Skip to main content

A PR triumph

I get a lot of press releases, but I have enjoyed few more than one I recently got from a book review website called Summary Guru, which site carries the headline 'GET INSPIRATION FOR YOUR PAPER WITH AI POWERED BOOK SUMMARIES & ANALYSIS – PLAGIARISM FREE' (Does inspiration need to be plagiarism free? Or just stuff you copy and paste?)

To demonstrate the effectiveness of Summary Guru, the release tells us 'Before Watching Netflix's One Day, Know These Five Fascinating Details From The Book' - details produced by Summary Guru. Here they are, with a few of my comments:

1. It's about a single day... across twenty years

To be honest, if you don't know this before watching the series, you haven't being paying attention.

2. It deeply explores relationships

This is illustrated with 'To quote Emma (the novel’s main female character): “Dexter, I love you so much…and I probably always will. I just don't like you anymore. I'm sorry.”' Yep, deep.

3. The book is rich in philosophy

Take a sabbatical, philosophy lecturers. Apparently 'Nicholls sprinkles many philosophical ideas through the book, highlighted by quotes such as, ‘’I think reality is overrated’’ and ‘’There is always joy in witnessing the joy of others.”' Wow, why did I bother reading philosopher Philip Goff's book on the purpose of the universe?

4. It's light and dark.

This a real step forward for a fiction title, I think. We should see more of it, novelists.

5. There are bursts of humour

We are told 'But it’s not all doom and gloom; here are two light-hearted quotes that illustrate how funny Nicholls's prose can be:

  • “Oh, you know me. I have no emotions. I'm a robot. Or a nun. A robot nun.”
  • “Call me sentimental, but there's no one in the world that I'd like to see get dysentery more than you.”
LOL.

I know press releases are easy targets, but this feels more like a parody than the real thing. Perhaps it was intended as irony, but I'm not sure it was.

In case the release inspires you to get a copy of One Day, it is available from amazon.co.uk, amazon.com and bookshop.org

Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you

See all of Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly digest for free here

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex
114 comments
Read more

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor
24 comments
Read more

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope
22 comments
Read more