May 10 ‘014 EMCSA Update (supplement)

I searched the MC Forum for the old review out of curiosity after posting the recent review. So, here is the old review for Invasion of the Nylonians for comparative purposes:

Via May 8 2011 Update

Invasion of the Nylonians  (mc mf ff fd ft) (new) by   jman_bigdaddy         
-3/5 (decent, not perfect)–

From the start, I found myself truly enjoying the narrative. Though its not the fault of the author, all the apostrophes were strangely converted into question marks. There is a similar issue with what appears to mark page or chapter numbers (“Invasion of the Nylonians 5”). Clearly just file conversion awkwardness! Anyway, the “drone” aspect is not exactly my thing. I am curious as to why the scientist at the beginning wasn’t affected in the same way as the others when smothered by that black goo. More chapters to come? A fine narrative, but sadly not quite my thing erotically.

 

It is first interesting to note that this version was probably not the original bouncing around, while it was designed to be more of a means to gain interest in the then recently published ebook version. Like I said in the recent review, prior versions are not readily available. Anyway, it is hard to say precisely what caused the .5 drop in score. Perhaps my tastes changed; perhaps the story changed. Maybe, it’s none of the above. The difference between 2.5 and 3 in my system is not all that much. Anything 2 and above is objectively a perfectly readable story. That means that Nylonians is still better than a perfectly readable story.

Still, this poses an interesting conundrum for reviewers. What happens when we look over something we reviewed years back? My opinion is that this reedit of Nylonians gives reviewers  and readers an excuse to give something another look. I mean, how often do reviewers look back on past reviewed works? Probably not enough, to say they least.

Invasion of the Nylonians has many wonderful aspects that makes it worth a read, and in the case of the author, a reedit. It is what it is, as are all stories. Even better, it was good enough the last time around to give that umph to read it again. Those are major things that reviewers should take out of this chance to see a story in a revised light. This kind of experience doesn’t pollute our opinions. It gives us a chance to color our opinions through critical thinking.

If not spam, please don't hesitate to comment!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: