In addition to making some fairly interesting points this post is also an ad
hominem attack, and I don't like seeing it, just like I didn't like seeing
the last one.
You really know your stuff, so how about you leave the personal stuff out of
it and stick to a discussion of the writing?
And don't bother with one of those, "he did it first" responses. That's
And people wonder why Terrill Lankford is a *former* subscriber to Rara
All the Best-
Brian, who is no one's apologist, just really getting tired of the
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 8:40 PM, davezeltserman <email@example.com> wrote:
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org <rara-avis-l%40yahoogroups.com>, Kevin
> Burton Smith <kvnsmith@...> wrote:
> > Or what? You'll pose with a pool cue?
> Another unprovoked shot, huh, Kevin?
> To set the record straight, that wasn't a pose. I needed a picture for
> Point Blank Press, and the ones my wife were taking weren't coming out well,
> so she had me shoot a game of pool and took pictures while I shot, so no
> posing was involved. But you want to know something? A lot of writers pose
> for their photos, some pay a lot of money for studio shots, and some big
> name writers even pose to look tough (or whatever image they're trying to
> project)--I've seen plenty of tough guy Robert Parker shots over the years
> and while he seemed like a nice guy the few times I've seen him at Kate's,
> he doesn't appear all that particularly tough in real life. Just in his
> posed shots. But wait a minute, is it taking potshots if I dare mention a
> populist writer, especially one you idolize?? Btw. I'd rather have my pool
> shot on display than your goateed wrinkled turtle head shot that for
> whatever reason you're using.
> Now Kevin, I know you're a paragon of truth, virtue and pedestrian populist
> writing, but let's quit the bullshit. You had no interest in talking about
> humor noir (whatever the fuck that is) when you started posting about
> brown-nosing circle-jerkers, and then accusing me of providing a blurb
> without reading the book. You started all this because you smelled blood,
> and wanted to accuse either me and/or Allan Guthrie in lacking integrity for
> providing blurbs for a book that you, as the paragon for truth, virtue and
> pedestrian populist writing, found lacking. That's pretty clear from your
> earlier posts, but when the book gathered support from other sources you had
> to change your tactics. Now I know you're going to come back with a lot of
> bluster and misdirection and accusations, and I know some of your apologists
> are going to come out defending you, as what happens on every list when you
> start your bullying ways. But let's quit the bullshit, okay?
> Now other issues, I didn't believe Flexer had any intention of writing a
> comedy with Disassembled Man, same with Jim Thompson when writing Pop. 1280.
> Humor frequently pops up in crime fiction--even in Derek Raymond's savage
> and very grim factory books. In Flexer's case, humor might have been used,
> especially absurdest humor, but to me I took his intentions of showing his
> protagonist in a full psychotic breakdown, and that its intention was to be
> a serious work, although no argument for me that he was at times is trying
> too hard.
> Now your take on blurbs I found particularly bizarre. A writer giving
> another writer a blurb is not the same as writing a review. They're not
> stressing all the strengths and weaknesses of a work. If given honestly it's
> an endorsement, but it's also the equivalent of a sound bite. What was my
> blurb for "The Disassembled Man"? Something like it's a shotgun blast of a
> novel where Jim Thompson's psychotic noir meets Bruce Jay Friedman's
> absurdest humor? By giving the blurb I'm clearly endorsing the book, which
> I'm comfortable with, and I believe my short description gives an accurate
> representation, which again I'm comfortable with. But I'm sorry, if you
> expect me to write a blurb such as "The book has excesses and indulgences,
> but the writer shows real talent, and the book is worth reading if you like
> Jim Thompson and Bruce Jay Friedman, even though it might be a bit rough",
> you're nuts. We can take a look at some of the blurbs that bestselling
> writers give, and we can see how honest those are.
> About your question dealing with what writers should expect from reviews, I
> can tell you most writers I know would answer this the same way--honest
> reviews. When the reviewer starts making it personal (as you did with The
> Disassembled Man), that's when they're off base, and I'd bet you just about
> any writer at any level feels that way. Btw. A writer puts a book out there,
> its fair game for review, but I did find it interesting that you would
> hammer away at a first time writer who is probably at the absolute bottom of
> the totem pole with the vitriol that you did.
> About writing reviews for books that haven't been read all the way
> through--I agree. But guess?? Here on rara avis we're not writing reviews,
> but engaging in discussions, and anything is fair game, even the bullshit
> that you keep bringing up.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 17 Jun 2009 EDT