Catagorization or a list of notable publications

A book review may be a primary source, opinion piece, summary review or scholarly review.
Post Reply
User avatar
MJMcCready
Posts: 1356
Joined: Mon Jun 24, 2013 2:30 pm

Catagorization or a list of notable publications

Post by MJMcCready » Mon May 18, 2020 2:21 pm

Could we consider categorizing this section into: maybe a subdivision 1) Educated author's who can communicate well and are meticulous in their research and broad in their content. 2) Those with much, much room for improvement and only a limited ability to address their own lack of effort but nonetheless are able to construct something, some would consider, unquestionably so, worth a read. 3) Titled s**theads, not educated sufficiently, not good enough at chess, poor communicators, highly dubious in motivations for writing as all of which are manifestations of an expounded self-interest and nothing else (which accounts for virtually all books written on chess), generally annoying and were beaten up a lot at school, and generally speaking, poor practitioners of which they write about. For example, offering a book called 'The Complete French', which as you might have guessed has a number of major lines missing and is a good 300 pages short is the sort of thing I mean. 'Oh yeah, and like its like its so good yeah, I mean loads of 'em were playing it, Capablanca, Carlsen and some others.

Sorry but I am finishing up Rowson's The Moves That Matter, a corollary of that is the ensuing self-loathing that emerges. On the whole chess literature as a genre is so decadent. Invested by people who can't write at all and publishers you think of money and nothing more. There's an element of tragedy of reading a book on chess that is well written, especially when I think of all those hours lost reading rubbish produced purely from profit and of little help. Those who are most to blame are those who but the decades of rubbished we have become inured to. Why is it that the vast majority of publications on chess do not adhere to numerous basic literary conventions that no credible academic would dare produce something without. You are left compelled to commiserate that what you hold in your hands is probably only worth wiping your backside with so often. So can we be more critical and stop forum members from wasting money on rubbish? I do take it everyone on this forum worked out a long time ago that the person who can teach you the most is, of course, yourself, not some person who put some analysis into a book and became known as an author.

User avatar
IM Jack Rudd
Posts: 4020
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:13 am
Location: Bideford

Re: Catagorization or a list of notable publications

Post by IM Jack Rudd » Mon May 18, 2020 2:46 pm

This is the fifteenth topic in this section; it's not exactly a bundle of energy. We probably don't need to split it up further.

John McKenna
Posts: 3985
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 2:02 pm

Re: Catagorization or a list of notable publications

Post by John McKenna » Mon May 18, 2020 2:58 pm

You're on song, MJ, but off key...

Also, in form but likely to remain on the bench.

[Jack is doing a great job as assistant manager - giving advice from the technical area.]
To find a for(u)m that accommodates the mess, that is the task of the artist now. (Samuel Beckett)

User avatar
MJMcCready
Posts: 1356
Joined: Mon Jun 24, 2013 2:30 pm

Re: Catagorization or a list of notable publications

Post by MJMcCready » Tue May 19, 2020 12:51 pm

Apologies but I am rather cynical at the best of times. Maybe best left at that.

Post Reply