Reviews
OK, chaps, I need some advice.
My book, Stuff Matters, has had two reviews so far. One, a generally warm one, appeared in the Independent and was written by Hamish McRae, an experienced (and presumably somewhat pro-capitalist) financial journalist.
The other, a hostile one, appeared in the Guardian, and was written by Stuart Jeffries, a feature writer of long and broad experience.
Now I don't really mind hostile reviews all that much - Bad reviews are much better than no reviews, and my own opinion of my work tends to ride through good and bad feedback alike without much alteration. I've written some not-so-good books and some almost-quite-decent books, and I broadly trust myself to tell them apart.
But Stuart Jeffries' review was perplexing. He accuses me of being Reaganite, when really my entire book is a kind of anti-Reaganite text. My message wasn't coded or deeply buried, it was pretty much as explicit as you can get. I think the post-Reagan political consensus (hang your heads Bush, Clinton, Major, Blair) was shallow, vapid and intellectually indefensible. I say so, in pretty much those words. I try to work out what makes for a strong, vigorous creative capitalism and what goes to feed a rotten one.
It's probably really uncool to do so, but I added a comment to SJ's review to make this point. You can read both SJ's piece and my comment here. Having done it, I'm not sure if I should have done. It's more dignified, is it not, to maintain a priestly silence? On the other hand, does it make sense for me to leave unchallenged an interpretation of my book which is pretty much nonsense?
I don't know. What's done is done ... but the wise words of the Cloud will guide my future steps. I submit to your authority.
My book, Stuff Matters, has had two reviews so far. One, a generally warm one, appeared in the Independent and was written by Hamish McRae, an experienced (and presumably somewhat pro-capitalist) financial journalist.
The other, a hostile one, appeared in the Guardian, and was written by Stuart Jeffries, a feature writer of long and broad experience.
Now I don't really mind hostile reviews all that much - Bad reviews are much better than no reviews, and my own opinion of my work tends to ride through good and bad feedback alike without much alteration. I've written some not-so-good books and some almost-quite-decent books, and I broadly trust myself to tell them apart.
But Stuart Jeffries' review was perplexing. He accuses me of being Reaganite, when really my entire book is a kind of anti-Reaganite text. My message wasn't coded or deeply buried, it was pretty much as explicit as you can get. I think the post-Reagan political consensus (hang your heads Bush, Clinton, Major, Blair) was shallow, vapid and intellectually indefensible. I say so, in pretty much those words. I try to work out what makes for a strong, vigorous creative capitalism and what goes to feed a rotten one.
It's probably really uncool to do so, but I added a comment to SJ's review to make this point. You can read both SJ's piece and my comment here. Having done it, I'm not sure if I should have done. It's more dignified, is it not, to maintain a priestly silence? On the other hand, does it make sense for me to leave unchallenged an interpretation of my book which is pretty much nonsense?
I don't know. What's done is done ... but the wise words of the Cloud will guide my future steps. I submit to your authority.
Comments
Subscribe
Visitor counter
Blog Roll Centre
Blog Hints
21 Comments
xxxxxx
1. Stand up for yourself and your book with integrity
2. Provoke a war of words
Although 2 seems bad (and I would naturally shy away from it myself) it could lead to a lot of coverage and publicity for your book. People will want to know what the argument is about... you know the rest.
And as Steve says, actually, there's no downside, as long as you stick to challenging the facts he puts forth.
And Stuff Matters still deserve congrats for taking over such a substantial chunk of the Guardian Review!
SJ probably feels a little silly. Good work.
I'd leave it at that now, unless he mounts a clever counter attack.
I agree you should defend what's important to you, but let it go if it starts moving into malicious territory.
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/stuff-matters-genius-risk-and-the-secret-of-capitalism-by-harry-bingham-2033018.html
Downsides could be if you require Jeffries on-side for publicity of other work, or if you are of the nature to flow amicably through life avoiding conflict. Overall, though, your agent should be a better sounding board for this than me.
I notice Mr J refers to your good self as a "reformed banker" - what sort of veiled threat is that?! Certainly the former tome might spark off some Grauniad groans of conversation over the Gold Blend whilst the latter - a coffee table book surely only of interest to Finbar Saunders . . .
Sings (badly)# Jealousy - it's all about, jealousy . . .
I think you've done the right thing to point out his errors but not to descend to his level. And well done on the Independent Review which I'll now look up.
As for speculators: speculators speculate. My feeling is that everybody was culpable (here in Ireland semi-state bodies wasted huge amounts of government money buying sites which subsequently turned out to be valueless) and that tighter regulation is necessary and inevitable. And although I do think self-interest can often serve society better than the desire to do good, laws are there for a reason.
Still reckon 'Mrs Slocombe's Pussy' is a great title! I walked into a bookshop about six months ago, and Jeffrie's book caught my eye immediately. Which I guess is what all great titles should do.
It is something i would have liked to reseaech, but last year, the Brtish Library put a lot of Early Viuctorian periodicals on line and a free access was given. I did a word search on various journalists and
Anyway, off to work. Boring local government work. Buccaneering has not been an job option. 'Pirates required' is not something advertised at the local job centre. A Whykamist - how do you spell it - is someone with extremely rich parents. A Whykamist might also be a member of a secret club - like the freemasons who have 'money; genes - with fast track access to this piracy. I understand fortunes are made my minor fluctuations in the currency market and this is done by computers. End of rant. The train and drudgery is approaching!
Marion - I think I have found your potato gun!
Anyone with a brain to be reckoned with would surely approach a book of this nature and complexity with an open mind? I do not feel that the reviewer has done this. When picking up a book, I’m not necessarily looking to have my beliefs redefined. However, I do want to be entertained, to have my understanding of the workings of life, the world, religion, war and government challenged constantly and expanded further. Your book, Harry, would appear to do just that. Congratulations.
As for singling out a dig at your wife, this was definitely below the belt for any ‘gentleman’ of the press. For this alone he should be terminated at dawn – Yes, death by pelted, tuberous vegetable but with a good mashing to follow.
Always a risky manoeuvre to take on the press but one which needed to be done I think. Well done for sticking to your potato guns, Harry.
Click here to sign up now.