Some of you may have noticed that my review of Animus Nocendi was taken down from Amazon after a few days. Apparently someone’s sand-filled girlyparts got even more irritated than usual and they complained about the “spiteful language.”
So I thought I’d try again.
I had written a review of this book previously, but it was apparently censored for “spiteful” language. Call me silly, but I think if a writer can’t take a little criticism without wetting himself, he might be in the wrong line of work. But anyway, let’s take another look.
A very, very high percentage of this work is comprised of public domain court documents and “borrowed” blog posts which have been sufficiently butchered by the author that they conform to the Fair Use Doctrine, if only just. The only original content in this book is a few paragraphs of commentary to break up the various borrowed content, so I will confine my review to that.
The original material is not actually bad for an unedited first draft. This book is consistent with others by this author in this respect; if nothing else, his prodigious self-published output provides compelling evidence for the necessity of the editor in the writing process. An editor could provide not just correction for the spelling, grammatical and usage errors which have made it to the page; she could also improve the voice and tone here. What sounds like a very young, profane and angry writer could be smoothed out into a more a mature and adult voice, de-emphasizing the hyper-emotional style in favor of a more rational discourse.
As someone who is reasonably familiar with the facts of the cases discussed in the book (I was an unserved party in one, and an interested observer in the others), I should say that the facts of this case are rarely addressed by the author. He twists them. He perverts them. He passes off his unsupported conclusions as “facts.” He makes up a few outright falsehoods and tries to pass them off as “facts” as well, particularly in ascribing motivations to the actions of others in this little psychodrama. Conversely, he also omits several facts about himself which would greatly change the tone of the story.
That’s all right, though. That’s what hagiography is. Without a completely virtuous hero and completely evil antagonists, the whole effort is a complete failure even before it’s published.
And sometimes, it’s a complete failure anyway.
X-posted at Fair Use Parody Productions.
My ever-so-Dependable little dancing monkey waltzed out to note that while my original review did irritate his sandy vagina (he didn’t deny it, so I can now assume it’s true that he has a vagina and it is filled with sand, based on his journalistic ethics, right?), he was not responsible for getting the original review taken down.
A PLUPERFECT example of how he assigns false motivations to others’ actions in real life as well as in print. In his addled mind it could not possibly be true that his book simply sucks.