Very Disappointed....

MaxxQ wrote:Not "fact" - opinion. I enjoyed it, and so have others here. That makes your "fact" factually incorrect.

It's still better than that awful book. To start with; David writes lots of things well, romance isn't one of them.

It's mostly that this book didn't live up to expectations that people had, pushed by the blurb. It's well written, has characters that you can identify with, etc. Things like the names of the characters and locations all blending into generic "Eastern European" planet is a problem, I'm pretty suspicious about one of the space "battles", there were some things that struck me as highly odd, but it wasn't like I really cared about that system or anyone involved. I'll have to read it again if Amazon ever ships me the damn book. But overall it isn't a bad book.

B4ndit wrote:

Donnachaidh wrote:For those that are really disapointed, you should listen to the interview David Weber did on the last 3 Baen podcasts (they broke up the interview into 3 parts). I thought he did a good job explaining why the book was necessary and why what was in it was written.

Hmm, it's a little bit too long to listen for me Whatever were the reasons, it doesn't change the fact, that Shadow of Victory is not very enjoyable to read. And we are not alone with such impression. According to goodreads, this book is in the bottom 5 from all David Weber's books?

I know what you mean. Podcasts can demand lots of your time and include a lot of rambling—a lot of Brussels sprouts inbetween the meat and potatoes. But you can tame podcasts by better utilizing your tech at home. I chose to download all three of them then streamed it to my kitchen and listened to it as I prepared one of my delicious meals. Podcasts can be entertaining even when only half listening to them, because only half of it is headlining news. As a result, only half of your attention is required. It isn't like listening to an entire audio book where each line is important.

cthia wrote:Not so Maxx. It is a fact to him in his world
...

Ergo, it´s an opinion. A fact is something that is true to all(as long as they have the knowledge or ability to know whether it is true at least).

MaxxQ wrote:Not "fact" - opinion. I enjoyed it, and so have others here. That makes your "fact" factually incorrect.

Opinion shared by most of the readers - as visible on goodreads, amazon and others books rating websites. On amazon it has literally the worst reviews out of all Weber's book. So it's a fact, that Shadow of Victory is not enjoyable for vast majority of the readers.

B4ndit wrote:

MaxxQ wrote:Not "fact" - opinion. I enjoyed it, and so have others here. That makes your "fact" factually incorrect.

Opinion shared by most of the readers - as visible on goodreads, amazon and others books rating websites. On amazon it has literally the worst reviews out of all Weber's book. So it's a fact, that Shadow of Victory is not enjoyable for vast majority of the readers.

"Most" does NOT make it a fact. Your "fact" is still nothing but an opinion, because someone can prove that it is not a fact - namely me. If it were a fact, I would agree with you. I don't, therefore, it is NOT a fact. The only fact here is that a lot of people don't like the book. It's also a fact that many DO like the book.

Had you said, "In my opinion, this book was not an enjoyable read." then I wouldn't have had any issues with what you said. The FACT that you presented it as "fact" is what rankled me.

Facts are undisputed statements. I'm disputing yours, therefore, it is not a fact, despite what cthia says.

As for what any of the review sites says, that is a logical fallacy to use that in support of this being a fact. Look up the Bandwagon Fallacy.

Never mind... I'll save you the trouble: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/bandwagn.html

Edit: What those sites show is NOT fact, but a majority opinion. I don't know about you, but I never let the majority make my decisions or opinions for me. I make my own, and to hell with those that disagree with me. I personally can't stand the movie Starship Troopers. It's a crap movie (extrememly) loosely based on a great book. However, the majority of people I've mentioned this to love the movie. Also, the majority of them have never read the book.

Look, I'm not trying to change your mind about what you think of the book. I'm just trying to point out that you are completely wrong when you say, "It's a fact that..." Frankly, I couldn't care less what you think of the book.

I will allow to quote myself.

B4ndit wrote:So it's a fact, that Shadow of Victory is not enjoyable for vast majority of the readers.

With which you can not argue, because those reviews proves that this is a fact.

In previous post I have used term

B4ndit wrote:that Shadow of Victory is not very enjoyable to read.

Yes, I could be more specific what I had in mind, so I corrected myself in follow up post quoted above. However, do most of you say that this book was very enjoyable to read compared to other Weber's books?

B4ndit wrote:I will allow to quote myself.

B4ndit wrote:So it's a fact, that Shadow of Victory is not enjoyable for vast majority of the readers.

With which you can not argue, because those reviews proves that this is a fact.

See? Now you're switching from stating opinion as fact, to stating speculation as fact. You really need to say what you mean. What you meant to say, I believe, is that, "SoV was not an enjoyable read for a majority of those readers who actually bothered to post reviews on various sites."

If you had said that from the beginning, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. As it is, you stated your opinion as fact from the beginning, and presumed that EVERYONE said the book was not an enjoyable read, when in FACT, it was a subset of those who had read the book.

You really don't know that the vast majority of those who have read the book think it's an unenjoyable read - you only know about those who have posted their OPINION of the book. What about people like me who DID enjoy the book, but haven't, or won't post a review?

B4ndit wrote:In previous post I have used term

B4ndit wrote:that Shadow of Victory is not very enjoyable to read.

Yes, I could be more specific what I had in mind, so I corrected myself in follow up post quoted above. However, do most of you say that this book was very enjoyable to read compared to other Weber's books?

Actually, you didn't correct yourself, as you're still stating in that post that it's a fact, when, in fact, it isn't. Because you don't know that for sure. You would have to get an opinion from EVERY SINGLE PERSON who's read the book to state one way or the other as to whether the book is enjoyable to read or not. The word "very" has no bearing on our little discussion.

Lastly, I submit that you take a good long look at the reasons WHY you didn't like it. I mentioned several weeks ago that it may be that people didn't exactly get what they expected in this book. There was a lot of hype and speculation about where this book would go during the rather long hiatus between this book and the last one, and I strongly suspect that people weren't happy because they simply didn't get what they wanted.

David has mentioned at least twice why he wrote this book the way he did - once on the aforementioned podcasts that you apparently don't have time to listen to, and once a few weeks ago, shortly after the eArc was released and people started in on the same thing you are.

I'll admit, I was a little bit disappointed with the book, but that aside, I still enjoyed it - 7/10 would read again. I've learned to never set my expectations too high, because invariably, one gets disappointed. If you don't expect much, and it's better than you expected, great. Conversely, if your expectations are too high, and it doesn't meet them, it's a huge let-down.

B4ndit wrote:I will allow to quote myself.

B4ndit wrote:So it's a fact, that Shadow of Victory is not enjoyable for vast majority of the readers.

With which you can not argue, because those reviews proves that this is a fact.

In previous post I have used term

Actually, what it proves is that the majority of those who bothered to write reviews were not particularly happy. It implies, but does not prove, that the feeling is widespread among readers. Not quite the same thing.

Tenshinai wrote:

cthia wrote:Not so Maxx. It is a fact to him in his world
...

Ergo, it´s an opinion. A fact is something that is true to all(as long as they have the knowledge or ability to know whether it is true at least).

You were doing almost fine until you attached that conditional to it. That is where it is flawed and begins to unravel. "Absolute truth" is valid regardless of anyone's opinion, acceptance or knowledge thereof. And there can only be one absolute truth. I hope you don't blame me at this point for not assuming that you know what you are holding in your hand at that point. I'll give you a three-letter clue to help you figure it out. G O D. (IF THERE IS A GOD) Or at least the "god process of existence" (even if one does not believe in and even if there is not a God), or whatever your fancy chooses to label it.

And that is assuming, that you are already aware of the implications of a Theory of Everything if there exists a Theory of Everything.

*shrugs*

In light of that, we cannot ignore the truths on a micro scale, local only to the "function at hand."

And the function at hand if incorporated into a subroutine in a computer program would read something like...

10 If b4ndit did not enjoy SOV then Print "Hoorah!" Else Print "False"

The function would print Hoorah every time because local to that function only, it is true that b4ndit did not enjoy SOV.

Or we would sit stagnant as a pond of frogs on lily pads. It is the same truth that allows quantum mechanics and quantum realities to function. It is simply the yin and yang.

This is what was posted...

b4ndit wrote:Whatever were the reasons, it doesn't change the fact, that Shadow of Victory is not very enjoyable to read. And we are not alone with such impression. According to goodreads, this book is in the bottom 5 from all David Weber's books?

That is a fact! Why is it a fact? Because I am taking it "in context!" He is not stating an absolute. He is not giving his opinion. He is stating, without a shadow of a doubt, that it is not an enjoyable read FOR HIM! And added that others on goodreads shares this.

Surely, NO ONE in their right mind feels that b4ndit is a professional critic. Nor does he. And even if he were a professional critic, his rants and raves would be as pointless to me as those emanating from the concerted assholes of Siskell and Egghead. I've always detested those guys. Sometimes wondering if they've even bothered to read what they were critiquing.

At any rate, everyone with a modicum of sensibilities knew that b4ndit was commenting on his experience and his reality. Which is a fact... TO HIM! Which, for him, is all that matters! We can talk until we are blue in the face of how well we may have liked it. But it ain't gonna change the fact that it ain't gonna float b4ndit's boat.

I don't give a shit about beets. I hate them with a passion. I hate them so much that seeing them will make me puke! I don't care whether other people find them delicious. I don't care that it is one of my favorite sister's favorite foods. I don't care of a possible health benefit. What everyone else feels about them isn't going to change the FACT that they will make me regurgitate my family jewels! That isn't an opinion. That is fact TO CTHIA that beets are amongst the nastiest foods on the face of the earth. And since my taste buds are what matters when I am eating, then it is fact.

The problem was that Maxx read too much into the guys post and was nitpicking. I chose to nitpick Maxx, because Maxx should have known better. That the guy was only speaking from his own world.


You have to consider this in the right light and from the right position as is the lotus position, legs and arms properly positioned, relaxed and taking one deep breath slow to exhale. One with the universe. Only after you have achieved a oneness with the universe will the correct answer come to you.

Above all, one must be true to thineself!

cthia wrote:The problem was that Maxx read too much into the guys post and was nitpicking. I chose to nitpick Maxx, because Maxx should have known better. That the guy was only speaking from his own world.

Then he needs to state that. He DID state it as an absolute, and context means squat. He did NOT say that, for HIMSELF the book was not a very enjoyable read.

You call it nitpicking, I call it getting your point across accurately. NOT ONCE, until he amended what he actually meant to say (and even that drifted into speculation later), did he say, IN THAT PARTICULAR POST, that it was not a good read FOR HIM. It was simply, "It's a fact that it was not an enjoyable read." And the proceeded to pull out the logical fallacy that I called him on.

Relating to another thread, I could say that it's a fact that SUVs are the worst invention ever made. Is that a fact? To me, or to anyone else? No, it is unarguably NOT. It is simply an opinion. If you want to argue semantics, then yes, it's a fact to me (or him), but with the condition that the qualifier "to me" (or something similar) is/must be added. I can't read people's minds, and it's even worse in teh interwebz.