I have some more thoughts about what I am willing to read and review. I am generally not indifferent to what I read. Reading is one of the few engaging activities I have where I can safely indulge a feeling of passion. I either truly like something or I develop a loathing for it, after I have read it. That sometimes applies to content creators as well. I do not separate the art from the artist. It has been my experience and observation for the past thirty-five years that if a content creator is unethical, or worse, morally corrupt, their work reflects that. I have decided that I won’t post a negative review of a creative effort here unless I have some informational or educational point to make. I also refuse to engage in analysis of the sundry content creators I have learned of over the decades since the early Eighties whose behavior available in the public record is of the clearly morally repugnant sort. That kind of analysis would be a hit piece or character assassination at best or an actionable ad hominum attack at worst. That is not the purpose of this blog. I have fewer limitations when reviewing a book on Goodreads, but I am still constrained by policy from posting a personal attack on an author.
Which brings me to the topic of this post. If you fail to see a review of a work by a content creator who had been or has been active since the early Eighties, then the conditions outline above mostly likely apply. The exceptions to this are a whole laundry list of authors and their works available on my Goodreads “to read” list. I am insatiably curious and am willing to give a content creator a shot if I can’t find a review of their work which warns me off.
That reminds me. It might be useful or even helpful if I make my Goodreads lists available to the general public. I might have to tinker with the permission on my Goodreads profile, too. Ah well, I don’t have anything else better to do this morning after I publish this piece. 😉