End of the Line

Inspired by M. John Harrison's decision to wind down his blog, I've decided to do the same.

Originally this blog was intended as a place for me to keep track of the various reviews I produced but since then it's kind of changed into the place I publish my reviews and a platform for my views on various matters.  I have looked back over the past year and I realised that the last book I unreservedly enjoyed and reviewed was back in March.  I've also noticed that I've been reviewing less and less and complaining more and more vociferously and generally working myself into an increasingly unhappy, obsessive and exasperated rut wherein nothing is ever good enough, especially not myself.

From this point on, my criticism will be produced only for other venues and my ideas will be kept to myself and occasionally inflicted upon my friends.

Thank you all for reading :-)

Comments

[Paul Raven]

That's a shame man, I'll miss your vitriol, but I respect your decision. Y'all keep in touch, though, OK? And I hope you'll leave what's already here up as an archive - negative some of it may be, but it's no less valid for that.

[Jonathan McCalmont]

Thanks for the kind thoughts Paul :-)

You haven't gotten rid of me as I'm still intending to attend the SFMasterclass this summer if they'll have me. I'm also going to make a concerted effort to attend the BSFA meetings and try to actually start meeting some people from the wider fandom community as I haven't met anyone yet.

[Serdar]

Sad to see you go! I liked what I saw here, even if it was because it was just something to tangle with. Keep us posted on where you go.

[Steve]

This is terrible news :-(

I've always been able to count on your blog for a good, thought-provoking read on a wide range of subjects.

If you are still producing criticism for other venues, you could at least post links here to help us find it!

[brandon]

very sad news indeed! you're one of the better writers i've found online, who takes the time to say things right, and i hope you'll reconsider and return someday. you may post elsewhere, but some of us may not have access and it's also never quite the same as writing for yourself.

[Jonathan McCalmont]

Hi Steve :-)

Yes, that's pretty much what I'm going to do from this point on. It would be silly to delete the site completely and I might as well use it to let people know when something I write is appearing elsewhere.

[Jonathan McCalmont]

Thanks for the kind words Brandon :-)

I know t's not the same as writing for oneself but I suspect that writing for others will actually make me a more focused and disciplined writer. I'll keep people posted if and when my stuff does appear though.

[Paul D]

Wow, this is too bad. Where else will you be writing?

[ShaunCG]

This is a damn shame, Jonathan. I'll really miss your regular updates: this blog is one of my favourites. All the same, 9 months is a long time to go without reviewing anything you like, and you certainly have suffered for your complaints and criticisms!

Would you consider at least posting irregular round-ups here, to let folks like myself know where else your writing might be found?

[Jonathan McCalmont]

Paul and Shaun,

Thanks for the kind words.

I'm not sure where I'm going to be writing but I will be posting links to things if and when they appear online. I'm not so much shutting the blog down as I am reverting it to its original purpose.

[Gustaf Erikson]

That's a shame, please keep letting us know when and where you publish in the future!

[Patrick H]

Well, I'm in two minds. I enjoy your articles a good deal, but I think you are right about how it can ultimately make one rather jaded. I let my own review output dwindle for similar reasons - there's more to be gained from cheering on the good stuff than complaining about the shit.

Patrick

[mhayinde]

Oh no... I'm so sad to read this news. I love reading your criticism and thoughts and will really miss this site. Won't you reconsider?
Well, I suppose if it's making you unhappy, then maybe it's for the best, but I hope one day that may change...

[Jacob Martin]

I'll miss you! :(

[Lyle Hopwood]

Blast, just as I plug your blog on mine! Oh well. I'm sorry to hear it but we all have to spend time on what's most important to us.

I thought you provided some of the thinkiest stuff I've seen around and I really enjoyed reading it.

[Phritz]

That's too bad. You should have kept going on the Valve. That fat poltroon philosophaster Holblow needs some deflating, instead of some obscure midwestern liberal seminarians biting at his ankles. Someone who still thinks the arguments for Descartes' Res Cogitans are necessarily true (when it's an inductive argument for one, and really quite incapable of verification---produce a picture of "mind" for starters--especially one apart from the brain) should be pissed on regularly. Note how he made the usual sort of priestly or rabbinical assumption that anyone who objects to Descartes is a marxist or lacanian. Hah. (the Res Cos. also violates Occam's Razor as many cognitive scientists have pointed out. That's not exactly a refutation but should be kept in mind. The pragmatists--James, Pierce, etc.--thought it was a great hindrance as well).

[Jonathan McCalmont]

Thanks Phritz but I don't have blogging rights at the Valve.

As for the problems with the cogito... well... it depends upon how you look at it. Hume and Metzinger would certainly have problems with the idea that there's a coherent "I" entity that does the thinking.

I didn't notice over there being particularly poltroonish though.

[Phritz]

"Hume and Metzinger would certainly have problems with the idea that there's a coherent "I" entity that does the thinking."

Yes. Humean sorts of doubts don't go over so well in blogland. Valvesters like Holblo for instance do not debate or discuss philosophical problems; a Holblo sets up the stage, as with the Zizek/Descartes thing--who's side are you on? BS. Those people who might mention Hume or a cognitive sort of objection to the Cartesian "ghost in the machine" are tossed in with the Lacanian types.

Note that Holblo has no problem shifting allegiances daily: a few days ago, Holblo defended Cartesian dualism and what he takes to be analytical philosophy (a real analytical like Carnap, who knew something about modern science, and refused to make grand ontological statements, would have laughed at the buffoon); now Holblo offers his cheesy Nietzsche schtick on "eternal recurrence"-- another misreading. (It's hard to think of two thinkers more diametrically opposed than Descartes and Nietzsche). As with much of Nietzsche, the eternal recurrence theme is metaphorical--- and hypothetical---not argumentative. Holblo goes on and on about argument, necessity, reductio ad absurdum (what sort of stooge applies reductios to literary works??), etc. and then quotes an anti-rationalist like Nietzsche as a type of authority. Quatsch-Bo.