I have not written anything noteworthy in a long time. I hope that is to change soon.
I’ve been trying to organize things a bit better on this side of the blog, so I decided to go over the tags created thus far. Surprisingly enough, I seem to have avoided full chaos but there still was a small mess to sort out. That has been done now, and everything should answer to an uniform standard.
This standard, in the case of tags, would hopefully include the author/writer/creator of the universe I’m presently commenting on without any full-stops or other punctuation marks (so my tags would, for example, read “jrr tolkien” instead of “j.r.r. tolkien”). This is hopefully an important point that I’ll not miss out on in the future as I seem to have in a certain number of cases thus far.
I’ve also recategorized some posts (‘Historical Fiction’ as ‘History’ and ‘Fiction’ was one of the things I disagreed with in the case of some authors), so everything should be more fluid now. Hopefully, this fluidity will last. =)
I started wondering earlier on whether I could explain to anyone the regions for all of my actions based on logics
How can you solve a problem the only solution of which is not having created the problem in the first place..
I find that my idea of reviewing a book has changed quite a bit from what it was some time ago.
Namely, when before it was the content which I would have commented on, probably much to the chagrin of people if they had not read the book before — for I personally much prefer to know as little as possible of any book that I am about to read. And I do not think that I am alone in that!
So, now I rather comment on the style of the writing — which is the main factor of how readable any book is. No matter how good the content, if the style is poor then the book is in effect, unreadable. Thereby, I find that offering comment on how well the book was written is the best way of portraying whether I think the book is readable.
Indeed, despite that, I would still say if the content makes sense and is reasonable. It is good to know what the content is like, even though it is a most difficult thing to determine. However, since in so many cases I can by now guess the way the book will end, I find that anything new or innovative should be mentioned.
With a finality, then, I can say that I now prefer shorter, more style-oriented overviews of books. Hopefully, also including a quote that displays a good passage from the book.
I have found, unfortunately, that my activity on this special side of my blogs has been well less than what I expected. Thereby, I think I will set aside my original hopes of going for purely factual scientific data, and instead including a bit more opinionated scientific information as well as, hopefully, a bit of the history of science (And random scientific stuff).
We’ll see how that goes. [Hope for the best, prepare for the worst.]
I have, as an necessary consequence of being offshore for the last few months, abandoned my blog(s) somewhat. I have, however, written a fair few posts, and I’ll be posting them (with past timestamps) as and when I get back home.
Oh, and there has been another step forward. One I have been expecting for years, and one that could not come any sooner. Namely, I am (finally) living by myself. As I like to say, “living as living is supposed to be done”. 🙂
I believe that this has raised my mood for at least the entirety of this week (well, I rather know it). So, I will help lift yours with this wonderful piece of music:
All new things need an introduction, and this post will serve here.
As mentioned in other places, this branch of my blog is supposed to be the side where I will speak of hard science, hopefully either bringing up interesting processes or mentioning papers which are useful in understanding events.
I am planning to write the first proper post later on.
I believe that this is, at least for now, the end of this gathering of thoughts, with all new ones (and the old) being redirected to here.