There's a typo in the paragraph that begins "Crystallization in this context ...." "That word should be a big blue" should be "a big clue." I've alerted Traldi and American Affairs.
I have always responded to negative reviews. It brings more attention to the book! Nobody will decide not to read a book from a response to criticism, and maybe it will prompt them to look at it, they probably didn't even read the initial review. With this purpose in mind, keep it short and stick to a few incontrovertible facts that would be useful to the reader (like what your book actually says about a significant issue).
Enjoyed this spirited defense. For further evidence of the bad faith on Bob Casey pro-choice/pro-life, the first mention of Casey identifies him as pro-life and the second contains the typo, which is extra clear under the context of the passage. Any reasonably charitable reviewer would recognize that the mistake was unintentional, the kind of thing that inevitably leaks through.
This was a p*** poor critique of your book and your reponse was appropriate. I read your "pro-choice governor" passage as a simple typo, and Trialdi, an actual writer, most certainly did as well.
Just to not belabor your critique of a bad review of a very good book, I just want to note that I finished reading When the Clock Broke just two days ago.
I liked a whole lot of the book, and find it accords well with my actual memories of the time period covered. But I loved the last few pages, where the final long Dick Francis quote reads like a template for Now, and the closing image of the old (ex?) fascist and the new incipient (alleged) fascist riding together to Atlantic City.
I read the review before I read John’s response. More interested in finding fault than engaging with the texts. Makes the mistake of many by reviewing a book the reviewer wished was written rather than the one(s) that was/were. Would never attempt to write that book, mind you. I abhor these types of reviews which seem to be proliferating but are absolutely useless to readers unless they want to choose things to read that only match their priors.
It’s irritating when this kind of deliberate ignorance of context and tone is applied to reading your tweet, it must be maddening when applied to individual sentences in your book.
Bravo.... I've been reading the permutations of the paradox of intolerance and facing personal conflict because I'm evidently a sore loser in the wake of our presidential election. So, let's just be honest here.... having someone attack you publicly and not allowing them to gaslight you academically in the process is top tier self-respect. And now I will have to read your book because proving to myself that I can still wade into the deep end of the pool and at least splash around is a big deal after 4 years of death threats, insults, verbal abuse, and hate for refusing to tolerate and accept fascist ideologies. These are exceptional times requiring those of us still fighting to take some extraordinary measures in defense of our own right to exist.
It's definitely a dilemma when a reviewer is flagrantly and willfully obtuse. When one of my books received such a review, I managed to hold my fire. But when someone asked to contribute something to the journal where the review appeared, I made no bones about telling the scholar as well as the journal's general editor and book-review editor that I had grave doubts about the editorial oversight and judgment at the journal.
I think it is fair game to alert people when a reviewer proves themself willing to write hackish hit jobs, or else is clearly incapable of grasping an author's intentions and arguments before evaluating them. It's helps sustain professional standards when there are consequences for piss-poor reviewing.
that was very satisfying and i'm glad you wrote it. we've become inured to 'inappropriate' behavior in the trump era, so what if you hafta stoop there to reach a reviewer who may or may not be conscious.
Verbal counter-punching is quite alright when you have a legitimate beef with someone, and you make that case. While quibbling is boring, articulate contention often gets to the heart of an issue. So, good for you!
There's a typo in the paragraph that begins "Crystallization in this context ...." "That word should be a big blue" should be "a big clue." I've alerted Traldi and American Affairs.
I have always responded to negative reviews. It brings more attention to the book! Nobody will decide not to read a book from a response to criticism, and maybe it will prompt them to look at it, they probably didn't even read the initial review. With this purpose in mind, keep it short and stick to a few incontrovertible facts that would be useful to the reader (like what your book actually says about a significant issue).
Enjoyed this spirited defense. For further evidence of the bad faith on Bob Casey pro-choice/pro-life, the first mention of Casey identifies him as pro-life and the second contains the typo, which is extra clear under the context of the passage. Any reasonably charitable reviewer would recognize that the mistake was unintentional, the kind of thing that inevitably leaks through.
This was a p*** poor critique of your book and your reponse was appropriate. I read your "pro-choice governor" passage as a simple typo, and Trialdi, an actual writer, most certainly did as well.
Just to not belabor your critique of a bad review of a very good book, I just want to note that I finished reading When the Clock Broke just two days ago.
I liked a whole lot of the book, and find it accords well with my actual memories of the time period covered. But I loved the last few pages, where the final long Dick Francis quote reads like a template for Now, and the closing image of the old (ex?) fascist and the new incipient (alleged) fascist riding together to Atlantic City.
You had me at "Dick Francis quote"... 😁
I read the review before I read John’s response. More interested in finding fault than engaging with the texts. Makes the mistake of many by reviewing a book the reviewer wished was written rather than the one(s) that was/were. Would never attempt to write that book, mind you. I abhor these types of reviews which seem to be proliferating but are absolutely useless to readers unless they want to choose things to read that only match their priors.
It’s irritating when this kind of deliberate ignorance of context and tone is applied to reading your tweet, it must be maddening when applied to individual sentences in your book.
Bravo.... I've been reading the permutations of the paradox of intolerance and facing personal conflict because I'm evidently a sore loser in the wake of our presidential election. So, let's just be honest here.... having someone attack you publicly and not allowing them to gaslight you academically in the process is top tier self-respect. And now I will have to read your book because proving to myself that I can still wade into the deep end of the pool and at least splash around is a big deal after 4 years of death threats, insults, verbal abuse, and hate for refusing to tolerate and accept fascist ideologies. These are exceptional times requiring those of us still fighting to take some extraordinary measures in defense of our own right to exist.
See, this post is why I‘m a paid subscriber.
It's definitely a dilemma when a reviewer is flagrantly and willfully obtuse. When one of my books received such a review, I managed to hold my fire. But when someone asked to contribute something to the journal where the review appeared, I made no bones about telling the scholar as well as the journal's general editor and book-review editor that I had grave doubts about the editorial oversight and judgment at the journal.
I think it is fair game to alert people when a reviewer proves themself willing to write hackish hit jobs, or else is clearly incapable of grasping an author's intentions and arguments before evaluating them. It's helps sustain professional standards when there are consequences for piss-poor reviewing.
that was very satisfying and i'm glad you wrote it. we've become inured to 'inappropriate' behavior in the trump era, so what if you hafta stoop there to reach a reviewer who may or may not be conscious.
okay, i'll stop there.
Verbal counter-punching is quite alright when you have a legitimate beef with someone, and you make that case. While quibbling is boring, articulate contention often gets to the heart of an issue. So, good for you!
Beautifully done John. As usual. An elegant filleting.