<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: For Poker-Playing Bathroom Readers Only
Review: My initial inclination was to say that this book is for that small minority of poker lovers with poor literary judgment, but I've decided that would be unduly harsh. It may have some tidbits of knowledge interesting to poker lovers, but most people will just not find the book a satisfying read. It's generally superficial, and yet too dry and boring for a fun bathroom read.I purchased the book due to my interest in poker dogs; my book "Poker Dogs" is appearing in March 2004. While I wasn't sure of the book's contents, there is in fact a poker dogs chapter, "It's a Dog's World, According To Coolidge" by Moira F. Harris. This is an updated version of a little essay she wrote several years ago about the original poker-dog artist, and continues to contain serious errors. She continues to parrot the falsehood by the Brown & Bigelow calendar company that they owned Coolidge's original paintings. The information about Coolidge's work for cigar companies is also, I think, basically false. The idea that Coolidge was "well known as a painter of dogs prior to his affiliation with Brown & Bigelow" is ridiculous. There are other cavils I could offer, but I won't bore you. I told Ms. Harris years ago how Coolidge's calendars were not the 12-month calendars of today, and she repeats my information in the essay. If information about ripping off monthly sheets from a little pad fascinates you, this is for you. Mostly, the essay catalogues latter-day instances of poker dogs in a dry fashion. Not very intriguing. Anyway, moving on from my speciality, the book overall is not very successful. Its portmanteau format, collecting works by various authors, strikes me as agent-driven, whipping up a book that has no reason for being. Using a few "names" to lure people to the book does not mean that their offerings are all that good. The cover mentions the cartoonist Chris Ware, and yet his only contribution is a drawing of the entertainer Bert Williams. Mr. Ware may be a great cartoonist and a superb designer, but this drawing looks to me like mere commercial art--Bert Williams drawn in the style of those fashion drawings that used to appear in department store ads, or in the style of those 1970s children's-book illustrations ... And why does the cover credit Edie Adams--the actress?--with a contribution, when there is no indication inside the book that she actually contributed to the book? Is there some mention of her name inside the book that I missed, or did the cover designer just make a dumb mistake, misremembering the name of non-famous contributor Ashley Adams? The editor of the book refers to the entertainer Bert Williams, whose lyrics appear in the book, as "little known today." That's like calling Caruso "little known today." Anyone who knows a little about the history of American popular music knows who Bert Williams was. And yet in the list of contributors at the back of the book the editor refers to writer Bill Zehme's magazine work as "renowned magazine journalism." Renowned? Respected, perhaps. But renowned? Come on. I think these small instances evidence the kind of sloppiness and superficiality that produced and pervade this book. ...
Rating: 
Summary: The editor responds
Review: While I appreciate the comments by "A reader from the Midwest," as the editor of the book I would like to respond in defense of the excellent writers and artists who contributed to this collection. Since the author remained anonymous I was unable to correspond in private so I will do so here. Clearly this reviewer bought this book for a specific reason and did not give it a thorough reading. I come to this conclusion because of his comments about Edie Adams (he did not think she was included in the book). A seven-page interview with Ms. Adams about her late husband Ernie Kovacs and his obsession with gambling is one of the centerpieces of the collection. And while I genuinely look forward to the reviewer's poker dogs book, in fairness to Ms. Harris (who has a Ph.D. in art history) her piece about paintings of dogs playing poker is intended for people who had no idea that these works were actually attributable to one man, and it has elicited only positive responses from readers so far (your review being the sole exception). If there are inaccuracies I'm sure your book will clear them up, but since it is not yet in print we had no way of referencing it. In response to some of your other comments, Mr. Ware's illustration of Bert Williams is an outstanding work by one of the great graphic artists of our time, and if he makes visual references to period line art that seems appropriate. As far as the semantics of me calling Williams "little known today," I'm surprised that you would disagree with that. The general public today has no idea who Williams was despite his prominence in his day. Unlike performers like W.C. Fields or Chaplin who have become canonized icons, Williams is a figure one must actively seek out. As to your comment about Zehme, you are quoting a line from the "about the authors" section submitted by his publisher to promote his latest book. Are you suggesting that I am a sloppy editor because I didn't insist that Delta books change "renowned" to "respected?" What I mostly want to defend, though, is the idea that this collection is "too dry" for a bathroom read. The strongest response I have received from readers (poker players and non-poker players alike) is that they find this book a perfect bathroom read, and I am very proud to have assembled such a collection.
Rating:
Summary: The editor responds
Review: While I appreciate the comments by "A reader from the Midwest," as the editor of the book I would like to respond in defense of the excellent writers and artists who contributed to this collection. Since the author remained anonymous I was unable to correspond in private so I will do so here. Clearly this reviewer bought this book for a specific reason and did not give it a thorough reading. I come to this conclusion because of his comments about Edie Adams (he did not think she was included in the book). A seven-page interview with Ms. Adams about her late husband Ernie Kovacs and his obsession with gambling is one of the centerpieces of the collection. And while I genuinely look forward to the reviewer's poker dogs book, in fairness to Ms. Harris (who has a Ph.D. in art history) her piece about paintings of dogs playing poker is intended for people who had no idea that these works were actually attributable to one man, and it has elicited only positive responses from readers so far (your review being the sole exception). If there are inaccuracies I'm sure your book will clear them up, but since it is not yet in print we had no way of referencing it. In response to some of your other comments, Mr. Ware's illustration of Bert Williams is an outstanding work by one of the great graphic artists of our time, and if he makes visual references to period line art that seems appropriate. As far as the semantics of me calling Williams "little known today," I'm surprised that you would disagree with that. The general public today has no idea who Williams was despite his prominence in his day. Unlike performers like W.C. Fields or Chaplin who have become canonized icons, Williams is a figure one must actively seek out. As to your comment about Zehme, you are quoting a line from the "about the authors" section submitted by his publisher to promote his latest book. Are you suggesting that I am a sloppy editor because I didn't insist that Delta books change "renowned" to "respected?" What I mostly want to defend, though, is the idea that this collection is "too dry" for a bathroom read. The strongest response I have received from readers (poker players and non-poker players alike) is that they find this book a perfect bathroom read, and I am very proud to have assembled such a collection.
<< 1 >>
| 
