Active Users:879 Time:15/11/2024 11:26:59 AM
I'm shitfitng to no too. Hope more people change their votes. fionwe1987 Send a noteboard - 22/09/2009 10:34:22 PM
I really didn't. I assumed if someone had a copy there was a reason, like they were supposed to share their opinion.


That's precisely the point of ARCs, and nowadays publishers love to use non-traditional medias, like Blogs, fan sites etc. Tons more ARC are distributed around, and leftovers are often given away in contests weeks before the book is released etc.

And if Tor is sending out copies before Oct. 27 after all, there's no harm no foul in publishing reviews - that would be why they send copies to people in the first place. But for TGS, it appears every reviewer who asked have been told "Sorry, no ARC printed for TGS, we can get you a copy for release day".

When reputable people/bloggers with established ties to publishers (incl. a few experienced reviewers like Larry from OF and Ken of nethspace, Pat's Fantasy Blog, Adam from Wertzone etc.) start posting reviews, the odds jo-blo poster on a MB has also gotten a copy somehow will be increased a little, but for now you can count on those reviews being fake or from copies obtained illegally.

Normally, there would be more than Jason having a review up by this point. Back in the day, TL, Wot Encyclopedia, Wotmania, Tarvalon.net would all have non spoiler reviews up by this point, and some online media would publish theirs too. There may well be more reviews down the line for all I know, but it's also well known how much Harriet, Brandon and co. dislike spoilers - an this ought to be respected. Some love to use spoilers and half-spoilers as a mean to generate hype, but it's never been the case with WOT. Back in August Brandon didn't even want to mention in Q&A vague stuff he was aware had been officially released - even which two story lines were the focus of the book. He knew it was around, even told people who wanted to know where to look for the info, but he wouldn't speak of it openly (nor does he do on his blog, where he's extremely careful about the information he shares - no doubt knowing very well it's gonna be everywhere after that, and considered legitimate to spread without warning).

The secrets of the book being spread around would not harm Tor's sales, but they sure would piss off Harriet, Brandon etc. Most fans want to discover those for themselves in the book itself - not by accident coming on a MB, whether the spoilers are real or invented by morons with nothing better to do than pulling starved fans' legs.

We waited five years, what's five more weeks before we can judge TGS for ourselves and with a fresh eye anyway?

I hadn't heard that Harriet and Brandon didn't want anything out there. Of course I wouldn't have voted for something that was against their wishes if I had. So yeah, I take back my yes vote now that I know this. And I kind of feel like a jerk. :<img class=' />
Reply to message
Do you guys want pre-release reviews on this board? - 20/09/2009 08:40:03 AM 1576 Views
Yes. - 20/09/2009 11:56:22 AM 925 Views
Sorry wrong place. *NM* - 20/09/2009 05:31:27 PM 408 Views
Yes - 20/09/2009 01:12:18 PM 845 Views
No. *NM* - 20/09/2009 01:26:48 PM 413 Views
No, I prefer to see them after the 27th. - 20/09/2009 01:42:38 PM 711 Views
They don't have to read them if they don't want to *NM* - 21/09/2009 01:54:30 AM 408 Views
NO! *NM* - 20/09/2009 02:05:47 PM 459 Views
No *NM* - 20/09/2009 02:22:15 PM 511 Views
Yes *NM* - 20/09/2009 03:08:41 PM 459 Views
Yes please! *NM* - 20/09/2009 03:40:41 PM 465 Views
NO *NM* - 20/09/2009 04:16:55 PM 412 Views
Yes *NM* - 20/09/2009 04:17:32 PM 458 Views
Re: Do you guys want pre-release reviews on this board? - 20/09/2009 05:33:49 PM 724 Views
I just hate getting interupted. even if I'm at work *NM* - 21/09/2009 06:12:13 PM 405 Views
Sorry wrong place *NM* - 21/09/2009 06:12:54 PM 419 Views
We need them to maintain the spike in activity. - 20/09/2009 05:34:14 PM 821 Views
YES. *NM* - 20/09/2009 05:44:48 PM 426 Views
Can anyone who voted no explain why? - 20/09/2009 05:51:51 PM 746 Views
Yes, why not? - 20/09/2009 06:18:42 PM 1013 Views
Yes *NM* - 20/09/2009 06:30:54 PM 391 Views
Yes *NM* - 20/09/2009 06:39:34 PM 397 Views
Yes. I see no reason not to. *NM* - 20/09/2009 07:08:47 PM 402 Views
No, I'll just read them and then go regretting it *NM* - 20/09/2009 07:18:27 PM 397 Views
Yes! - 20/09/2009 07:30:59 PM 728 Views
yes *NM* - 20/09/2009 07:46:37 PM 457 Views
Yes - 20/09/2009 08:34:03 PM 671 Views
Yes *NM* - 20/09/2009 10:08:42 PM 408 Views
Yes *NM* - 20/09/2009 10:17:51 PM 410 Views
Yes- Give ppl the option to see the reviews *NM* - 21/09/2009 12:03:27 AM 399 Views
Yes *NM* - 21/09/2009 12:33:13 AM 375 Views
I vote yes. - 21/09/2009 04:21:28 AM 747 Views
Yes - 21/09/2009 06:12:37 AM 722 Views
Yes - 21/09/2009 09:32:56 AM 716 Views
Yes. Don't click the link if you don't want to read it. *NM* - 21/09/2009 02:39:16 PM 434 Views
No - 21/09/2009 06:15:19 PM 797 Views
I think you missread the rules... - 21/09/2009 08:24:22 PM 1257 Views
so you want to give the admins all kinds of extra work? - 22/09/2009 02:16:56 AM 764 Views
I'm strongly against it - 22/09/2009 05:06:13 AM 897 Views
I hadn't thought about all that, you should have made some kind of pros and cons list - 22/09/2009 08:53:39 AM 838 Views
Re: I'm strongly against it - 22/09/2009 11:45:26 AM 764 Views
So are you going to be the one to enforce this? - 22/09/2009 12:03:16 PM 731 Views
Re: So are you going to be the one to enforce this? - 22/09/2009 12:16:57 PM 894 Views
Re: So are you going to be the one to enforce this? - 22/09/2009 12:42:55 PM 1133 Views
Re: So are you going to be the one to enforce this? - 22/09/2009 01:20:58 PM 725 Views
Re: I'm strongly against it - 22/09/2009 02:39:55 PM 912 Views
As I mentioned elsewhere - 22/09/2009 02:51:00 PM 649 Views
I had no idea about these legalities. - 22/09/2009 05:44:18 PM 718 Views
Re: I had no idea about these legalities. - 22/09/2009 06:25:20 PM 624 Views
Good to know. - 22/09/2009 10:19:57 PM 818 Views
I'm shitfitng to no too. Hope more people change their votes. - 22/09/2009 10:34:22 PM 959 Views
Re: Good to know. - 22/09/2009 11:01:35 PM 763 Views
Interesting - 23/09/2009 12:16:38 AM 845 Views
How much is that infamous COT review to blame? - 24/09/2009 05:01:29 AM 619 Views
Well, Rand IS a transvestite - not exactly a spoiler anymore. - 22/09/2009 08:29:12 AM 729 Views
No, no, no, no, no! *NM* - 21/09/2009 06:31:22 PM 378 Views
You're going to ban/forbid spoiler filled reviews? Weak. - 22/09/2009 08:26:15 AM 691 Views
Ever hear of Napster? - 22/09/2009 12:11:02 PM 685 Views
But that only applies to piracy of the actual book itself. - 23/09/2009 12:36:35 AM 811 Views
Sounds right to me. - 23/09/2009 12:27:57 PM 914 Views
Thank you for the clarification. - 23/09/2009 07:04:13 PM 737 Views
Re: But that only applies to piracy of the actual book itself. - 23/09/2009 07:33:11 PM 964 Views
Re: But that only applies to piracy of the actual book itself. - 27/09/2009 02:41:11 AM 778 Views
Re: But that only applies to piracy of the actual book itself. - 28/09/2009 07:53:46 PM 706 Views
Baloney. The two are not related at all. *NM* - 23/09/2009 07:00:47 PM 436 Views
Yes, as long as no-spoiler policy is employed. *NM* - 23/09/2009 12:04:41 AM 386 Views
No *NM* - 25/09/2009 07:05:03 AM 395 Views

Reply to Message