<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: On (Non-Social) Reading</title>
	<atom:link href="http://fictionwritersreview.com/blog/on-non-social-reading/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://fictionwritersreview.com/blog/on-non-social-reading</link>
	<description>fiction matters</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 22:08:42 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Paul Dorell</title>
		<link>http://fictionwritersreview.com/blog/on-non-social-reading/comment-page-1#comment-3523</link>
		<dc:creator>Paul Dorell</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Feb 2010 00:55:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fictionwritersreview.com/?p=6534#comment-3523</guid>
		<description>I can’t say much about recent developments is social reading as I’m the quintessential non-joiner, but will say that the Internet has significantly increased the availability of discussion about books.  You can go online and find in-depth discussions on new fiction or reader reviews on Amazon or Goodreads.  Of course, the quality varies a lot, so you have to be selective about what you peruse, but I’m able to find material of just as much or greater interest than I have previously been able to find through traditional media such as reviews in periodicals.  Now, when I read a review in The New York Times Book Review, I often think the reviewer is providing a milquetoastish, politically correct account of a book.  When it comes to serious literature, I find you may be able to get a better picture of the strengths and weaknesses of a book on Amazon than you can from one person’s review in a periodical.  Depending on the knowledge, experience, intelligence and artistic sensibilities of an online reviewer, you can sometimes find illuminations that may not have occurred to you and may not be available in print.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I can’t say much about recent developments is social reading as I’m the quintessential non-joiner, but will say that the Internet has significantly increased the availability of discussion about books.  You can go online and find in-depth discussions on new fiction or reader reviews on Amazon or Goodreads.  Of course, the quality varies a lot, so you have to be selective about what you peruse, but I’m able to find material of just as much or greater interest than I have previously been able to find through traditional media such as reviews in periodicals.  Now, when I read a review in The New York Times Book Review, I often think the reviewer is providing a milquetoastish, politically correct account of a book.  When it comes to serious literature, I find you may be able to get a better picture of the strengths and weaknesses of a book on Amazon than you can from one person’s review in a periodical.  Depending on the knowledge, experience, intelligence and artistic sensibilities of an online reviewer, you can sometimes find illuminations that may not have occurred to you and may not be available in print.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

