Thankfully off the topic-
Has anyone seen his short films "Conflict of Interest" on Michael Connelly's website?
They are the leadup to MC's new noveL, THE SCARECROW. Nicely done
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Brian Thornton <bthorntonwriter@...> wrote:
> 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
> just infantile.
> 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 <davezelt@...> wrote:
> > --- In email@example.com <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.
> > --Dave
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 17 Jun 2009 EDT