dislike for the Mossbachers and their racism to expose white middle class society. Spencer spins this contempt into a personal problem that Boyle possesses. Spencer should have been talking more about the theme of this book, and why the characters are portrayed in the way that they are instead of attacking Boyle's character. This review would not help someone who read The Tortilla Curtain or someone who is interested in reading this book. I also did not like the Grapes of Wrath reference. Although both books have the same general concept, the books are totally different in their writing styles and should not have been compared. Spencer never really went into depth about why Grapes of Wrath is a better novel, so just throwing out the comparison wasn't helpful for the reader. Overall, Spencer should have focused on the themes of the book rather than the author.
I think a good book review has a description, critical analysis, evaluation on the quality of a book. It shouldn’t just summarize the book but give a short base story. It would also help if it made some references about other books or events to make it relatable. Spencer seems to have a quite pessimistic view on T.C Boyle and his writing. Spencer praises Steinbeck for his good writing in Grapes of Wrath. He loves how there is a sense of hopefulness with Steinbeck’s writing. Spencer relates Steinbeck’s Grapes of Wrath to T.C Boyle’s Tortilla Curtain. He does acknowledge T.C Boyle for doing a good job in telling the story of Candido and America. He is not content with the two contemptuous characters T.C Boyle has created. He seems to ask why read about these two character. He is puzzled and confused with T.C Boyles writing. I personally do not care about reading Kyra’s perspective. I always wanted to read Candido’s and America’s part. For Delaney, I felt his character lacked courage and voice. I felt bad for Delaney because he was very passionate for nature. Whenever he wanted to speak up about the concern for nature no one cared. His wife practically said “the hell with nature.” I felt no one really cared for what he wanted or had to say. So, I do agree that sometimes you might care more for other characters to the expense of others. I do not agree with Spencer trying to compare T.C Boyle with Steinbeck in his way in writing and character.
This review by Scott Spencer could have been better. I feel that he was mainly attacking and criticizing T.C. Boyle instead of reviewing the book. Spencer compares Boyle to John Steinbeck throughout the review by the books the both wrote and their political views. Also, when discussing the characters, he depicted them as negative. One thing I feel that Spencer did well was by being honest. He did not just say he enjoyed the book, he said a lot of the things he did not enjoy about the book. However, he seems to only give examples of the things he did not like. It would have been better if he included a good mixture between what he liked and disliked, instead of focusing on what he viewed as negative. A good book review will also have give detail about the characters, setting, and, in particular, the theme. All of which were hardly touched on. Spencer painted a very limited picture of what this book is really about.
I agree with my fellow classmates. This is more of a personal attack on Boyle and not his actually book. I think a good review should include the reasoning of why it is good or bad by using different aspect of the actual novel. Spencer seems to have sided with one character of the book, and so did I when I was beginning to read the novel. I liked how Boyle used two different points of view to tell the story. It captured my attention. I wanted to know Candido and Delaney side of their story, which made it a good read. It just seems like there was just bad blood between the two, and Spencer was taking it out on the review. The part of the book that he described, he should have had reasoning beside this conclusion. There should not have been a comparison of Steinbeck novels. I believe Boyle did a great job, and he kept holding me in to read more.
I believe that a book review of high quality discusses various aspects of the novel and the writing style of the novel’s author, with minimal influence or criticism from the author of the review. While it is very interesting to hear or read about someone’s opinion on a book that I’ve just read, that person’s opinion shouldn’t be the main focus of their review. The review itself should discuss the plot, characters, themes, and the manner in which the author was able to tell the story. For someone that hasn’t read the Tortilla Curtain, to stumble upon a review like the one by Scott Spencer, it wouldn’t be surprising for the prospective reader to be discouraged from reading the book. From a technical point of view, it makes sense that the author of the review would point out things they believed to be wrong or mediocre about the work being discussed, but this can be done without going overboard and blatantly ripping it apart just because the book didn’t meet their personal standards of what a good book should be. The author of the book shouldn’t be persecuted for their work. A significant portion of Spencer’s review seemed to focus on belittling Boyle and his work, rather than diving into the actual story and the literary aspect of it all.
Yeah, this was an odd review. He took the review in a more personal direction than criticizing the overall feel of the book. Reviews, for the most part, should not be strictly opinionated and should follow an unbias direction. Sure, reviews are very difficult to write without using your own bias, but this guy takes it to a whole different level with these attacks. While the review does have a few decent points, such as his reasons for the book being focused in a political direction, it overall just comes off as so bias that it takes away from his legitimacy as a review. If a book review is going to be legit and taken seriously it should be done with a leveled head. Prior bias should not be included in any review what-so-ever and needs to be reviewed as if the person had no prior bias regarding the issues in the book. Also, the reviewer should also write the article as if the person reading it has no opinion yet. The reviewer should not be enforcing a belief prior to the person actually reading it. It should be about increasing the interest of the potential reader, or decreasing the interest, by using logic, not emotions. Reviews are opinionated pieces but to attack somebody's work that bad is uncalled for, in my opinion.
The descriptions used by Scott Spencer would not have me running out to buy the book. His description of Boyle as "contemptuous" may be spot on, but I don't believe that is a bad thing. The issue of immigration in reality and as a concept are two very different things. The reality of immigration between Mexico and the United States is ugly, violent and very sad. There are those who want to help and believe that we as a nation should give of ourselves and provide to the rest of the world. The trouble is these caring humanitarians want someone else to do it. There should be contempt in that. When someone does one thing and says another it is a form of deception and deception, over time, will cause contempt to grow. So, he may be correct that T.C. Boyle pours contempt upon all of his main characters, but it fits. A good book review should question and pull from the story. The story needs to be chewed and digested to extract all of the nutrients out of it , even if all your left with is a mouth full of sour grapes.
I think a good book review should not lie heavily on the person’s personal opinion. It should have a mixture of criticism with valid points on the book itself. For instance, talking about the main plot, themes that could be found throughout the books and the characters would be better in my opinion. Because when the review is biased and I happen to read the review I will most likely not want to read the book. Just as with the review of Scott Spencer on The Tortilla Curtain is discouraging for readers and not many valid points were made throughout it. Instead I felt that it was ripping the book the apart. I know writing a review is rather hard but he could have done it in a way where the authors work wasn’t as opinionated. He also needed to have more reasoning behind what he mentioned in the review and I felt that he didn’t because it was just his opinion on it. He made the book seem bad when I actually liked Boyle’s style in telling the story telling and enjoyed the two different opinions in the story.
This book review seemed to be more like an opinion. However, some of the things the author of the book review did strike my attention. I am guilty of disliking Delaney, and would roll my eyes whenever it was his turn to tell his story in the book. I would always look forward to skimming past Delaney’s section and eagerly read about Candido’s plight. I believe that a good book review should be completely unbiased. Those who like a certain book are going to write wonders about it. Those who dislike a certain book will write criticizing reviews about it. Somewhere in between there must be a middle ground.
A book review is a description, critical analysis, and an evaluation on the quality, meaning, and significance of a book, not a retelling. It should focus on the book's purpose, content, and authority, according to google. I believe this review was not a good review. This book review was very opinionated and gave a retelling of the novel. I felt Spencer was attacking the author instead of his writing. For example his political opinion on a proposition. This should not have been include in the review.
This review was interesting. It was about things that this author didn't like. It made me think of a review that one would write after they bought something on amazon and were dissatisfied. I wouldn't say it was a bad review, as far as the parts that talked about the book, but I would advise the writer to stick to the book. I think it's okay to question the authors motives for writing a certain way, but it seems more for personal insight and less professional in review.
A book review should tell the main points of what the book represents, as well as what the reviewer thought of the book. However, a review is based off of the reviewer's opinion. As a reader, you may not always agree with the book review. I honestly really enjoyed the book review. I thought it was very well done. I like that the author compared Tortilla Curtain to the modern day version of The Grapes of Wrath. It is very similar and I did not even think of that similarity until I read the review. I also like how Delaney and Kyra are described in this book review because it is very correct. They are both typical "LA people". Everything is always about them and in a way they are very self absorbed. Overall, I am very impressed with this review.
This review was very opinionated, yes, but what would a review be if it was not that way? People say that you should adhere to a certain guideline when writing a review and not be so opinionated, but I think those are the best reviews because they are more real. I got a better insight from another person's point of view by reading this that I would not have otherwise saw. Its ok that I disagreed with more than half of what he said and his approach.
The book review illustrated the reviewers point very clearly. It was apparent that the reviewer thought that T.C. Boyle’s novel “The Tortilla Curtain” wasn't what he had hoped it would be and that it was not what he expected from Boyle. The reviewer also pointed out that the character of Delaney was not given enough attention, but I disagree. I found the story to be suspenseful and entertaining with an interesting structure. The reviewer compares it to “The Grapes of Wrath” but I believe that is unfair. The idea for both books might be similar topic but I think Boyle was not trying to write another “The Grapes of Wrath”. A good book review should point out all the shortcomings in the novel but should also try to remain neutral.
Of the events that listed, I agree with Neera Tanden because the U.S. had previously had fundamental values of opportunity and quality and the right to vote for women allowed the U.S. to live up that. There was more rights for men than women around the United States. Many women were not seen as equal and therefore were not allowed to vote. There was nothing in the U.S. Constitution that forbid women from voting, but it did not require voting equality. Many women wanted the right to vote and the Nineteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution made that possible. The law gave women the right to vote in fall elections that included the Presidential election. This helped empower women and this made them responsible as a citizen. This event for me also helped paved the way for more equality for women rights. The Nineteenth Amendment event gave me the right to vote and I have used that right for Presidential elections. I am grateful that women have the right to vote because we are half of the empowered population that can make a great differences as a citizen that can affect us all. This is why I agree with Neera Tanden that on August 26, 1960 the day women gained the right to vote, allowed the U.S. To live up to its fundamental values of opportunity and equality.
I don’t like this review. It is opinionated in a way that attacks the author. You should not make personal attacks on an author who writes the work, but on the work of the author. I do not like the comparison to the Grapes of Wrath either. Spencer is trying to make Boyle look worse by comparison. Spencer pays homage to Steinbeck but down-plays Boyle. He then continues to attack him politically. I thought this was a review on a book, not a review on a person’s political beliefs. Book signings do not need political agendas when they are trying to sell to everyone. The book shows a different perspective, is well written, and is a quick read. That makes for a bestselling book. Usually bestselling books represent a good book because people would not pay money unless they thought there was value in the book. It feels like Spencer attacks Boyle more than his work, especially in the last sentence.
ReplyDeleteA good book review will dissect the book. It will look into the characters, plot, theme, beginning, middle, and end. The style will also be dissected. Looking in depth at the various troughs and waves of the storyline that make up the book will allow the underlying message to shine through. Perhaps even explaining the title and what it means would have made Spencer’s review more enjoyable. He highlighted the word curtain throughout the review but it was hard to ascertain what that meant. Overall a book review should make you want crack open the book and see for yourself why it was good or bad. Ad hominem does not support a good book review, it only makes the author of the review look like he doesn't know how to objectively review a book.
*It feels like Spencer attacks Boyle for being Boyle, especially in the last sentence.
ReplyDeleteI didn't like the book review because I didn't seem like a review. I thought it was more like a critique than a book review. This book review seemed more like a review on the author than the book. The review mostly focused on Boyle's personal life than on the book itself. The review should have focused on the book, not on Boyle's personal life. A good book review would be to review the book from the first sentence to the last sentence. It would look into the characters, the setting, and the theme of the book. A good book review can also explain the reasons behind everything in the book, including the title. That's what was missing in the book review I read. The review was not even about the book at all. The review wasn't too great to read, it was like reading an attack on someone.
ReplyDeleteI think this was a pretty mediocre book review. The author focused more on critiquing Boyle as a person and how he treats his characters than the plot or development of the story. They judged the book mostly on first impressions and listed sentences that they hated. A book is comprised of many sentences, characters, and storylines, and should be judged as a whole instead of nit-picked at. I also disagree with how this author describes Delaney and Kyra’s characters. Boyle did not paint any character in the book to be black and white. These couples are not solely spoiled rich white people living in the suburbs or illegal Mexicans on a noble quest. I think Boyle did a rather fantastic job showing how diverse each character is. No one is perfect and no one is a villain; these characters are only human and humans can be selfish, and crazy, and angry, and misunderstood. Boyle’s book does have undertones of anger but I do not think it is anger towards a specific character. The anger is aimed at the system and how society works and the unfairness and hypocrisy of it all. A good book review is focused on how well the story was developed. It focuses on the pacing and how detailed each chapter was. Most importantly, it focuses on how the novel affected the reader. The review is for the public, not for the reviewer to attack the writer personally.
ReplyDeleteI sort of agree with my fellow classmates. Spencer attacks Boyle in that it doesn't make his "book review" a review anymore. Rather, it is more of a very hateful critique. My first impression of his book review what that oh he is comparing Boyle to Steinbeck a famous author. Then as i read on he actually downplays Boyle by making that comparison to Steinbeck. I don't know why he decided to do this, but every author is distinct in their own way. Not every person is a Steinbeck and not every person is a Boyle everyone has their own way of portraying a story. On the other hand, Spencer does praise Boyle for his portrayal of capturing the terror of looking for working in an alien society. He seem to approve more of the way Boyle depicted America and Candido's side of the story rather than the Mossbachers' side of the story. In his book review, he mentions that when Delaney was introduced in a sarcastic way that made it seem like he was not going to be an important character in the story. This is where i disagree with Spencer's review. He says that Boyle fastened one of the stories at the expense of the other. Boyle did an amazing job on portraying the plot, characters, conflict etc for both sides of the couples. He was able to mesh the too stories together that not only seemed interesting, but brought up important themes such as racism and the American Dream. Overall, he pointed out some great aspects about the book, and scrutinized Boyle for some, but i don't understand why he would called Boyle the most contemptuous of our well-known novelists. I think Spencer has some animosity towards Boyle by the way he introduces his review and the way he ends his review. I think a good book review should talk about the different aspects of a book. Like the characters, plot, conflict, setting etc and from there create arguments that signify why you disagree or agree with the author. Not only state why you completely hate a section, but back it up with your reasoning behind your disagreement. Spencer did make some good remarks about Boyle's book, but the way he stated them on his book review made it seem like he was personally attacking Boyle.
ReplyDeleteIn all honesty, I agree that this review is simply mediocre. While any review lends itself to be biased and unfair in part, since it is an opinion of a work, the reasons for Spencer’s opinion are rather vague. While Spencer may not have enjoyed the read, and finds Boyle to be “contemptuous”, there is very little proof for his opinions of his writing. Unlike other reviews, I did not feel that this one aided in my understanding of the concepts presented in the work. There was no remark about themes or ideas in the book. Spencer calls Boyle out on his “hollow” and “rude” descriptions of his characters. While they are a bit sarcastic, this sarcasm is every bit relevant to the story being told. Not only was the characterization relevant, but it seemed to be told in the perspective of certain characters, not by Boyle. For example, when we learn about Kyra, it seems that we see her from Delaney’s perspective and thus are offered Delaney’s opinion of her, not Boyle’s. The narrator seems almost unbiased, since the story is told in two very different perspectives. It would be different if the story was told in a way biased to one character’s viewpoint, but it is in fact the complete opposite. There is quite a bit more harshness in the descriptions of Kyra and Delaney than other characters, but there is relevance in their description to the plot. I do agree, however, that there is a small amount of bias toward the Rincons, but not nearly as much as Spencer claims. This bias strengthens the plot and themes presented in the work, not just the personal opinion of the author.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the book review by Scott Spencer focused a lot on criticizing and attacking the flaws within the novel. It was describing the shallowness of two of the main characters, and how we have to keep reading about them for the rest of the novel. In addition, how the Boyle feels disdain towards them. That being said, if Boyle does not personally like the main characters himself, why include Delaney and Kyra in the novel? At some point within the review, it seemed like the Spencer was attacking the author personally, and how the novel itself is a lesser version of John Steinbeck’s “Grapes of Wrath.”
ReplyDeleteI agree with some of the things mentioned in the review. I am not a fan of the novel. I appreciate the vivid clarity of the details, but its not one of my ultimately favorite books. I believe that a book review should incorporate a concise and short summary of the novel free of any bias and judgment. A book review should serve as a tool to give the reader information and insight on the novel.
In my opinion, this book review does not seem to be a book review at all but rather a criticism. The author did not really explain what he thinks about the book itself, but mainly focus on the author Boyle. He should have not compared another author’s writing because every writer has different styles of writing which makes them unique as a book writer. He simply focused on Boyle’s personal life rather than his work. Boyle received many compliments about his book, but Spencer seemed to attack how it should not have deserved good reviews from different authors because he thinks it was a humiliation to other writers. I simply think that this book was an easy to read. It sure made me have different emotions from different characters from the book, which made it more interesting to me. I believed that Spencer’s opinionated criticism on Boyle’s book was simply an envious because he did not seem to see how the book was about what other author sees. He just thinks that the book itself did not have any meaning of it, but he should’ve thought that the book itself was to give us readers a hint that life is unfair. He should have not compared the book “Grapes of Wrath” to this book because it is written by different authors and they have different meaning of it. Spencer should have given more insights of what he thinks about the book, not the author, because the author was just giving us an idea that people can be cruel, crazy and selfish.
ReplyDeleteScott Spencer has a greatly biased opinion for a person who is supposed to be doing a book review. He makes assumptions about Boyle's writing that distort the true meaning of the book. He talks in length about how contemptuous Boyle is and how unlikable the main characters are. But in the context of this book, the contempt for the Mossbachers is warranted. Boyle is trying to develop dislike for the Mossbachers and their racism to expose white middle class society. Spencer spins this contempt into a personal problem that Boyle possesses. Spencer should have been talking more about the theme of this book, and why the characters are portrayed in the way that they are instead of attacking Boyle's character. This review would not help someone who read The Tortilla Curtain or someone who is interested in reading this book. I also did not like the Grapes of Wrath reference. Although both books have the same general concept, the books are totally different in their writing styles and should not have been compared. Spencer never really went into depth about why Grapes of Wrath is a better novel, so just throwing out the comparison wasn't helpful for the reader. Overall, Spencer should have focused on the themes of the book rather than the author.
ReplyDeleteI think a good book review has a description, critical analysis, evaluation on the quality of a book. It shouldn’t just summarize the book but give a short base story. It would also help if it made some references about other books or events to make it relatable.
ReplyDeleteSpencer seems to have a quite pessimistic view on T.C Boyle and his writing. Spencer praises Steinbeck for his good writing in Grapes of Wrath. He loves how there is a sense of hopefulness with Steinbeck’s writing. Spencer relates Steinbeck’s Grapes of Wrath to T.C Boyle’s Tortilla Curtain. He does acknowledge T.C Boyle for doing a good job in telling the story of Candido and America. He is not content with the two contemptuous characters T.C Boyle has created. He seems to ask why read about these two character. He is puzzled and confused with T.C Boyles writing.
I personally do not care about reading Kyra’s perspective. I always wanted to read Candido’s and America’s part. For Delaney, I felt his character lacked courage and voice. I felt bad for Delaney because he was very passionate for nature. Whenever he wanted to speak up about the concern for nature no one cared. His wife practically said “the hell with nature.” I felt no one really cared for what he wanted or had to say. So, I do agree that sometimes you might care more for other characters to the expense of others.
I do not agree with Spencer trying to compare T.C Boyle with Steinbeck in his way in writing and character.
This review by Scott Spencer could have been better. I feel that he was mainly attacking and criticizing T.C. Boyle instead of reviewing the book. Spencer compares Boyle to John Steinbeck throughout the review by the books the both wrote and their political views. Also, when discussing the characters, he depicted them as negative. One thing I feel that Spencer did well was by being honest. He did not just say he enjoyed the book, he said a lot of the things he did not enjoy about the book. However, he seems to only give examples of the things he did not like. It would have been better if he included a good mixture between what he liked and disliked, instead of focusing on what he viewed as negative. A good book review will also have give detail about the characters, setting, and, in particular, the theme. All of which were hardly touched on. Spencer painted a very limited picture of what this book is really about.
ReplyDeleteI agree with my fellow classmates. This is more of a personal attack on Boyle and not his actually book. I think a good review should include the reasoning of why it is good or bad by using different aspect of the actual novel. Spencer seems to have sided with one character of the book, and so did I when I was beginning to read the novel. I liked how Boyle used two different points of view to tell the story. It captured my attention. I wanted to know Candido and Delaney side of their story, which made it a good read. It just seems like there was just bad blood between the two, and Spencer was taking it out on the review. The part of the book that he described, he should have had reasoning beside this conclusion. There should not have been a comparison of Steinbeck novels. I believe Boyle did a great job, and he kept holding me in to read more.
ReplyDeleteI believe that a book review of high quality discusses various aspects of the novel and the writing style of the novel’s author, with minimal influence or criticism from the author of the review. While it is very interesting to hear or read about someone’s opinion on a book that I’ve just read, that person’s opinion shouldn’t be the main focus of their review. The review itself should discuss the plot, characters, themes, and the manner in which the author was able to tell the story. For someone that hasn’t read the Tortilla Curtain, to stumble upon a review like the one by Scott Spencer, it wouldn’t be surprising for the prospective reader to be discouraged from reading the book. From a technical point of view, it makes sense that the author of the review would point out things they believed to be wrong or mediocre about the work being discussed, but this can be done without going overboard and blatantly ripping it apart just because the book didn’t meet their personal standards of what a good book should be. The author of the book shouldn’t be persecuted for their work. A significant portion of Spencer’s review seemed to focus on belittling Boyle and his work, rather than diving into the actual story and the literary aspect of it all.
ReplyDeleteYeah, this was an odd review. He took the review in a more personal direction than criticizing the overall feel of the book. Reviews, for the most part, should not be strictly opinionated and should follow an unbias direction. Sure, reviews are very difficult to write without using your own bias, but this guy takes it to a whole different level with these attacks. While the review does have a few decent points, such as his reasons for the book being focused in a political direction, it overall just comes off as so bias that it takes away from his legitimacy as a review. If a book review is going to be legit and taken seriously it should be done with a leveled head. Prior bias should not be included in any review what-so-ever and needs to be reviewed as if the person had no prior bias regarding the issues in the book. Also, the reviewer should also write the article as if the person reading it has no opinion yet. The reviewer should not be enforcing a belief prior to the person actually reading it. It should be about increasing the interest of the potential reader, or decreasing the interest, by using logic, not emotions. Reviews are opinionated pieces but to attack somebody's work that bad is uncalled for, in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteThe descriptions used by Scott Spencer would not have me running out to buy the book. His description of Boyle as "contemptuous" may be spot on, but I don't believe that is a bad thing. The issue of immigration in reality and as a concept are two very different things. The reality of immigration between Mexico and the United States is ugly, violent and very sad. There are those who want to help and believe that we as a nation should give of ourselves and provide to the rest of the world. The trouble is these caring humanitarians want someone else to do it. There should be contempt in that. When someone does one thing and says another it is a form of deception and deception, over time, will cause contempt to grow. So, he may be correct that T.C. Boyle pours contempt upon all of his main characters, but it fits. A good book review should question and pull from the story. The story needs to be chewed and digested to extract all of the nutrients out of it , even if all your left with is a mouth full of sour grapes.
ReplyDeleteI think a good book review should not lie heavily on the person’s personal opinion. It should have a mixture of criticism with valid points on the book itself. For instance, talking about the main plot, themes that could be found throughout the books and the characters would be better in my opinion. Because when the review is biased and I happen to read the review I will most likely not want to read the book. Just as with the review of Scott Spencer on The Tortilla Curtain is discouraging for readers and not many valid points were made throughout it. Instead I felt that it was ripping the book the apart. I know writing a review is rather hard but he could have done it in a way where the authors work wasn’t as opinionated. He also needed to have more reasoning behind what he mentioned in the review and I felt that he didn’t because it was just his opinion on it. He made the book seem bad when I actually liked Boyle’s style in telling the story telling and enjoyed the two different opinions in the story.
ReplyDeleteThis book review seemed to be more like an opinion. However, some of the things the author of the book review did strike my attention. I am guilty of disliking Delaney, and would roll my eyes whenever it was his turn to tell his story in the book. I would always look forward to skimming past Delaney’s section and eagerly read about Candido’s plight. I believe that a good book review should be completely unbiased. Those who like a certain book are going to write wonders about it. Those who dislike a certain book will write criticizing reviews about it. Somewhere in between there must be a middle ground.
ReplyDeleteA book review is a description, critical analysis, and an evaluation on the quality, meaning, and significance of a book, not a retelling. It should focus on the book's purpose, content, and authority, according to google. I believe this review was not a good review. This book review was very opinionated and gave a retelling of the novel. I felt Spencer was attacking the author instead of his writing. For example his political opinion on a proposition. This should not have been include in the review.
ReplyDeleteThis review was interesting. It was about things that this author didn't like. It made me think of a review that one would write after they bought something on amazon and were dissatisfied. I wouldn't say it was a bad review, as far as the parts that talked about the book, but I would advise the writer to stick to the book. I think it's okay to question the authors motives for writing a certain way, but it seems more for personal insight and less professional in review.
ReplyDeleteA book review should tell the main points of what the book represents, as well as what the reviewer thought of the book. However, a review is based off of the reviewer's opinion. As a reader, you may not always agree with the book review. I honestly really enjoyed the book review. I thought it was very well done. I like that the author compared Tortilla Curtain to the modern day version of The Grapes of Wrath. It is very similar and I did not even think of that similarity until I read the review. I also like how Delaney and Kyra are described in this book review because it is very correct. They are both typical "LA people". Everything is always about them and in a way they are very self absorbed. Overall, I am very impressed with this review.
ReplyDeleteThis review was very opinionated, yes, but what would a review be if it was not that way? People say that you should adhere to a certain guideline when writing a review and not be so opinionated, but I think those are the best reviews because they are more real. I got a better insight from another person's point of view by reading this that I would not have otherwise saw. Its ok that I disagreed with more than half of what he said and his approach.
ReplyDeleteThe book review illustrated the reviewers point very clearly. It was apparent that the reviewer thought that T.C. Boyle’s novel “The Tortilla Curtain” wasn't what he had hoped it would be and that it was not what he expected from Boyle. The reviewer also pointed out that the character of Delaney was not given enough attention, but I disagree. I found the story to be suspenseful and entertaining with an interesting structure. The reviewer compares it to “The Grapes of Wrath” but I believe that is unfair. The idea for both books might be similar topic but I think Boyle was not trying to write another “The Grapes of Wrath”. A good book review should point out all the shortcomings in the novel but should also try to remain neutral.
ReplyDeleteOf the events that listed, I agree with Neera Tanden because the U.S. had previously had fundamental values of opportunity and quality and the right to vote for women allowed the U.S. to live up that. There was more rights for men than women around the United States. Many women were not seen as equal and therefore were not allowed to vote. There was nothing in the U.S. Constitution that forbid women from voting, but it did not require voting equality. Many women wanted the right to vote and the Nineteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution made that possible. The law gave women the right to vote in fall elections that included the Presidential election. This helped empower women and this made them responsible as a citizen. This event for me also helped paved the way for more equality for women rights. The Nineteenth Amendment event gave me the right to vote and I have used that right for Presidential elections. I am grateful that women have the right to vote because we are half of the empowered population that can make a great differences as a citizen that can affect us all. This is why I agree with Neera Tanden that on August 26, 1960 the day women gained the right to vote, allowed the U.S. To live up to its fundamental values of opportunity and equality.
ReplyDelete