It has a few caveats (most about the chapter on writers, which strikes the reviewer as catty) but it’s largely positive:
…there is a lot of good information in here, particularly on working as a freelancer. It’s not the bookkeeping/regular office hours/writing good book proposals sort of information, but more getting across the point that editors for popular science magazines don’t have time to deal with your artistic neuroses — and they don’t have to. If you’re going to be a professional, then be a professional, which means producing what you’ve agreed to produce when you’ve agreed to produce it, without histrionics and of good quality. That’s how you get more work so you can actually be a professional writer.
That’s a pretty square-on assessment from my view.
And now the book’s gotten two more reviews, frankly, than I expected it would get. Nice that the reviews have been generally positive so far.
Heh. He called you a smartass. I guess he doesn’t appreciate irony and attitude mixed together. Oh well. His loss.
Well, to be fair, I am a smartass, so he can’t be faulted for that.
“And now the book’s gotten two more reviews, frankly, than I expected it would get.’
but not catty.
right.
–ml
What’s catty about that? It’s a limited edition non-fiction book. How many reviews should have I expected? Look, it’s at least one more review than my last non-fiction book got, and it was released by a major publisher.
John Scalzi | February 11, 2007 09:36 PM
Well, to be fair, I am a smartass, so he can’t be faulted for that.
Huh? No way! I never would of known. ;-P
I’m glad I’m not that way. (Are you buying that?)
I found that being a smartass is always preferable to the opposite.
Sorry John, I misread the context and dived for the snark. Can I stop standing in the corner now?
–ml
Well, you’ll get a review from me when I finally get my little paws on a copy.
I promise.
He called you a smartass. I guess he doesn’t appreciate irony and attitude mixed together.
But that’s what a smartass is.