Why don't you just come clean now and tell us all that you are, in fact, Mark Rice, and just want exposure for your new novel?

Written by Fat & Sassy! on 05.09.2011 at 10:51

Why don't you just come clean now and tell us all that you are, in fact, Mark Rice, and just want exposure for your new novel?

http://www.dramabutton.com/

This seems like something i won't be reading... I'm not getting into details, but in other hand it's nice to see there is some metal related lit.

The truest part of the so-called review above is Doc Godin's admission, "I'm a music critic, not a book critic." Yes, Mr Godin, that much is startlingly clear. Your failure to recognise the depth, symbolism and humour in Metallic Dreams showcases that, as does your less-than-competent use of the English language. In the first sentence of your 'review', you use hyphens where they shouldn't exist (hyphens are added to create a compound adjective only when it is followed by a noun). The hyphen-related foibles continue when, in an unintentionally ironic move, you use the phrase "16 year old with a bit of writing talent". The irony is that every 16-year-old with even a modicum of writing talent would know that your use of "16 year old" (lacking hyphens) is grammatically incorrect. In a later sentence, you combine hyphen misuse with incorrect verb conjugation. The 'review' is a prime example of someone with a poor understanding of literature incompetently criticising the work of an author who has achieved mastery over literary technique and storytelling. Don't give up your day job, Mr Godin: leave literary deconstruction and criticism to those with a comprehensive understanding of literature, plot devices, humour and the English language. Metallic Dreams is a monumental monster of a novel which authors, poets, lovers of literature and musicians (including Zodiac Mindwarp and Saxon) have embraced.

Let's put grammatical semantics to one side in order to focus on the content of Doc Godin's 'review'. Does it contain lucid observations? No. Does it show the reviewer's incisive understanding of humour, plot, symbolism and subtext? No, it shows the reviewer's (almost complete) failure to comprehend those phenomena. Is the 'review' a work of meritorious literary criticism? Not even close. Lucky Charms and steak? Eh? Godin (Heaven), you cannot be serious! As an attempt at analogy, cleverness and humour, that missed the target by a country mile. The 'review' contains multiple contradictions that don't add up. For example, "The writer knows what he's doing, I have to admit that." OK, Mr Godin, we take that point on board: the author has excellent literary technique. Wait a moment, though; a few sentences later, you contradict yourself by saying, "Had I not known better, I would think Metallic Dreams had been written by a 16 year old with a bit of writing talent". This (grammatically incorrectly) disagrees with your previous sentiment in a way that's nothing short of schizophrenic. Award-winning novelists and poets - as well as metal musicians - have recognised Rice's literary prowess and ability to write sparkling dialogue.

You somehow fail to perceive the humour in Metallic Dreams, commenting that, "Such an absurd piece of writing may actually be more digestible had it been presented in a comedic fashion." Excuse me? The book is FULL of humour and comedic situations. I laughed heartily at regular intervals throughout the story, as did everyone else I know who read the book. All except you, that is, who apparently need someone to hold up a sign saying 'FUNNY' to tell you when you've reached an amusing passage. Your "comedic fashion" comment is the literary equivalent of saying, after listening to a Steel Panther album, "Such an absurd recording may be more effective if it included some humour." Yes, humour is a subjective phenomenon. One man's art is another man's arsewipe. It's staggering, however, to think that anyone could read Metallic Dreams and fail to recognise its light-hearted elements. Some of the humour is dark, some is subtle, but much of it is slapstick in the best heavy metal fashion, à la Spinal Tap.

Doc Godin declares that the book is "highly entertaining in small doses". I agree. Highly entertaining in small doses and even more entertaining in bigger chunks. Godin then complains that the book is too long. Godin's complaint about the novel's length, combined with the opinion that the story is "highly entertaining in small doses", points to one inescapable conclusion: a short attention span. That's not a crime; many people have short attention spans. For such a person to review a majestic and lengthy work of prose, however, is preposterous. Perhaps, Doc, you would have preferred Metallic Dreams in comic form. That way, you could have looked at the pictures and soaked up the story without having the hassle of reading all those pesky words.

The 'review' claims that the story is "completely lacking in any form of subtlety". Doc Godin must have read a different novel, as Mark Rice's Metallic Dreams contains palpable sadness and poignant moments that have brought big, bad metal musicians and uncompromising Celtic poets to tears. Godin's failure to infer emotion from literature is yet more glaring proof that he should stick to his day job and leave literary criticism to those equipped to do it.

Another statement from the 'review': "Maybe there is a lot of well thought out intellectual bits hiding in here somewhere that I'm just not seeing." That sentence is a grammatical disaster of titanic proportions; its verb conjugation is incorrect, and the compound adjective lacks two hyphens. If the sentence were constructed properly, it would begin with, "Maybe there are a lot of well-thought-out intellectual bits..." Let's overlook the shambolic grammar, though, and deal with the intention. Yes, the book contains myriad intellectual observations which incorporate aspects of mythology, religion, self-realisation, metaphysics and - of course - heavy metal. And yes, Mr Godin, as you suspected, you failed to see them.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, and Doc Godin's is as valid as anyone else's. Before attempting to write criticism of literature, however, he should first have a deep understanding of it.

Award-winning authors and poets love Metallic Dreams, as does Zodiac Mindwarp, who was entranced by its cleverness and humour. As most dyed-in-the-wool metalheads know, the Tattooed Beat Messiah is a literary genius and a lyrical/musical legend. So, fellow lovers of metal, the choice is yours: take the word of genius and heavy metal icon Zodiac Mindwarp or listen to a 'reviewer' who completely failed to understand the novel's symbolism, humour and intricacies. My advice: stick with the Z man all the way. You won't regret it.

If you have a sense of humour, fun and adventure, you'll find Metallic Dreams a life-enriching experience.

If Zodiac Mindwarp embraced it then you know it to be shit. Zodiac Minwarp was, is and will always be the biggest joke around.

A publisher, or author, trying to convince the public at large how wrong a review is, is just as funny, pathetic, whatever, as a record label, or band, trying to convinve everyone around how wrong a review is.

I haven't read Metallic Dreams, yet, so I can't state if I agree or disagree with Doc. But I have seen it receive mixed reviews all across the board. By both so-called literary critics as well as music critics.

Written by dornadair on 27.10.2011 at 18:53
...

*facepalm*

Sorry, your self-promotion won't work here. If anything you've just convinced anyone who happens to bother reading this review thread to go out of their way to ignore this book now.

Marcel, your view on Zodiac (or anything else, for that matter) is simply one man's opinion. It's narcissistic of you to think your opinion carries weight or is in some way definitive. 'Tattooed Beat Messiah' and 'High Priest of Love' are widely considered to be seminal recordings, just as the books 'Bad Wisdom' and 'Wild Highway' have received much critical acclaim. Mr Mindwarp is far from the only artist to endorse Metallic Dreams: all five members of Saxon have too, as have other musicians, authors and poets. Your comment that you've seen mixed reviews of the book is untrue; it has been universally applauded by the literati. Doc Godin's so-called review is the first schizophrenic one the book has received. Other reviews have been lucid, literary and complimentary, perhaps because those reviewers knew their craft. When Doc Godin decided to moonlight as a reviewer of literature, he plunged into waters that were way out of his depth.

Troy, you don't have the first clue what folk will think when they read this thread, so quit trying to play God. I didn't neuter Doc Godin's inept 'review' in order to promote myself. This is nothing to do with me. I defend any art that I love when it receives unjustified flak. The bottom line is that anyone purporting to review literature should have the ability to infer humour, pathos, emotion and symbolism from text, and should have a command of the language in which they're writing reviews. Based on the evidence above, Doc Godin has neither.

I'd be happy to send your book back if you like.

Written by Doc G. on 28.10.2011 at 04:07
I'd be happy to send your book back if you like.

Almost choked on my crackers while reading that.

Written by Troy Killjoy on 28.10.2011 at 05:21

Written by Doc G. on 28.10.2011 at 04:07
I'd be happy to send your book back if you like.

Almost choked on my crackers while reading that.

It's a pity you didn't.

Written by dornadair on 28.10.2011 at 08:58
It's a pity you didn't.

Don't worry, you aren't the first butt-hurt promoter we've had here. Don't make yourself at home.

Written by dornadair on 27.10.2011 at 18:53

*disgruntled rambling*

For an experienced literary aficionado such as yourself you seem awfully susceptible to a bit of light criticism. If you regard Doc as such an inept literary exponent and appreciator then why take offense? This would imply that you regard his opinion as bearing some weight. Are you worried that readers of this website may feel inclined to give the book a miss?

"Metallic Dreams is a monumental monster of a novel"- this is an extremely bold claim. In what sense is it monumental? Despite the number of people whose opinions you so highly regard (including, evidently, your own) I'm rather skeptical of it being received beyond a small appreciative fan base. One obvious element engenders my doubt; you do realize we are talking about Heavy Metal fiction here right? I mean, be realistic, in no way can I picture a metal themed piece of literature capturing the hearts and thoughts of millions. I feel pretty comfortable in this assumption. Might it win over legions of metal fans? Perhaps, if the book truly resonates with it's target audience.

I find it really intriguing how you think that because particular individuals and groups endorse it that the quality of this book is inescapably conclusive. With all due respect to Zodiac and, especially, Saxon, how is their opinion any more definitive than that of Doc? They are after all not literary critics, I find it strange that you consider yourself as fitting into this category yet cite musicians as authoritative. Simply because their careers and lifestyle may be exemplified in the book doesn't mean that their opinions get any higher status. I mean if I were Thomas Harris I wouldn't go about citing the opinions of serial killers and the FBI.

You've also said this: "Other reviews have been lucid, literary AND complimentary, perhaps because those reviewers knew their craft." Now this is purely arrogant, I've emphasized the AND there because you are saying that only those who regard this as quality 'know their craft'. It would seem that all 'flak' is 'unjustified' when it's thrown at this book.

R'Vannith, thanks for a post that's lucid and semi-respectful, unlike those of Troy and Marcel. I'll answer your points in the order you made them. When an artist puts heart, soul and years into creating something, it's natural that he/she will react to unprofessional, destructive, inept criticism. I'm not talking about constructive criticism that comes from a place of knowledge; that's a different prospect entirely. I have no problem whatsoever with that. I spent many years under the tutelage of established authors and poets who were always brutally honest with feedback, whether praise or constructive criticism. What these writers didn't do was offer bitchy, destructive comments, as to do so would have shown a lack of maturity, professionalism and integrity. Since the book's publication, it has been well reviewed and - for the most part - comprehended. Doc Godin's so-called review, on the other hand, highlights that he misunderstood the book. He is the only person ever to suggest that the story could have incorporated comedy; all other feedback has recognised and acknowledged the humour in the book. I appreciate that everyone's sense of humour is unique, but Godin's must either be missing or radically different to the point that he didn't perceive humour where other readers did. There's nothing wrong with that, but it was important for me to point out that Godin is alone in his failure to find humour in the story. In addition to being peppered with contradictions and grammatical mistakes, Godin's 'review' demonstrated other fundamental misunderstandings of the subject it was reporting. It was also childish. Because of this, I felt compelled to offer a rebuttal. Yes, I understand that Doc Godin's opinion is valid to some of this website's readers. That was precisely why I was disturbed to see his immature, inept 'review'. Yes, of course I'd like the site's users to read the book. Writing is my livelihood, after all.

'Monumental': impressively large, sturdy and enduring. That description fits Metallic Dreams, which - at just under 200,000 words - blends mythology, religion, folklore, ritual, magic, pathos and humour. I spent years writing and editing a work of 85 chapters, each with its own moral, all of which interconnect. I've written a couple of things in the past that I look back on with less than satisfaction, as have most writers. Metallic Dreams, though, isn't one of them. It's my baby. I got it right. So of course I'm protective of it. You make the point that my own opinion seems important to me. Yes, of course. I don't know a single artist - musician, writer or otherwise - who doesn't trust his/her inner voice and instincts. Nor do I know one who doesn't defend work that he/she believes to be good. As for target audiences, many writers create novels in the hope of reaching the largest possible fan base. This is why the literary market is flooded with tales of teenage vampires, werewolves and wee wizards. Many authors jump onto bandwagons in the hope of striking it lucky. I'm not interested in bandwagons. I like to create original work that explores new territory. After all, the danger of jumping onto a bandwagon is that the jumper usually lands on a hearse. Art usually stands up on its own merit, regardless of its themes. When Roddy Doyle wrote 'The Commitments', he didn't think his tale of teenagers in Ireland playing decades-old American soul music would sell millions and go on to be a hugely successful movie. Doyle just followed his instincts and wrote a wonderful tale in which music was one theme of many. Music was only one facet of that novel; the characters, dialogue, humanity and humour were its real strengths. Doyle's wasn't the first novel to feature music as one of its themes, and Metallic Dreams won't be the last. In novels, musical references are much less important than the strength of the text.

I don't think my opinion is definitive, nor do I think that the opinion of any one person (or band) is. I presented the opinions of Zodiac Mindwarp and Saxon because their opinions mean something to readers of this site, and because their opinions differ wildly from that of Doc Godin. It would have been pointless for me to mention on this site that the novel is loved by James Scott Pettigrew, as he's a reclusive Scottish poet who is probably known to none of the site's users. I wanted to let the site's readers know that Godin's opinion was by no means the dominant one, so I mentioned people they're likely to know and respect in order to make my case. Also, Zodiac Mindwarp is widely known to be a talented author whose writing is incisive and funny. His novels, published under his real name (Mark Manning), have garnered praise from literati and heavy metal fraternity alike. So you're right that Saxon may not be known as literary fellows, but you're wrong about Z, who most definitely is. Now let's tackle your Thomas Harris analogy. If the FBI and other law-enforcement agencies endorsed one of his books in terms of its authenticity and quality, Mr Harris could make this point in response to a critic who horrendously misunderstood the book and wrote an incompetent review which aired these misunderstandings. Such backup gives written work added credibility. It also allows readers to gain a balanced view of something they haven't yet experienced for themselves.

In response to your last paragraph, my claim wasn't arrogant; it simply stated facts. You incorrectly inferred your conclusion from my statement; I did not explicitly state that only those who regard the book as high-quality material know their craft. I'd never make such a daft statement. You focused only on the words 'complimentary' and 'knew their craft', then formed an incorrect conclusion. Let's word it like this - reviews by writers who knew their craft have been lucid, literary and complimentary. That's not arrogant. That's factual. It doesn't imply that all writers who know their craft are bound to love my work. That would be a preposterous claim. You make another incorrect inference when you say, 'It would seem that all 'flak' is 'unjustified' when it's thrown at this book.' I didn't say or imply that. You made an illogical inference. Let's use an analogy to illustrate how flawed your logic is on this point. If I say that I did a 'massive shit', it does not mean that all shits done by me are massive, nor does it imply that this is the case. Using that same watertight logic, when I say, 'I defend any art that I love when it receives unjustified flak,' it in no way implies that all flak thrown at the art I love is unjustified. Some of it may be very justified. So only the massive shits are massive and only the unjustified flak is unjustified. Be careful of inferring, which can lead one down very wrong paths. Logic and reason will guide you better. Aside from these little blips in logic, you made some lucid points. And other than accusing me of arrogance, your post was pretty respectful, which I appreciate.

One last point for you, R'Vannith: the words 'disgruntled rambling' at the start of your post are only half true. Disgruntled, yes, after seeing Doc Godin's inept, immature 'review'. 'Rambling', not at all. Rambling implies incoherence, and my thoughts on the subject are crystal clear. Let me ask you this. Did Doc Godin ask you to comment or did you choose to do so for some other reason? Please have integrity and tell the truth on this matter. Integrity seems to be in short supply on this site. If Doc Godin had integrity, he'd have replied to my rebuttal himself. Instead, like a wee boy who can't fight his own battles, he brought in other staff members (Marcel and Troy) to back him up. (I should stress, Troy, that when I said it was a pity you didn't choke on your crackers, I didn't mean choke to death. I'm a Zen soul and wouldn't wish that on anyone. A temporary bout of choking was what I meant.) I grew up rough in the west of Scotland, where I learned the importance of integrity. I fought inside and outside the ring. Integrity dictates that I don't say anything about a person unless I'd say exactly the same thing to his/her face. Doc Godin wouldn't have made his bitchy comments to my face, that's for certain. Nor would Marcel, to me or to Z. Yet they posted those words online. Where's the integrity? There's a word for such behaviour: cowardice. As for you, Troy, I suspect that when you said, 'butt-hurt promoter' you actually meant 'butt-hurt inflictor'. There's a world of difference. Promoters organise events, book venues and sell tickets; I'm happy to say I've never done any of those things with regards to sodomy. As for me causing sore arses, that's not a crime here in Scotland. We shag sheep too, don't you know?

At the end of the day none of what you're saying really matters...I mean, none of us here are book critics. We don't advertise ourselves as book critics. Doc even points out he's not a book critic.

Yet, you're upset because we at Metal Storm didn't review your book like a book critic would. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense if you ask me (don't worry, I know you didn't).

This is the most pathetic thing I've seen in the history of Metal Storm and I posted on this thread only because I want everyone to see this author defending his work on a friggin forum... Just to serve as an example of how you can NOT be.

I definitely don't care what the author thinks of me either, since I know he doesn't care about my opinion. This is still as pathetic as you can get when it comes to "protect your baby". Real artist, shouldn't overprotect their work in the same fashion as this guy did.

Written by dornadair on 29.10.2011 at 23:39

R'Vannith, thanks for a post that's lucid and semi-respectful, unlike those of Troy and Marcel. I'll answer your points in the order you made them. When an artist puts heart, soul and years into creating something, it's natural that he/she will react to unprofessional, destructive, inept criticism. I'm not talking about constructive criticism that comes from a place of knowledge; that's a different prospect entirely. I have no problem whatsoever with that. I spent many years under the tutelage of established authors and poets who were always brutally honest with feedback, whether praise or constructive criticism. What these writers didn't do was offer bitchy, destructive comments, as to do so would have shown a lack of maturity, professionalism and integrity. Since the book's publication, it has been well reviewed and - for the most part - comprehended. Doc Godin's so-called review, on the other hand, highlights that he misunderstood the book. He is the only person ever to suggest that the story could have incorporated comedy; all other feedback has recognised and acknowledged the humour in the book. I appreciate that everyone's sense of humour is unique, but Godin's must either be missing or radically different to the point that he didn't perceive humour where other readers did. There's nothing wrong with that, but it was important for me to point out that Godin is alone in his failure to find humour in the story. In addition to being peppered with contradictions and grammatical mistakes, Godin's 'review' demonstrated other fundamental misunderstandings of the subject it was reporting. It was also childish. Because of this, I felt compelled to offer a rebuttal. Yes, I understand that Doc Godin's opinion is valid to some of this website's readers. That was precisely why I was disturbed to see his immature, inept 'review'. Yes, of course I'd like the site's users to read the book. Writing is my livelihood, after all.

'Monumental': impressively large, sturdy and enduring. That description fits Metallic Dreams, which - at just under 200,000 words - blends mythology, religion, folklore, ritual, magic, pathos and humour. I spent years writing and editing a work of 85 chapters, each with its own moral, all of which interconnect. I've written a couple of things in the past that I look back on with less than satisfaction, as have most writers. Metallic Dreams, though, isn't one of them. It's my baby. I got it right. So of course I'm protective of it. You make the point that my own opinion seems important to me. Yes, of course. I don't know a single artist - musician, writer or otherwise - who doesn't trust his/her inner voice and instincts. Nor do I know one who doesn't defend work that he/she believes to be good. As for target audiences, many writers create novels in the hope of reaching the largest possible fan base. This is why the literary market is flooded with tales of teenage vampires, werewolves and wee wizards. Many authors jump onto bandwagons in the hope of striking it lucky. I'm not interested in bandwagons. I like to create original work that explores new territory. After all, the danger of jumping onto a bandwagon is that the jumper usually lands on a hearse. Art usually stands up on its own merit, regardless of its themes. When Roddy Doyle wrote 'The Commitments', he didn't think his tale of teenagers in Ireland playing decades-old American soul music would sell millions and go on to be a hugely successful movie. Doyle just followed his instincts and wrote a wonderful tale in which music was one theme of many. Music was only one facet of that novel; the characters, dialogue, humanity and humour were its real strengths. Doyle's wasn't the first novel to feature music as one of its themes, and Metallic Dreams won't be the last. In novels, musical references are much less important than the strength of the text.

I don't think my opinion is definitive, nor do I think that the opinion of any one person (or band) is. I presented the opinions of Zodiac Mindwarp and Saxon because their opinions mean something to readers of this site, and because their opinions differ wildly from that of Doc Godin. It would have been pointless for me to mention on this site that the novel is loved by James Scott Pettigrew, as he's a reclusive Scottish poet who is probably known to none of the site's users. I wanted to let the site's readers know that Godin's opinion was by no means the dominant one, so I mentioned people they're likely to know and respect in order to make my case. Also, Zodiac Mindwarp is widely known to be a talented author whose writing is incisive and funny. His novels, published under his real name (Mark Manning), have garnered praise from literati and heavy metal fraternity alike. So you're right that Saxon may not be known as literary fellows, but you're wrong about Z, who most definitely is. Now let's tackle your Thomas Harris analogy. If the FBI and other law-enforcement agencies endorsed one of his books in terms of its authenticity and quality, Mr Harris could make this point in response to a critic who horrendously misunderstood the book and wrote an incompetent review which aired these misunderstandings. Such backup gives written work added credibility. It also allows readers to gain a balanced view of something they haven't yet experienced for themselves.

In response to your last paragraph, my claim wasn't arrogant; it simply stated facts. You incorrectly inferred your conclusion from my statement; I did not explicitly state that only those who regard the book as high-quality material know their craft. I'd never make such a daft statement. You focused only on the words 'complimentary' and 'knew their craft', then formed an incorrect conclusion. Let's word it like this - reviews by writers who knew their craft have been lucid, literary and complimentary. That's not arrogant. That's factual. It doesn't imply that all writers who know their craft are bound to love my work. That would be a preposterous claim. You make another incorrect inference when you say, 'It would seem that all 'flak' is 'unjustified' when it's thrown at this book.' I didn't say or imply that. You made an illogical inference. Let's use an analogy to illustrate how flawed your logic is on this point. If I say that I did a 'massive shit', it does not mean that all shits done by me are massive, nor does it imply that this is the case. Using that same watertight logic, when I say, 'I defend any art that I love when it receives unjustified flak,' it in no way implies that all flak thrown at the art I love is unjustified. Some of it may be very justified. So only the massive shits are massive and only the unjustified flak is unjustified. Be careful of inferring, which can lead one down very wrong paths. Logic and reason will guide you better. Aside from these little blips in logic, you made some lucid points. And other than accusing me of arrogance, your post was pretty respectful, which I appreciate.

One last point for you, R'Vannith: the words 'disgruntled rambling' at the start of your post are only half true. Disgruntled, yes, after seeing Doc Godin's inept, immature 'review'. 'Rambling', not at all. Rambling implies incoherence, and my thoughts on the subject are crystal clear. Let me ask you this. Did Doc Godin ask you to comment or did you choose to do so for some other reason? Please have integrity and tell the truth on this matter. Integrity seems to be in short supply on this site. If Doc Godin had integrity, he'd have replied to my rebuttal himself. Instead, like a wee boy who can't fight his own battles, he brought in other staff members (Marcel and Troy) to back him up. (I should stress, Troy, that when I said it was a pity you didn't choke on your crackers, I didn't mean choke to death. I'm a Zen soul and wouldn't wish that on anyone. A temporary bout of choking was what I meant.) I grew up rough in the west of Scotland, where I learned the importance of integrity. I fought inside and outside the ring. Integrity dictates that I don't say anything about a person unless I'd say exactly the same thing to his/her face. Doc Godin wouldn't have made his bitchy comments to my face, that's for certain. Nor would Marcel, to me or to Z. Yet they posted those words online. Where's the integrity? There's a word for such behaviour: cowardice. As for you, Troy, I suspect that when you said, 'butt-hurt promoter' you actually meant 'butt-hurt inflictor'. There's a world of difference. Promoters organise events, book venues and sell tickets; I'm happy to say I've never done any of those things with regards to sodomy. As for me causing sore arses, that's not a crime here in Scotland. We shag sheep too, don't you know?

Is there a professional way of saying your book is a piece of shit? You cry about lack of professionalism, yet you waste time in both our lives by posting a series of long-winded complaints and self-worship over one negative review. I should have known a person who wrote a book as juvenile as this wouldn't be capable of swallowing negative feedback on an adult level.

I haven't responded because frankly, I couldn't give a fuck. Your complaints contain the hollow arguments typical of any disgruntled artist unhappy with a negative review. Feel free to continue posting more rambling whining though, it just makes you look more childish and gets more hits for my review. Thank you for making this review that much more prominent on google search.

Written by dornadair on 29.10.2011 at 23:39

...

Ah so you are the author, I won't address your entire response (particularly where you show I had made some incorrect assumptions ) so let me be frank. As we say down here in Oz, pull your head in. I can understand why you're so defensive of your work but if you intend to make it big as an author, responding to reviews like this in such an obviously offended fashion just smacks of desperation and is not exactly a desirable quality. Doc's review may well be flawed, but rather than focusing on this as an author I think you should focus on why he may have got such an impression from your work. Not everyone out there is a hard and fast literary critic, consider this example as one way in which responses to your work may be negative. It is inevitable that this will occur, just as it is inevitable that such responses will be made by non-critics.

There is no debating that this is a review. It is simply a matter of judging it's professionalism. This review, as clearly stated, is not a professional one. Calling his review 'childish' is in itself worthy of that description. You and I both know that this was not written with a childish mentality. We have here a music reviewer with an opinion on a book, no more, no less. The manner in which he expressed such is not for you discern whether it is 'worthy' or not. Opinions are never wrong, no matter what strengths or weaknesses others may consider them to have. The biggest concern for you, i'm gathering, is the impression left on others after having read this review. As an author this is understandable.

I may have been wrong in claiming that you were arrogant. Let me revise this, I get the impression now that you are simply over-confident. I have no idea but it seems as if you have received quite a bit of praise for your work. Don't let it go to your head, and don't go crusading against every review which may arise that doesn't regard your work in what you consider as a proper or acceptable fashion. I can only wonder if had Doc's review been a positive one would you have responded, in light of your claims that he simply doesn't have what it takes to review literature?

I am no author, nor literary critic. I am just someone with some advice that I think may be helpful to you. No Doc Godin did not ask me to post here, your first post left me with the impression of someone adamantly defending something which they felt strongly for. In reality, the responses you received don't surprise me in the slightest. Not for lack of integrity, but for, i'm sure, the same feeling that I had that you come off as somewhat 'butt-hurt', as Troy put it.

As for where I stated that your post was 'rambling', I again make this claim. It is rambling in the sense that it is inconsequential. Your stating of your opinion regarding Doc's opinion is unlikely to change his mind. Indeed, from his comment above he makes it pretty clear that his opinion is only strengthened. If you are attempting to refute his review surely you must realise how incredibly foolish this may look to others. Troy and Mr. Doctor's responses are clear examples of just such a reaction, and they correctly point out that the fact that you are defending your work 'on a friggin forum' is ridiculous.

I also have to agree with Troy's statement that "If anything you've just convinced anyone who happens to bother reading this review thread to go out of their way to ignore this book now." Commenting on this forum thread, no matter which way you slice it, is inevitably rendered as 'rambling'. Those who may have read Doc's review and your following response is not going to make readers turn back on themselves and say 'Oh this review must be wrong because the author of the reviewed work says it is. I can't wait to read this book.'

My intention is not to critise you or your work, but only the fact that you responded on this thread. It is also not my intention to try and make you look the fool, but I sincerely think that responding here is an error of judgement on your part. Even if I turn out to be incorrect in my claim that your commenting here will be anything but detrimental, and more copies of your book reach the audience than if you hadn't, my advice still stands. Responding the way you did just looks, to me and to others in this thread, unprofessional.

Written by Doc G. on 30.10.2011 at 04:13

fucking wall of text

If you are going to quote a wall of text (which is already unnecessary since the text itself is just a few posts up)... don't do it twice!

Written by dornadair on 29.10.2011 at 23:39

...

I haven't read your book yet so I wouldn't know whether it's worthy or not but one thing for sure, you're pretty good with words. If your book is as well-written as your comments then I'd be more than happy to read it.