An important announcement: PLEASE READ Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

RAMSEY CAMPBELL » Discussion » An important announcement: PLEASE READ « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Frank (Frank)
Username: Frank

Registered: 09-2008
Posted From: 85.222.86.21
Posted on Wednesday, January 19, 2011 - 11:25 pm:   

I've decided to post the link below to the BFS forum with regards to a matter which I think will be of extreme interest to people here.

If you read closely you will be surprised, or rather shocked to learn that the editor of PRISM, has 'seemingly' written two reviews of Ally's WARP under two different names. Of course he has denied any wrong doing, and in the course of things, contradicted himself to the point of embarrassment (I will immediately retract my accusation if proved otherwise...and gladly so). I think this needs the support of everybody concerned with fair practice. But more importantly, this appears to be a carefully managed strategy to target Ally.

Personally, I cannot recall any other writer in the Small Press in recent years, having been singled out like this.

It is not professional, fair, or representative of the SP, and needs to be confronted right now.

Undoubtedly cronyism will be a word flung out in the ensuing days, but I, for one, will not sit back and remain silent on the subject.

Simply it's bullying.

http://www.britishfantasysociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=2778.0
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Des (Des)
Username: Des

Registered: 09-2010
Posted From: 81.145.100.125
Posted on Wednesday, January 19, 2011 - 11:35 pm:   

I wrote a blog about this matter a few hours ago. It is certainly very mysterious and has confused me. But seems roughly as you say, Frank, based on the evidence so far.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Frank (Frank)
Username: Frank

Registered: 09-2008
Posted From: 85.222.86.21
Posted on Wednesday, January 19, 2011 - 11:36 pm:   

My point is, everybody has the right to express their views, but to pretend to review positively as one person, and then to post negatively as another is quite clearly designed to deceive, and target one individual for whatever juvenile grievances they harbour.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Frank (Frank)
Username: Frank

Registered: 09-2008
Posted From: 85.222.86.21
Posted on Wednesday, January 19, 2011 - 11:38 pm:   

Yes, Des, unfortunately it seems that way.

I think Ally has been dignified and amazingly controlled given all the shit she's had dumped on her, but I won't stand by and watch it happen again.

I would express the same outrage and anger for anybody here, as I would for anybody anywhere.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Des (Des)
Username: Des

Registered: 09-2010
Posted From: 81.145.100.125
Posted on Wednesday, January 19, 2011 - 11:47 pm:   

Stephen Theaker has also touched on it in his blog:
http://theakersquarterly.blogspot.com/
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Frank (Frank)
Username: Frank

Registered: 09-2008
Posted From: 85.222.86.21
Posted on Wednesday, January 19, 2011 - 11:54 pm:   

Yes, I read that, Des. I hope other people will, too. It's not just me getting into one of my lathers, as it might seem.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mbfg (Mbfg)
Username: Mbfg

Registered: 09-2010
Posted From: 82.6.90.22
Posted on Wednesday, January 19, 2011 - 11:57 pm:   

I am dismayed at the childish and vindictive way Ally has been treated by a small number of people in our family of writers, readers and editors.

Yes, as Frank says, it is a free country and some work we like and some we don't, and if it's the latter it should be the work we don't like and criticise, NOT the author.

This smear campaign has been going on since Ally won the BFS Award back in 2009 and is unjustified, undignified and extremely disappointing to me as a member of a group of people I admire and respect.

The award was won as the result of a democratic vote. "Wine and Rank Poison" is receiving good reviews by people who have their own minds and opinions. Allyson Bird is not bribing people or doing anything underhand. She loves writing, has a passion for it, and is not behaving any differently from the rest of us.

Yes, we can all be acerbic sometimes, and rough in our critiques, but it is NEVER personal.

Allyson Bird does not deserve this treatment.
Regards
Terry
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Frank (Frank)
Username: Frank

Registered: 09-2008
Posted From: 85.222.86.21
Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2011 - 12:03 am:   

Terry - thanks, mate, thanks for getting on board and giving Ally the support she needs. You are a gent.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Frank (Frank)
Username: Frank

Registered: 09-2008
Posted From: 85.222.86.21
Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2011 - 12:13 am:   

As I pointed out on the BFS forum, any remarks about cronyism or stifling people with the right to criticize freely, has been made redundant.

I'm sure the injured parties see themselves as honest to God rebels forced to take drastic, underhand measures, but they're not. They simply throw aside proper professional criticisms in order to bad mouth somebody like a bunch of children.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Steve Bacon (Stevebacon)
Username: Stevebacon

Registered: 09-2008
Posted From: 90.209.220.6
Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2011 - 12:37 am:   

If we take David's assertion at face value - that the review of Wine and Rank Poison was written by another reviewer using an old pseudonym of his - then I think it's a poor show that he, as the editor, allows this to happen. Surely reviews should be attached to the person writing them, not by the reviewer hiding under an assumed name. I'm not sure whether this is common practice as I'm not a reviewer. I've never heard of it though.

But the alternative suggestion - that David wrote the review using a pseudonym - is, if true, incredibly nasty...

For the record, I haven't read Wine and Rank Poison so I'm not commenting on the validity of the review. Just the manner in which it was written.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Huw (Huw)
Username: Huw

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 61.216.51.123
Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2011 - 07:42 am:   

Good heavens, I thought someone had had an accident or been taken seriously ill when I saw the thread title. Glad that's not the case.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Des (Des)
Username: Des

Registered: 09-2010
Posted From: 81.145.100.125
Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2011 - 09:21 am:   

Indeed, Huw, while I agree with some of the cold objective analysis of what has happened, I decry some of the *drama*. As I said on my blog, this whole matter beggars belief and I am aghast (and confused). At this stage, we need an explanation...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stephen Theaker (Stephen_theaker)
Username: Stephen_theaker

Registered: 12-2009
Posted From: 62.30.117.235
Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2011 - 09:27 am:   

Me too - thought the forum was shutting down or something!

The weird thing to me is that it doesn't seem all that mean a review, and in any case doesn't go much further in its criticism than David's comments on forums and his blog. I haven't read Wine and Rank Poison, but the comments on the short length and the preview of the next book being included seem very fair, and the passage quoted does seem to back up the points being made.

We know that authors do sometimes overreact to negative reviews, but when that happens you just have to deal with it.

Using a pseudonym for your reviews is not necessarily bad, but I think the only reason this review was pseudonymous was that the writer thought readers would question its impartiality. In that case he should have either not published it at all, or published it under his own name and let readers make up their own minds.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Des (Des)
Username: Des

Registered: 09-2010
Posted From: 81.145.100.125
Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2011 - 09:52 am:   

At this stage, we need an explanation...
=================

I have now found the Prism editor's explanation at his blog.
Although I would like to question further, I think we should now pass on to defuse this 'drama' that seems to have been sought.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Zed (Gary_mc)
Username: Gary_mc

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 195.166.117.210
Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2011 - 10:14 am:   

When I saw the title of this thread I thought Frank was 'coming out of the closet'...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Frank (Frank)
Username: Frank

Registered: 09-2008
Posted From: 85.222.86.21
Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2011 - 10:26 am:   

Zed - you made me laugh, alas, the rest of the response at Riley's excuse does not.

There's a lot more to this than has been mentioned. And Riley bloody knows so.

And as for his reasons, I could have written that myself it was so predictable.

Yes, yes, of course, I'm in the business of not letting anybody criticize Ally's work. Bollocks.
Ally's a big girl, and doesn't need anyone to defend her, but since it seems the pertinent thing to fling mud round these days in great screaming hissy fits, then I fought I would do likewise.

Des - oh, and make up your mind. You're up and down like a yo-yo.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Des (Des)
Username: Des

Registered: 09-2010
Posted From: 81.145.100.125
Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2011 - 10:31 am:   

Frank, I think I have been consistent through the various developments as they happened. Shocked, confused, angry, now in a mood to defuse a drama that was the goal of the person involved.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Gary Fry (Gary_fry)
Username: Gary_fry

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 82.31.7.247
Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2011 - 10:37 am:   

Perhaps this debate is best kept to the BFS thread. It has nothing to do with Ramsey Campbell and associated rancour doesn't belong here. Could I request that any more comments are made elsewhere? Thanks.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Frank (Frank)
Username: Frank

Registered: 09-2008
Posted From: 85.222.86.21
Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2011 - 10:53 am:   

Prof - sorry, Gary. And to Ramsey. Fair enough. Apologies to you as moderator and Ramsey as host.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tony (Tony)
Username: Tony

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.153.151.150
Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2011 - 11:00 am:   

It's always interesting and maybe even useful to gain a sense of how bumpy old Writing World is, though. But yeah, probably out of place.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey)
Username: Ramsey

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 195.93.21.68
Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2011 - 11:28 am:   

I've no problem at all with having this debate take place on here.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Gary Fry (Gary_fry)
Username: Gary_fry

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 82.31.7.247
Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2011 - 11:30 am:   

Horse's mouth, folks. I'm backing out.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Frank (Frank)
Username: Frank

Registered: 09-2008
Posted From: 85.222.86.21
Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2011 - 11:54 am:   

Ramsey - many thanks.
Prof - no, mate, you were simply doing your job. Cheers.

I know that my rhetoric tends to be explosive and volatile, but I feel very strongly about this. According to Mr.Riley anybody who speaks up on Ally's behalf is closeting her from any kind of criticism. This is simply not the case at all.

There is NOT a secret society of people gathered about Ally in order to soften any criticisms, encouraging her to motivate people like me to speak in her defense. It's a case of Mr. Riley being duplicitous.

There's is so much more to this than has been revealed, and Mr. Riley knows this only too well. While some people might say this is a bloated high drama, I would beg to differ, quite strongly, in fact, as is obvious from the language I have employed.

Please note that this is not about criticism. It's about targeting people on a personal basis.
And it isn't the first time this has happened. I'm sorry, but it is quite clear from comments made by certain individuals with regards to Never Again, BRFG, and now WARP, that this is a concerted effort to mock and deride Ally. It all goes back to 2009, and any denial of this is simply untrue.

Not liking somebody's work and saying so is everybody's right. None of us can expect everybody to like what we do. But this is much more than that. And it's not just one person, it appears to be several.

Ally gets criticized every time 'somebody' feels he or she isn't due the positive reviews she receives from writers such as Norman Partridge, to name but a few.

Quite interestingly Ally has received 'real' reviews complete with productive criticism from the more, lets say, successful and well known writers. Perhaps Mr.Riley and friend(s) need to employ appropriate language, and not resort to the childish squealing of outraged adolescents.

BUT, Mr. Riley's excuse made from the comfort of his blog is not satisfactory or believable.

I believe he has deliberately colluded with the unnamed reviewer to set Ally up.

Perhaps I am playing into his hands. Perhaps.

I think it should also be noted that Ally has remained dignified about the whole affair throughout. My words are my own (though Riley will undoubtedly think of me as a lapdog), and I choose to make these accusations.

All that was needed was Mr. Riley to post his review and the so called anonymous reviewer to post his, complete with name.

Not doing so casts doubts on Mr. Riley, and leads everybody to suspect what they presumed in the first place about the identity of the mysterious reviewer.

I hope the reviewer is not somebody I personally admire as a writer, but the mind runs wild when the reasons offered for the whole affair is riddled with contradictions and examples of backtracking.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey)
Username: Ramsey

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 195.93.21.68
Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2011 - 12:07 pm:   

I can't imagine editing a magazine myself and inviting a contributor to write under the name of Errol Undercliffe. It would clearly cause more problems than it solved (if it solved any at all).
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Hubert (Hubert)
Username: Hubert

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 178.116.54.251
Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2011 - 12:26 pm:   

"Suppose a man does find it now and then useful to be twofold?"

Joseph Curwen in The Case of Charles Dexter Ward.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stephen Theaker (Stephen_theaker)
Username: Stephen_theaker

Registered: 12-2009
Posted From: 62.30.117.235
Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2011 - 12:37 pm:   

David's explanation is just that the reviewer was frightened - and still is.

Awww, poor thing.

I think the reason this is bugging me so much, aside from the dishonesty, is because I review so many books from the small press; almost every review I write ends up being critical of someone I have met, or admire, or would just like to have a drink with sometime.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Frank (Frank)
Username: Frank

Registered: 09-2008
Posted From: 85.222.86.21
Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2011 - 01:01 pm:   

Stephen - yes, and nobody is going to attack you for having an opinion because your reviews are fair minded, constructive, and not based on some imaginary slight done to you.

You reviewed WARP, and said what you liked and what you didn't like. Why is it other people can't get their head round that concept?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Des (Des)
Username: Des

Registered: 09-2010
Posted From: 81.145.100.125
Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2011 - 01:04 pm:   

Since this thread is allowed to extend and although I still hold by defusing the drama sought by David R, a drama apparently relished in (judging by his tone and overt expressions used), my anger is undiminished. An anger about subterfuge, an anger that is justified in *everyone* involved in this controversy since 2009.
des
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Carolinec (Carolinec)
Username: Carolinec

Registered: 06-2009
Posted From: 92.232.199.129
Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2011 - 01:05 pm:   

OK I'm probably not going to make myself any friends here, in fact I'll probably lose a few, but I've got to the stage where I feel I've got to say something.

First, I can fully understand the review writer not wanting to disclose his or her identity. Given the row which blew up last time over BRFG, I don't think I'd have wanted my identity revealed if I'd written a negative review of WARP (it wasn't me, btw, I've not read the book). The calls for the reviewer's identity to be revealed are, in themselves, tantamount to bullying IMO.

Second, I think David was probably a little foolish in letting the reviewer use a pen name which could be traced back to David himself. But I don't think that warrants the vitriol which is being levelled against him at the moment. Surely, in any publication, the editor's decision is final, isn't it? It's his right, as editor, to publish what he deems appropriate in what ever way he chooses - whether anonymously or not.

Third, I've only met David once, but I had the pleasure of spending some time with him and his wife at the Halifax Ghost Story Festival a few months ago. OK I know you can't really judge a person after spending only a few hours in their company, but my impression of him is that he's a very honest person. I really don't think he'd have written that review himself and is then trying to "cover it up", which is what some people seem to be accusing him of. Again, I think the accusations being levelled against him are tantamount to bullying.

Next, I can quite understand how some people who aren't keen on Ally's work can come to the conclusion that there's a group of people who leap to her defence, and indeed attempt to bully people, who criticise Ally's work. And this is where I'm likely to lose a lot of friends here - I really don't think immediately leaping on this and starting various threads all over the internet is a good idea, or even acceptable behaviour. Sorry Frank and co, but I really don't like this behaviour at all.

Finally, I'm really glad to see that Ally is keeping a dignified distance from all of this herself. Perhaps that's what the rest of you should have done too? (there, I've said it - now, kick me off the forum if you want to)

Sorry, I've had to say this. I hate internet flaming rows. I don't think there's any real excuse for starting them. They don't help anyone's cause, and they do more harm than good.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Frank (Frank)
Username: Frank

Registered: 09-2008
Posted From: 85.222.86.21
Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2011 - 01:07 pm:   

Stephen - sorry, I know you didn't review WARP. I meant Terry had reviewed WARP. But the it still applies. Apologies.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Frank (Frank)
Username: Frank

Registered: 09-2008
Posted From: 85.222.86.21
Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2011 - 01:08 pm:   

Stephen - my point being that professional reviewers such as you, Terry, etc, review properly. There's no intent to hurt somebody, to defame them, to pass off unprofessional comments as emotive language based on true appraisal of a work.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Frank (Frank)
Username: Frank

Registered: 09-2008
Posted From: 85.222.86.21
Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2011 - 01:15 pm:   

Caroline - bullying to ask for the reviewer to reveal his name? Stop talking nonsense.

'David was a little foolish...'

And oh, because you met him once. Well, okay, I take it all back. Now that you've put me squarely in my place, I'll have to rethink my 'strategy.'

You are out of order, Caroline. I am not. But it is clear how you really view things. Shame.

Talk about sitting on the fence.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jonathan (Jonathan)
Username: Jonathan

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 91.143.178.131
Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2011 - 01:20 pm:   

"You are out of order, Caroline. I am not."

Woah woah woah! Feelings are clearly running high, but we need a calmer discourse than this surely?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Zed (Gary_mc)
Username: Gary_mc

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 195.166.117.210
Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2011 - 01:23 pm:   

Yes, I think Caroline's allowed to express her opinion as much as anyone else is.

I hate internet flaming rows. I don't think there's any real excuse for starting them. They don't help anyone's cause, and they do more harm than good.

And that's a very good point, I'd say.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Gary Fry (Gary_fry)
Username: Gary_fry

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 82.31.7.247
Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2011 - 01:26 pm:   

This is exactly the kind of rancour I was trying to keep off this board. Frank, please keep your tone moderate. Thanks.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Carolinec (Carolinec)
Username: Carolinec

Registered: 06-2009
Posted From: 92.232.199.129
Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2011 - 01:30 pm:   

Precisely, Johnathan. And now Frank seems to think that he can bully me too.

I'm not "sitting on the fence" at all - I'm coming down firmly on one side of it. That's the side that says that deliberately causing an internet flame war does nobody any good. It damages the small press. It damages the author concerned. It hurts the genre which I love.

Yes, Frank, I think you definitely do need to rethink your "strategy", as you suggest. Sorry, but as far as I can see you're the one who's out of order here.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Carolinec (Carolinec)
Username: Carolinec

Registered: 06-2009
Posted From: 92.232.199.129
Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2011 - 01:35 pm:   

Whoops, sorry Gary and Gary, I was writing/posting after Jonathan's post, before seeing yours. Thanks, guys.

I'm bowing out of this discussion now, unless anyone tries to have a go at me again about it, in which case I'll stand up for myself. I've made my point. I'm not after falling out with anyone - but I had to say what I feel about this. It's a real shame.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mbfg (Mbfg)
Username: Mbfg

Registered: 09-2010
Posted From: 212.219.63.204
Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2011 - 01:35 pm:   

I respect your input Caroline and I respect your willignness to stand up an be counted, and I respect you for the same Frank, but please, let's not let any vindictiveness or rancor further sour this debate.

The whole point is not to let this get too personal.

Cheers
Terry
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Frank (Frank)
Username: Frank

Registered: 09-2008
Posted From: 85.222.86.21
Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2011 - 01:36 pm:   

Don't accuse me of bullying then, Caroline. I'm defending somebody against a bully.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Des (Des)
Username: Des

Registered: 09-2010
Posted From: 81.145.100.125
Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2011 - 01:54 pm:   

Although I've enjoyed David's company in the past face to face (and was pleased he asked for my RTR of Tenebrous Tales to reprint from the internet), we are here in completely new ball-game of relationships following what happened with the pseudonymous and non-pseudonymous reviews in Prism (ostensibly both by David judging by the evidence outside of his blog) and how all this can be perceived and, now, how the terminology of his blog is couched in a tone of relish.
The situation, meanwhile, remains not clear-cut.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stephen Theaker (Stephen_theaker)
Username: Stephen_theaker

Registered: 12-2009
Posted From: 62.30.117.235
Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2011 - 01:56 pm:   

Frank: "Stephen - yes, and nobody is going to attack you for having an opinion because your reviews are fair minded, constructive..."

It does happen, and other reviewers get it too.

I was accused by one author's daughter (or someone using her name, at least) of getting off on rape scenes, after noting just how many of them there were in one book.

Just today I read one very respected writer say to a very respected reviewer that his review was "arrogant, shallow and thoughtless", among other abuse.

David Riley's story about the publisher complaining about a review mentioning typos? Happens all the time! Sending a list of typos back to the publisher to prove the point? Did it last month!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Carolinec (Carolinec)
Username: Carolinec

Registered: 06-2009
Posted From: 92.232.199.129
Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2011 - 02:04 pm:   

>>Don't accuse me of bullying then, Caroline. I'm defending somebody against a bully.<<

Just stop and think about it for a moment, Frank, has Ally really been bullied here?

The review looks, to me, to be a perfectly acceptable one. If there really are that many editorial errors in WARP (and the quote provided in the review certainly indicates one) then surely it's fine to point that out? That doesn't constitute bullying of the author in my opinion.

Then, you seem to have made an assumption that there's some kind of conspiracy going on between David Riley and the reviewer. Where's your evidence for that? It is, in my view, purely an assumption on your part. If it's not true, then you've been making comments on the internet designed to get everyone else thinking that this presumed conspiracy has happened and that David has done wrong. That, to me, constitutes bullying.

Then, when I make comments which go against yours, you jump on me too - that also constitutes bullying in my opinion.

Just stop and think what you're doing - is it REALLY helping Ally? I'm sure your intentions are good, but I really don't think you're helping anyone by these actions.

Right, I can't sit here arguing all day - got to go and do some work ... No bad feelings intended, honest.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Des (Des)
Username: Des

Registered: 09-2010
Posted From: 81.145.100.125
Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2011 - 02:14 pm:   

Caroline: The review looks, to me, to be a perfectly acceptable one.
==============

I can't keep repeating comments between here and the BFS forum (indeed I didn't think these discussions should be continued - because of the nature of David's blog today) but as they are being continued...

my latest comment there applies.

Meanwhile, Caroline, I continue to respect your views as well as, although I've only met you briefly once, YOU. So does everyone else here, I'm sure. :-)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Des (Des)
Username: Des

Registered: 09-2010
Posted From: 81.145.100.125
Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2011 - 02:28 pm:   

David's written another blog about our discussion. I'm sad about all this, but he does seem to be missing the point. Somehow, I don't think this matter will ever be resolved.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey)
Username: Ramsey

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 195.93.21.68
Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2011 - 02:54 pm:   

Well, when I receive a copy of the journal I'll be able to judge the review.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stephen Theaker (Stephen_theaker)
Username: Stephen_theaker

Registered: 12-2009
Posted From: 62.30.117.235
Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2011 - 02:55 pm:   

Caroline: Second, I think David was probably a little foolish in letting the reviewer use a pen name which could be traced back to David himself. But I don't think that warrants the vitriol which is being levelled against him at the moment. Surely, in any publication, the editor's decision is final, isn't it? It's his right, as editor, to publish what he deems appropriate in what ever way he chooses - whether anonymously or not.

Well, that's the issue, Caroline. It wasn't published anonymously. David could have published the review and credited it to Anonymous, or left the name off altogether. But he decided instead to put a false name to it, to make it look more reputable - a fairly deliberate deception of the readers.

To be honest I still think David wrote it, or if not co-wrote it with a couple of chums. Of course the reviewer doesn't have to reveal himself, but as long as he doesn't I think almost everyone will assume David wrote the review and is fibbing about it for some reason.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Carolinec (Carolinec)
Username: Carolinec

Registered: 06-2009
Posted From: 92.232.199.129
Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2011 - 03:10 pm:   

>>I think almost everyone will assume ...<<

That's it, Stephen, you've hit the nail on the head. You're all making ASSUMPTIONS about who wrote it and what the motives behind it were. Meanwhile, those assumptions are escalating into full-blown accusations of deliberate malpractice. That's not right in my opinion. If there's evidence that someone has done something wrong, that's fair enough, but where's the evidence here? I certainly can't see it - not from the tone of David's blog (which just looks like someone who's fed up with all the hassle to me), nor anywhere else.

BTW I have no vested interest in this, other than seeing fair play. I don't like seeing someone being accused of something without any evidence.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Carolinec (Carolinec)
Username: Carolinec

Registered: 06-2009
Posted From: 92.232.199.129
Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2011 - 03:13 pm:   

>>but he does seem to be missing the point ..<<

How's he missing the point, Des? I don't follow that. Perhaps I'm missing the point too and am wrong about this?

If you don't want to continue the discussion here, Des, just email me your answer to that question - you know where I am I think.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Des (Des)
Username: Des

Registered: 09-2010
Posted From: 81.145.100.125
Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2011 - 03:17 pm:   

I'll email you, Caroline. I might be off-line for a while - we have an illness in an elderly member of my wife's family and are called away quite often these days for an hour's car journey to a hospital.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stephen Theaker (Stephen_theaker)
Username: Stephen_theaker

Registered: 12-2009
Posted From: 62.30.117.235
Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2011 - 03:34 pm:   

Caroline: You're all making ASSUMPTIONS about who wrote it and what the motives behind it were. Meanwhile, those assumptions are escalating into full-blown accusations of deliberate malpractice.

Caroline, the review is written under David's pseudonym, in his magazine, and is almost identical to his comments elsewhere. There's no reason to think anyone else wrote it. It's a fair assumption, and David must have known it was an assumption people would make.

Bear in mind that the review contains the words "I enjoyed Bull Running for Girls", which rules out most of the people who have had public bust-ups with Allyson!

But the main issue is the matter of editorial judgment, the decision to publish the review under a pseudonym to make it look respectable. That isn't an assumption; David knew it was a pseudonym, he knew who wrote it, he did decide to mislead readers.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Des (Des)
Username: Des

Registered: 09-2010
Posted From: 81.145.100.125
Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2011 - 03:48 pm:   

Well, Stephen has saved me needing to send an email of explanation. But I will send you an email, Caroline, soon, about this, and other things.
des
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Carolinec (Carolinec)
Username: Carolinec

Registered: 06-2009
Posted From: 92.232.199.129
Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2011 - 05:35 pm:   

OK, I can see that argument too, Stephen (and Des), though I'm not *totally* sure I agree with you. I realise we're talking about editorial judgment here, but I still maintain that it's an editor's right to make that judgment without fear of accusations of foul play. There's a big difference between making a mistake (ie. in allowing the reviewer to use his pseudonym) and deliberately trying to mislead and cause trouble. I'm really not convinced there's any diliberate attempt to mislead or cause trouble here, but that's my own opinion - I may be wrong. If I am wrong, then Frank is probably justified in bringing this all up - but, again, I'm not convinced about that. I don't think internet flame wars serve any useful purpose under *any* circumstance.

If we take your argument, Stephen, a stage further by saying there's a deliberate attempt to mislead by allowing the reviewer to publish under a pseudonym in this particular case, then you could say that *any* publication under a pseudonym is a deliberate attempt to mislead - which is clearly nonsensical!

Des - sorry about your relative.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Des (Des)
Username: Des

Registered: 09-2010
Posted From: 81.145.100.125
Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2011 - 05:57 pm:   

Thanks, Caroline.
The way I see it:
1. Controversial issue of two years standing.
2. Negative review. Fair enough. Can't comment there.
3. Two reviews in BFS Journal, one under his own name, another under his apparently known pseudonym, the former positive, the second negative.
4. Followed today by a blog that does not (for me) explain anything but seems to gain enjoyment about a 'shitstorm' spreading, not caring, being an imp of the perverse, etc.
5. Bearing in mind 1 above, I feel that if a negative review be issued in the BFS Journal, this of all reviews in the history of our small press world should have been 100% transparent. If it had been transparent, it would have helped us to judge David's theory in his blog:
"Astonishment at what some people have said would be nearer the mark, though not quite. I had a strong feeling there would be a reaction like this - and that it would have happened whether the reviewer used a pen name or not. The effrontery of publishing a fairly negative review would have been enough."


I wish all this were not so. It makes me sad to see it.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stephen Theaker (Stephen_theaker)
Username: Stephen_theaker

Registered: 12-2009
Posted From: 62.30.117.235
Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2011 - 06:03 pm:   

then you could say that *any* publication under a pseudonym is a deliberate attempt to mislead - which is clearly nonsensical!

Not seeing the nonsensical part of that, Caroline!

Put it this way, if David has used the name Ian Redfern for the Johnny Mains review, to conceal the fact that he was giving a chum a good review, that would have raised the same issues.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Carolinec (Carolinec)
Username: Carolinec

Registered: 06-2009
Posted From: 92.232.199.129
Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2011 - 06:34 pm:   

But you're still making the *assumption* that David wrote the review of WARP, are you not? Maybe he did and maybe he didn't, I don't know.

If he did then OK, it's not a good move. If he didn't, he's only trying to "protect" whoever did write it from all the fallout - and taking the flack himself, which is quite commendable IMO.

I'm getting to the stage where I'm not sure what's "truth" and what isn't, what's "evidence" and what is mere "assumption". I think I really *had* better bow out of this now. I'm feeling very sad about all this too.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stephen Theaker (Stephen_theaker)
Username: Stephen_theaker

Registered: 12-2009
Posted From: 62.30.117.235
Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2011 - 06:58 pm:   

The point I think you're missing, Caroline, is that the issues raised are not over the content of the review, which seems unremarkable, but over the decision to run it pseudonymously. David isn't protecting anyone from the flak: the flak is aimed at David.

If the issue people had was with the content, there would have been a similar fuss when David posted exactly the same comments on forums. There would be a big fuss now about David posting a new review on his blog.

Instead of that, reading both reviews, I just find myself amazed that they didn't mention that the book was only initially available in a ludicrous $125 leather bound edition!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Des (Des)
Username: Des

Registered: 09-2010
Posted From: 81.145.100.125
Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2011 - 06:59 pm:   

Yes, very sad, Caroline.
But have you factored in to my 5 points above, that David is the Editor of Prism where all this happened - whether he wrote the review or not.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Huw (Huw)
Username: Huw

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 220.138.163.19
Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2011 - 07:50 pm:   

I've just read the review and it seems to me to be the reviewer's honest appraisal of the book, and not a personal attack. I'm with Caroline: I think all this drama and indignation over a rather mild negative review is an unnecessary exaggeration. I think it would have been better had the reviewer used his/her real name, or simply left the piece anonymous. Personally, I dislike seeing this type of rallying, call-to-arms type thread appear on the board - it usually only serves to stir up animosity and confusion, and perhaps that is why the reviewer did not want to reveal his identity.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Des (Des)
Username: Des

Registered: 09-2010
Posted From: 81.145.100.125
Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2011 - 08:21 pm:   

Yes, I wanted the conversation to cease directly I saw David's blog this morning. But as it continued - I felt obliged to try to examine coldly *why* it had blown up. I have tried to put that objective view just now on the BFS thread. I don't think it is as straightforward as Huw sees it. But of course I could be wrong.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mbfg (Mbfg)
Username: Mbfg

Registered: 09-2010
Posted From: 82.6.90.22
Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2011 - 11:28 pm:   

I think it's stirred things up because Allyson Bird suffered a spell of personal attacks after her BFS Award and no one wants that to happen again. For her sake and for all our sakes.

If the review is fair,whether negative or positive, then it's legitimate and acceptable, but if it smacks of any of the previous nasty stuff that went on before then people are going to be upset.


I'm sure that Allyson doesn't see herself as somehow immune to negative reviews as well as positive ones, that's one of the hazards of this mad obssession we all share, provided they are done in an honest, "proffessional" manner.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Joel (Joel)
Username: Joel

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 91.110.194.117
Posted on Friday, January 21, 2011 - 12:06 am:   

I've commented on this at some length on the BFS forum and won't repeat myself here, except to say that nobody is objecting to the content of the review. It's the use of a pseudonymous review (and one that uses David Riley's personal pseudonym and a lot of his own words) as the central item of supporting evidence in a sustained online campaign, consisting of more than a dozen postings on two different forums, to run down the book and its author. David Riley is pretending that the fuss is about the content of the review. It isn't. If you haven't seen all the other things he's said about it, you don't know what the fuss is about.

Having said that, as David Riley is currently gloating over the 'shitstorm' he has provoked, let's not feed his sense of achievement. Let's just note the reality of what he has done and then consider the lesson learnt.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Huw (Huw)
Username: Huw

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 220.138.167.123
Posted on Friday, January 21, 2011 - 09:08 am:   

I just wanted to echo what Caroline said earlier about Ally dealing with this in a dignified manner, instead of getting involved and (possibly) making things worse. Good for you, Ally.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Allybird (Allybird)
Username: Allybird

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 88.111.139.44
Posted on Friday, January 21, 2011 - 09:15 am:   

Thank you, Huw and Caroline. Much appreciated.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Zed (Gary_mc)
Username: Gary_mc

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 195.166.117.210
Posted on Friday, January 21, 2011 - 10:23 am:   

Stephen - will I get a contributor copy of the journal? I'm no longer a member of the BFS, but a review of mine appeared in there and I'd like to have a copy on my shelves.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stephen Theaker (Stephen_theaker)
Username: Stephen_theaker

Registered: 12-2009
Posted From: 62.30.117.235
Posted on Friday, January 21, 2011 - 10:50 am:   

I did ask about that when the new journal was introduced - obviously contributor copies will be quite a lot more expensive to send out now - and David said that they wouldn't be affected.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Carolinec (Carolinec)
Username: Carolinec

Registered: 06-2009
Posted From: 92.232.199.129
Posted on Friday, January 21, 2011 - 12:09 pm:   

>>Thank you, Huw and Caroline. Much appreciated.<<

No worries, Ally. I hope you (and everyone else here) realise that my comments here don't mean I'm part of any "anti-Ally brigade" which there might be out there. For me, the previous issue was a different matter altogether - you were definitely wronged there and I spoke up for you along with others. This, I feel, is different (though I may be wrong), and I really don't think starting up these arguments again helps anyone. That's why I felt I had to say something. Hope you all understand (though I appreciate Frank might not ).

Now, personally, I feel this is best left. I don't know what's still happening on the BFS forum (will probably look shortly), but my own view is that we should draw a line under this at this point.

Add Your Message Here
Post:
Bold text Italics Underline Create a hyperlink Insert a clipart image

Username: Posting Information:
This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.
Password:
Options: Enable HTML code in message
Automatically activate URLs in message
Action:

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | Help/Instructions | Program Credits Administration