I am currently reading a book about Seattle ghost stories, which I was so excited about. I have to say, though, that I am truly disappointed in the writing. It is clunky, poorly arranged, and, well, juvenile sounding. I was really looking forward to reading this book and using it as research for my next project, but it is just too weak on information. Half the book cites sources of information as a friend of a friend (FoF). In short, nothing is verifiable in the book. Not that I expect ghost stories to be verified, but I do expect crimes to substantiate and verified. You know?
The odd thing is that so much of the non-fiction I read is no where up to the same quality of the fiction I read. Are there just looser standards for the non-fiction market?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Love the glowing blue eyes.
I gather from what Moonrat says on her blog that publication of nonfic is supporting the publication of fiction. One can therefore infer that the # of bad nonfiction might be fairly high. Or maybe I'm just being cynical? Nah...
Fremen eyes!
The book in question is just shocking though. I sometimes worry that people don't read because they come across books like this and feel like reading, as a hobby, is a waste of time.
Post a Comment