223 replies to this topic

[marktmurphy]

I'm with spynovelfan on this one. I've read Never Dream of Dying, I thought it was a very bad book. There's nothing wrong with voicing that opinion (as, we keep getting told, it is just Jim's opinion), but the manner it was done here is rather mean and nasty and leaves a bad taste in my mouth. A shame; I like Jim and his writing a lot, I just think he went too far here.

[dee-bee-five]

I think it would be a very sad day for free speech if the author of a book being reviewed had the right to reply.

Isn't that what free speech is all about anyway, the right to speak up when something is wrong?

But that perception in this case is subjective. Some feel Jim went too far, others don't. And what exactly is the crime, here? All it really amounts to is that someone has written a scathingly funny put down of someone else's book. Meanwhile, in Darfur...

Besides, the author has had his say in the book. The critic has his in his review. I don't see why the author should have a second bite at the cherry. Where does it end? If the author has right to reply, does the reviewer then have the right to reply to the reply?

[marktmurphy]

Besides, the author has had his say in the book. The critic has his in his review. I don't see why the author should have a second bite at the cherry. Where does it end? If the author has right to reply, does the reviewer then have the right to reply to the reply?

Sound like, hmm... a forum of some kind...

[dee-bee-five]

Besides, the author has had his say in the book. The critic has his in his review. I don't see why the author should have a second bite at the cherry. Where does it end? If the author has right to reply, does the reviewer then have the right to reply to the reply?

Sound like, hmm... a forum of some kind...

A forum for authors and critics? Imagine how ghastly that would be . It's bad enough when it's just fanboys...

I know a writer who had a play savaged by a critic. The critic called my friend talentless and overrated, my friend always calls the critic a cult (or something that sounds like it... ). Seems much more sensible to me.

[Scrambled Eggs]

I'm becoming disturbed by Jim's absence from this forum.

I hope he's away on holiday with Mrs Jim, rather than in an underground bunker plotting to take down the naysayers of this thread Bronson style.

[dee-bee-five]

I'm becoming disturbed by Jim's absence from this forum.

I hope he's away on holiday with Mrs Jim, rather than in an underground bunker plotting to take down the naysayers of this thread Bronson style.

One images he's sitting back and enjoying it all enormously. At least, I hope he is...

[marktmurphy]

I'm becoming disturbed by Jim's absence from this forum.

I hope he's away on holiday with Mrs Jim, rather than in an underground bunker plotting to take down the naysayers of this thread Bronson style.

Piers Bronson?

[Scrambled Eggs]

I'm becoming disturbed by Jim's absence from this forum.

I hope he's away on holiday with Mrs Jim, rather than in an underground bunker plotting to take down the naysayers of this thread Bronson style.

Piers Bronson?

Not him. I of course meant Branson, the international mega villain with his vast reserves of jets, trains, mobile phones and space vehicles.

Either him or this bloke:

[The Admiral]

People's comments in this thread haven't been ignored, and everything is being reviewed.

[Doctor Shatterhand]

I think it would be a very sad day for free speech if the author of a book being reviewed had the right to reply.

Isn't that what free speech is all about anyway, the right to speak up when something is wrong?

But that perception in this case is subjective. Some feel Jim went too far, others don't. And what exactly is the crime, here? All it really amounts to is that someone has written a scathingly funny put down of someone else's book. Meanwhile, in Darfur...

Besides, the author has had his say in the book. The critic has his in his review. I don't see why the author should have a second bite at the cherry. Where does it end? If the author has right to reply, does the reviewer then have the right to reply to the reply?

Unfortunately it is called democracy. The answer is yes to both parties.

People's comments in this thread haven't been ignored, and everything is being reviewed.

Thank you, Dave.

[dee-bee-five]

I think it would be a very sad day for free speech if the author of a book being reviewed had the right to reply.

Isn't that what free speech is all about anyway, the right to speak up when something is wrong?

But that perception in this case is subjective. Some feel Jim went too far, others don't. And what exactly is the crime, here? All it really amounts to is that someone has written a scathingly funny put down of someone else's book. Meanwhile, in Darfur...

Besides, the author has had his say in the book. The critic has his in his review. I don't see why the author should have a second bite at the cherry. Where does it end? If the author has right to reply, does the reviewer then have the right to reply to the reply?

Unfortunately it is called democracy.

I would suggest that the priorities of democracy are - or should be - rather more lofty than the piffling matter of a spat between an author and a reviewer which, in the grand scheme of things, actually accounts for... well, nothing...

[marktmurphy]

Yes, I think he meant 'free speech'. Everyone has the right to say anything as long as it's not inflammatory, it's just the access to a platform to say it from that may or may not be the problem.

[DAN LIGHTER]

People's comments in this thread haven't been ignored, and everything is being reviewed.

The Admiral what are the results of the review?

[Mr. Blofeld]

People's comments in this thread haven't been ignored, and everything is being reviewed.

The Admiral what are the results of the review?

Yea, verily; what sayeth thou?