Writing Your Opinions: When and How in Journalism

Just started reading another book called Nefertiti by Michele Moran, and so fart I'm not all that enticed about it. I bought the book a few years ago, and I just gotten up to reading it now ( I buy quite a lot of books, and in-return,,read them when I have the time, I like to think of it as having a micro library in my room,me hearer I can go through and find a book from whenever, and read it at my own time and pace.) all my books are eventually read, but I'm never short on something to read. Though I think it's time for another major purchase, because I'm down to just a few books left untouched, so now I go out and buy a good thirty books, donate or keep the ones I've read, and the wintry cycle begins again. I still have a few Edward Rutherford books at my disposal, and reading one of them takes quite a while. I don't read extremely fast, never had in my life the urge to read at a cheetah' space. I read quite fast, but not two books a day fast, but I suppose if you had six-eight hours of nonstop speed reading,one could read two average-length novels in a day, but not necessarily retain everything you read. Most people read for both school, and for work, so downtime reading is usually spent on such things as a magazine, or a few blog posts, and that seems like the normal for many of this generation's readers. Of course, nobody turns down their nose at a free eBook, but even still, they tend to be much shorter in length than the common published novel. I admit that I don't read many eBooks on Amazon, but the few I've picked up, they seem relatively well put, despite the annoyances of seeing what people underlined, as if I care if two-hundred people found a certain passages interesting. Then again, this is a simple system of communication between writer and reader,where the author can see what the people like about a certain passage of the novel, but in it's primitive state, this gesture of highlighting a certain area can also be used for a negative effect. Negative commentary is now far more the norm, and the cynical posts made on boards, it was easily foreseeable that one anonymity was the standard, the truth would be much harsher than it was say twenty-five years ago, for a fair estimate. Of course, I do find the majority of posts on Amazon.com about s certain product, or a certain book, seem to be honest,accurate, and some could be a thesis in how long they are! I don't find the tussling of online criticism to be all that haphazard to the actual book, it seem the general notion is that if it doesn't suck much, then it tends to be an overall good book. I'm sure there's someone out there who would hate a classic like Of a ice and Men, and sure at the time of it's publishing, there were some negative reviews listed, but most of us who read it objectively, find it to be a decent piece of literature, and not act so snobby about what if could've been, why it's undeserving, why it is deserving, etc., but the truth is that we simply like, dislike, or utterly polarize media, both old and new. I tend to think that we all love certain things that other people hate, and if we go around deciding to only like what other people like, and think how they think then really, are we really allowed to believe our opinions are any more deserving than others? By-the-way, I read much further into Nefertiti, and it's turning out a bit better than I've expected, slower pace at the beginning, but I'm note through it just yet. I'm at page 213 right now, so I'm almost halfway through, and it's a much more rousing experience than I've expected. Not saying for sure if I'll love it, or dread it, but it's appealing to me, so far. Opinions matter only because we believe they matter, it's in entirely up to us to take a broad, or narrow opinion to heart, and even more our choice if we decide to let that opinion dictate how we read, or watch films or television, and it is through this dictation that we tend to see what is good, and what isn't, because we trust past experience to ward us off from a potential bad experience. However, we do not truly know of that experience will be to our liking until we've actually experienced it, thus dismissing any actual cause for opinions, but somehow we psychologically believe that one person's experience is going to speak for us all, as if we've been linked to each other, like some invisible psychic tether. We are not all the same, and no matter how hard people push that we are, it's simply not true, especially when it comes to tastes. It seems that criticism is read now so it can be gaffed at, and persecuted for ever going against the individual's opinion, which is itself of no consequence. For years I've used to think that people and their opinions ran the world, and for a while, I didn't care. I didn't care if people would judge me for how I've looked, how I've dressed, and so-on. I never judged those who were different, rarely have I ever gone with the crowd on things, but I don't base my opinions on your opinions, because I simply believe that deep down, and though I'm respect enough to be approachable, I truly do not have to justify myself to anyone, nor should I ever have to defend an opinion or belief, but that's a way of debasing any argument. I know now that really, it's comments, critiques, and "likes" that rule the world, as if they hold merit outside of anything but their chosen medium. I find it disgruntling that I have to ever defend my opinion to those who believe they are of some importance. In-truth, none of us are truly that important enough to ever warrant an explanation, and we should be grateful that anyone would humor us! Don't get me wrong, obviously most of us believe we have some value that is above the norm, and for a select few of us, it's true. However, for the majority,which includes myself, it means nothing to share an opinion. Indeed, it hurts to be told that your opinion is of no consequence,that it is as minimal as another anonymous five-star rating, but we tend to believe we are holier than thou, and it is really nice to fool oneself, but I feel that real greatness comes from when you're told that you can either be better, or be basic, and guess what? Most of is, even those with a voice, are basic, and that is okay. Now, this does not constitute having a goal, achieving it, because that is not usually based on some criticism, unless you're a critic, and that is far more than having fanciful words backing up your "intellectual" opinion. Criticism is like arguing a point, but making the other side's point just as validated, so then your point strives to win over an audience far more than the status quo. A great example would be for a liberal critic to review a conservative work, or vice-versa. Sorry to politicize this, but frankly it's all that seems to matter to most people, so don't fix what isn't broken, I say. Anyhow, if the book of one side is relatively thought out with furtive research, and draws great attention to the subject, and is readable, but goes against all your core values, then explain to me just how you give that a fair review? Say, and this is hyper theoretically speaking, but let's say Sarah Palin on a comeback tour for 2016 publishes a book early January of 2015, and it is by-far the greatest piece of political writing of the 21st century so -far, and validates her as a primary candidate for the Republican Party (again, extremely hypothetical here, I'd believe Satan himself would come dancing out of California with a parade of skeletons behind him before this ever becomes reality.) and you, a lifelong Democrat with so far left ties, you're practically Stalin without the mustache and vodka breath, have to right an unbiased account on the book? How do you do it? Do you arrogantly turn down work, for standards? Or do you really try to be objective? Remember, too-good of a review, and you could single-ha deadly sway voters, especially if they've know your political views as a public reviewer. However, if you simply condemn the book, because of political beliefs, that could also hurt the faith many voters have in the media,,which is an earthquake of seismic proportions already! So how do you approach a touchy subject? This is a big-time paper you're reviewing for in this scenario, world-wide syndication, so imagine how you will have to approach this, and of course you could say well, the papers are crooked either way, so just damn the book for the halibut, right? (Yes, I wrote halibut to be cute, because I'm a Grade A prick, sorry.) Or do you actually judge the book on its merits, because your politics are strong, but not above your sense of objective criticism? Or you simply pass the review off to someone more of that leaning? Either way, seems a damning circumstance to be an honest reviewer, because it is a classic Catch-22, and although you'd hate to look like you've gone against your personal beliefs, in-the-end you learn that doing something distasteful as writing a positive review for the other side, no matter the disgust, will make you see that you may have to leave the bitching at home, and do the job. I think most people can handle that, but I find so many who think opinion is important. Granted, I do reviews here, but I don't go out of my way to say you must play, or buy, or agree. Nevertheless, I don't see the value of my opinion, if it helps, I'm glad, if it entertains, I'm also happy, but I don't think people should make a rash decision based on anyone's personal rants, because 1: you don't know if they have an ulterior motive, such as a hatred for a certain brand, e.g., someone commenting on Halo that personally hates Halo the video game, and will condemn it despite having such a cynical view on the game. 2: the mindset the person was in when they wrote the said review; because they could be upset, angry, or detached, and really are venting their frustrations out on a My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic box set. Or3: they simply are trolling and thinking that their opinion will dupe you into believing something is good, when it it's bad, or vice-versa. Either way, tread lightly, don't let opinions affect you, because in hindsight, nothing someone else says matters, and truthfully, most people will damn anything for the sake of damning. Thank you for reading the Malacast Editorial! Twitter: Twitter.com/mcasteditorial or @mcasteditorial E-mail: mcasteditorial@yahoo.com More posts coming soon! Including the annual State of Games post for next week. It's a long one so you might want to hunker down.