![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
reviews online
Oct. 3rd, 2010 08:14 amI have to check The Mythopoeic Society web site every once in a while, because they're apt to post reviews I've written for their magazines without specifically notifying me that they're doing it. (Their legal right to do it is understood. Notification is a different issue.)
Two of them have gone up since I last checked. One is on the Collected Poems of Mervyn Peake. I awaited the arrival of the review copy with eagerness dampened severely by the discovery that this so-called collected poems failed to collect his nonsense verse, the central part of his output, and was slowly revivified by the quality of what it does include, some of which I hadn't actually previously read though I thought I had, because earlier editions were textually trashed.
A review of two annotated Winds in the Willows was written for a practical purpose. These two books were on the reading list for the Mythopoeic Scholarship Award this year. They were both bad, but in different ways, and I wrote the review as a memo to myself so that I could remember which one was which in case one or both of them wound up on the actual ballot. (Fortunately the committee showed sense and neither of them did.) Having written it, I thought I should submit it.
Now I ought to turn to some desperately overdue new reviews I need to write.
Two of them have gone up since I last checked. One is on the Collected Poems of Mervyn Peake. I awaited the arrival of the review copy with eagerness dampened severely by the discovery that this so-called collected poems failed to collect his nonsense verse, the central part of his output, and was slowly revivified by the quality of what it does include, some of which I hadn't actually previously read though I thought I had, because earlier editions were textually trashed.
A review of two annotated Winds in the Willows was written for a practical purpose. These two books were on the reading list for the Mythopoeic Scholarship Award this year. They were both bad, but in different ways, and I wrote the review as a memo to myself so that I could remember which one was which in case one or both of them wound up on the actual ballot. (Fortunately the committee showed sense and neither of them did.) Having written it, I thought I should submit it.
Now I ought to turn to some desperately overdue new reviews I need to write.
