Book Review: The MMA Encyclopedia

but I honestly have no idea who Igor Zinoviev is. :P

wouldn’t it just be orientation?

Really? Odd. In the bookstore I go to, the books in the shelves are all non-wrapped but when I have to order on to be delivered to the store it’s almost always wrapped. So I kinda thought they arrive wrapped and then get unwrapped…thinking about the amount of books there though, I feel that maybe that assumption was not very logical. ;)

If “written well” to you is just “well articulated”, then yes. To me, that is not all I expect.

Your comment assumes that it must be apparent to everyone this is not a “real” encyclopedia. I however agree wit aTn that some people could have a misconception of what the book offers because of its title and therefore him mentioning it was valuable input. The end.

It was a deliberate exaggeration of what he said to make the underlying issue clearer: that the option he mentioned were “i do it myself” which to him equaled “going through some elaborate charade to outsource the review to someone that would give it a favorable review” – because after all he had already concluded it was a fine book and would therefore not accept a negative review (aka someone “slamming” it). That is not exactly the way the question wether or not to contract a third party for the review should be approached if objectivity is your aim, don’t you agree? And as I’ve pointed out below it certainly is not the only or even best option for a journalist in his position.

To be clear about this: I am not saying your book sucks (I don’t know but my guess would be, it’s rather good). I’m not saying Nate was bought or anything. I disagree strongly with his nonchalante depiction of how this review was handled and the “That’s all we can do”-conclusion because it is clearly not “all you can do”. Not even half-way there.

That’s not what I meant and certainly not what I said. What I did say is that your post makes it sound like it’s either “you review it yourself” or “have someone else review it positively”. Those are the only two options you presented. And I’m saying: no, if you want to handle this in the ethically correct manner (for a journalist), you’d either refrain from endorsing or condemning the book due to your connection to Snowden or you will hand the book to a reliable, neutral third party.

I’m not even saying you’re biased – I think one can be perfectly capable of an objective review even if it’s a friends book. But I think your answer to “Horselover” was making a trifle of what, from my point of view, was a valid point and a serious matter of (journalistic) principle.

Thanks anyway for handling my post as professionally as the review…what am I saying: even more so! :)

Weird reply…but: besides Ariel Helwani seeming like more of a company man than Rich Franklin at times: yes, I do. ;)

There’s always gonna be errors…both factual and grammatical. But this was a massive undertaking that no one has ever tried to do. I think it’s okay to give some leeway.

So true. So funny.