Comments on: Guidebook Review: Broke-Ass Stuart’s Guide to Living Cheaply in New York City

By: Tim Patterson

Tim Patterson — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 23:08:17 +0000

Interactivity is great – what Matador is all about. I thought Julie's review was fair, but it's fine for Stuart and his pals to make their points as well. I wish sticks and asses never entered the conversation, but Stuarts own replies don't seem to cross any lines. NYC is not my favorite place in the world, so maybe it's easier for me to stay disengaged. And I should add that those who say mean things about Julie should know that she's one of the coolest, warmest, nicest, most considerate people in the whole wide world, someone who says what she thinks and is really living the life she imagines. Julie rocks.

(Report comment)

By: Stew

Stew — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 16:17:19 +0000

<<…he doesnt take himself too seriously, which I detest about other guidebooks.>> and reviewers.

(Report comment)

By: collazoprojects

collazoprojects — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 22:30:00 +0000

Interesting that most of the folks coming to Stuart's defense (and again, of his personality, not of the book) fail to engage in any substantive conversation, much less a civil one. Instead, you want to react to your own sense of offense by saying things like "Julie Schwietert should take the stick out of her ass" and "You are getting old" and something utterly ridiculous about turning a coal into a diamond. I never said I dislike profanity or that I myself don't use it. What I said is that a 450 page that relies on a rotating vocabulary of four letter words is pretty pathetic, regardless of the audience, and by the way–the audience (ostensibly people who are moving to or living in New York, based on the title)–has plenty of existing resources for living and experiencing NYC on the cheap.

(Report comment)

By: Eva

Eva — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 20:57:06 +0000

Fair points, Stuart. You certainly have a loyal following! And I do, indeed, feel you on the interactivity of digital media, etc. (Matter o' fact, just the other day I was wishing a newspaper book review I was reading had a comments section, because the author of the review had made some gross factual errors about the book that I wanted to correct.) I think it's cool to point out what you view as mistakes and misinterpretations of your work, etc. I guess I just didn't feel like "I hear they’re looking for someone to adhere those “Explicit Lyrics” stickers onto cover of CD’s" was constructive criticism for the reviewer, or helpful to confused potential readers.

(Report comment)

By: Broke-Ass Stuart

Broke-Ass Stuart — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 19:42:04 +0000

Hi Eva- I completely agree with you about the personal nature of the responses here and I'd like to explain. Because I mostly write in a first, person narrative form, people who are into my work often feel as if they know me well. I also throw Broke-Ass themed events like parties and pub crawls multiple times a year, at which I actually get to hang out with and meet a lot of my readers. The coupling of these two things can often makes it so that many people who have started out as fans, have become friends and vice-versa. That's probably why the responses seemed so personal. But as for my response to the review, I really don't think it was uncalled for. One of the things that the democratizing effect of the internet has created is a space where discourse happens. In fact that is entirely why Intense Debate, the engine that runs these comments, exists. Back when print media (newspapers, magazines, etc.) was king, a reviewer could write anything they wanted and not have to see any repercussions. Even if readers did write letters in protest to the publications, the publications got to choose which were published. But since those mediums are dying and digital media is taking over, people who choose to be critics must also deal with the possibility that their critiques might get openly critiqued themselves. Do you feel what I'm saying? One of the good things about this is that the people who do create (art, films, books, etc.) finally get a chance to openly defend and debate the merits of what it is that they have created. So just as other people have the right to judge my work based on the review of someone else, I have the right to stick up for myself. Ain't the 21st Century grand?

(Report comment)

By: Christine Gilbert

Christine Gilbert — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 16:58:50 +0000

Authors who defend themselves in comments on blogs, make me laugh. I remember when Thomas Kohnstamm got into all kinds of little web flame wars over bad reviews of his book, and in the end, people just remember "Do Travel Writers go to Hell?" for writing the Colombia update from home and taking freebies (the first part wasn't even in the book either, just goes to show). So you can patronize Julie's review and defend your own writing, but it's probably doing the opposite of what you want. It isn't convincing people that she's wrong, it just makes you look like you can't take criticism. Maybe this is something you can use as an opportunity. Instead of being frustrated as a writer that people don't get it, you can try to understand Julie's perspective and decide what that means for your future books. Do you want to hit a wider audience? You might want to tone it down. Do you want to remain faithful to your core audience, then make the decision to stay the same. But accept the fact that you will not appeal to some people. But what ever you do, don't be like Thomas Kohnstamm, who in one breathe bragged about being a bad travel writer, and in the next took offense at people implying the same. You had to know that putting swears in your book was going to turn some people off. And if you're truly shocked by this, best not to let on.

(Report comment)

By: Oliver

Oliver — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 01:59:34 +0000

Reviewer's insufficiently explored introspection should be acknowledged: you are getting old. The reference to Fodor's and Frommer's says as much. The guide may not be for everyone, but hey, a round of applause for an informative guide that is simultaneously an enjoyable read.

(Report comment)

By: Eva

Eva — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 00:37:18 +0000

I have to say I'm a little puzzled by the recent responses here. Whether or not Broke-Ass Stuart is "actually a really nice guy" isn't really the point, is it? A reviewer didn't like his book. That doesn't make him — or her — a bad person, so I'm not sure why this has suddenly become all about people's characters. One thing, though, Stuart: I had never heard of you before this little mini-debacle, so I can't say I know much about you or your writing. But I do find it a little odd that you're calling a reviewer "unprofessional" while simultaneously visiting a blog to insult her in the comments section. Haranguing reviewers who don't like your books is, at the very least, a little tacky, no?

(Report comment)

By: Zora

Zora — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 23:22:25 +0000

Well said, Stuart, especially w/r/t the inclusion of items like TKTS. There is a certain amount of familiar ground _any_ guidebook has to cover…or else Julie would've ended up saying something like "Broke-Ass Stuart's coverage is hit-or-miss–he digs up obscure bars with free-pizza deals, but fails to mention great, easily accessible deals like TKTS." Also, Julie, you missed the Queens section. It's small…but it's there. (I flipped right to it because that's where I live. In just a few paragraphs, Stuart nails most of the cool and relatively accessible things about the borough.) The fact that you didn't see it makes me question the substance of the rest of your review. As for the profanity, it seems odd to me that you'd choose to review a book that you'd already judged by its cover. Were you trying to keep your "most prolific contributor" title?

(Report comment)

By: collazoprojects

collazoprojects — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 22:59:09 +0000

cont. 3. A review of a single book isn't a reflection on an author's entire body of work (I haven't read anything else you've written). Nor is a book review a reflection on you as a human being. I find it interesting that a few people have hopped to your defense here today–several days after this was published–to attest to your character. That's fine. But it's not the point of a book review, and it seems that the person who is really uptight here isn't me– it's you and the cadre of folks who appear to have been deployed to speak positively about you (Mr. Grieves– come on. At least I use my real name). 4. I did read your book. I don't think you offer anything that any other guidebook doesn't already offer.

(Report comment)