How not to react to negative reviews

Brian G Turner

Brian G Turner

Fantasist & Futurist
Staff member
Supporter
Joined
Nov 23, 2002
Messages
26,686
Location
UK
Careful, Brian, you're reporting it now... :p

Really, I mean, come on. You write something, someone doesn't like: such is life. If you write something potentially contentious, you're almost guaranteed negative reviews. Have a cup of tea and move on. Maybe the next review will be great.
 
It's like Marmite; some folks are going to love it, some are going to hate it, some are just never going to dip their toes in that water. In fact, I think I shall print out 'Writing is like Marmite' and pin it to my cork-board just to remind myself of that!
 
Um... this actually is a lot more complex than an author being upset at a negative review http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2012/0...christian-author-takes-on-dawkins-and-amazon/

For those who don't have the patience to read all the legally stuff, this guy wrote a book about the existence of God and the "wrong" science atheists were using, and to publicise it he reviewed a Hawking book on Amazon, and in the review linked to his own book. He then took part in a long comments thread where he used 4 aliases. He took exception to some remarks, some of which were indeed potentially defamatory.** However, in view of the overall situation*** the judge struck the original claim for libel out.

I haven't read The Independant's comment on the case, but the guy is saying it was slanted to make it appear he was suing Amazon simply because of an unfavourable review, which, indeed, was not the case at all.


** but the judge held that the defendants were almost certain to succeed on the basis of justification and/or fair comment/honest opinion

*** the number of potentially defamatory comments being so few (and it probably didn't help that the number the guy was complaining about and which could not possibly be defamatory was a good deal larger), the likelihood of the defendants winning, the number of readers of the articles complained of, the claimant's actions both in responding to the threads and arguing and in using sock-puppets, the very small amount of likely compensation if he won, and the costs of a full-blown trial.
 
Last edited:
I suppose, to be accurate, only two aliases which weren't immediately obvious as him -- the first name he used was the pseudonym he'd used for the book and another comprised initials which formed part of his self-publishing company's name.

I spent an enjoyable afternoon reading the actual judgement. One of the supposed defamations he resented was the fact he was called a creationist. The judge held it wasn't defamatory, even when written on the Dawkins site, as it wouldn't lower him in the eyes of ordinary people...
 
A fool my hold the court and all the peoples attention whilst he fools and dances. However he pays a heavy price upon his pride and life to hold such an audience and it lasts only for a short fraction of a second before the court and the world move on.*




In other words I'm sure this got him a lot of attention, media cover and maybe a few more sales by the curious; but I don't think it will cover his £100,000.00 legal costs! (provided the statement in the Independent is correct).

* this doesn't necessarily mean that I mean the person in this to be a fool** its just the best example/analogy I could think of

** although it seems that his actions were most foolhardy.
 
Maybe he could sell his story to a different newspaper, or even film rights! :rolleyes:
 
Better than Ray Bradbury:

A few years back, one dreadful boy ran up to me and said, “Mr. Bradbury?”
“Yes?” I said.
“That book of yours, The Martian Chronicles?” he said.
“Yes,” I said.
“On page 92 where you have the moons of Mars rising in the east?”
“Yeah,” I said.
“Nah,” he said.
So I hit him. I’ll be damned if I’ll be bullied by bright children.
​
Click to expand...
 
The Judge said:
I suppose, to be accurate, only two aliases which weren't immediately obvious as him -- the first name he used was the pseudonym he'd used for the book and another comprised initials which formed part of his self-publishing company's name.

I spent an enjoyable afternoon reading the actual judgement. One of the supposed defamations he resented was the fact he was called a creationist. The judge held it wasn't defamatory, even when written on the Dawkins site, as it wouldn't lower him in the eyes of ordinary people...
Click to expand...

J. You need to get out more:)

So in effect he was acting as a agent provocateur, stirring up the arguments to provoke a response.

Out of interest, does Brian need to consider this as a potential problem?

We all do critiques and give our genuine opinions and advice and we all try to be 'careful'. However, it never occurred to me that this might be the outcome.

Should all the critiques be heavily interspersed with "alledgedly's" and 'in my opinions'

Or do we all have to sign up to a disclaimer that if we put up things for critique, we absolve the critiquers of any legal redress?
 
TheEndIsNigh said:
J. You need to get out more:)
Click to expand...
Hey! I do get out. I was in the garden only this morning... :D

So in effect he was acting as a agent provocateur, stirring up the arguments to provoke a response.
Click to expand...
To provoke interest in his own book, certainly.

We all do critiques and give our genuine opinions and advice and we all try to be 'careful'. However, it never occurred to me that this might be the outcome.

Should all the critiques be heavily interspersed with "alledgedly's" and 'in my opinions'
Click to expand...
No, not at all (though the "in my opinion" isn't a bad idea, since that's all we can give, when it comes down to it). You're critiquing the work and if you say you think it's a pile of horse droppings, as long as there's no active malice there, you're OK. (OK defamation-wise -- the mods might have a word or two with you!)

What happened here is a chap on the comments thread got so incensed at this guy, he started saying things about the guy as a person and about his company. Here's a summary from the judgement of what the claimant was alleging was defamatory:

i. that he is a narrow-minded religious fundamentalist;

ii. that he lied about believing that he had a terminal illness;

iii. that he engaged in an act of persuasion to make an unwilling person disclose information about him through force or threats;

iv. that he is immoral, cognitively deficient, and intends to deceive the public by hiding behind a pseudonym;

v. that he lied to the police about being an employee;

vi. that he is mentally unstable with lunatic notions;

vii. that he lies when he says he would not mock people for their non-belief;

viii. that he is a swindler with repellent religious beliefs;

ix. that he is a liar when he claims that his book was intended as a parody.
Click to expand...
So, just make sure you don't say springs is a complete loony and you're fine... :p
 
ii. that he lied about believing that he had a terminal illness;
Click to expand...
It's just as well the case didn't get any further. Surely it would be quite difficult to prove that someone didn't believe something. (It seems unlikely that Mr McGrath has posted anything along the lines of: "You know, I've never believed that I've had a terminal illness.")
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
T First-ever compact nuclear reactor runs for 8 years without water Science & Nature 17
W How would these 60 warrior females react to their 17-year old male master? Writing Discussion 13
Ambriel How would you react? SFF Lounge 53
msstice Help with examples of public (peanut gallery) reactions to characters arguing. Writing Discussion 12
polymorphikos A Self-Study in Singing-Associated Negative Reactions. Critiques 1

Similar threads


Back
Top