Comments on: Getting published 2

By: gracchi

gracchi — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 10:40:56 +0000

I had no idea what a Mary Sue was before this- thanks James. Second your comments on the difficulty of getting published- that isn’t an easy task.

By: Steve Hayes

Steve Hayes — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 03:59:25 +0000

So whose slush pile do you recommend?

By: Andrew Scott

Andrew Scott — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 01:09:34 +0000

Ah… so here I am commenting again, despite what I said. Damn. You got me Higham (Smiley face meant as a smiley face, no hidden meanings). You will be very welcome to comment over at my place James, and I’ll be continuing to read your almost always fascinating output here. I hope life treats you well. It is too short for silly squabbles. Will I get my 200 badge yet? Never say never…

By: James Higham

James Higham — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 01:02:48 +0000

Sorry it came to that. Am I still permitted to comment at yours?

By: Andrew Scott

Andrew Scott — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 00:37:33 +0000

James, a final comment, about this instance only because I have neither the time nor patience for any more: You misquoted me, adding the unpleasant word “nasty” which I did not say, within your quotation marks. You cannot blatantly misquote someone and expect them not to object. If you object to any of my comments which you have moderated and then published on your website please delete them, I will not read any interpretation into that whatsoever, in fact I won’t even know. Whether you will believe me or not, I wish you no harm whatsoever, I enjoy reading your blog and whatever differences in opinions we may have I regard you as, from what I can tell, a decent chap. But I am giving up commenting on your blog. Good wishes, Andrew

By: James Higham

James Higham — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 22:21:28 +0000

Question – where have I ever had a go at you before? Now what you’ve constructed here is a false impression for readers. I wrote a post on bookselling and the other post was on kittens, for goodness sake. Now, what did I get out of that?

A putdown.

I made reference to it here and got the import completely right. You can’t slide out of it by saying the original was not a put down – and a smiley tacked on the end alters nothing. It was clearly a putdown. If it had worried me at the time though, I would have commented but didn’t until today.

Now you try to throw the blame back onto me for what was a substantially correct interpretation [I included the full quote above and even apologized] and then you defended yourself by throwing further personal accusations at me about some mythical people, which dragged the discussion completely away from the post.

Very easy to say “not for the first time”. Sounds plausible, Andrew, except that it is based on thin air and readers are not going to know one way or the other.

This is precisely what I’ve been referring to in recent posts, not particularly about you – but about certain people arguing through ad hominem and emotion, trying to create a slanging match when others are sticking to the issues and when this misinterpretation is delivered in an even-tempered and good-humoured manner, it adds to the plausibility.

The problem is though that it is simply not as you present it. This is not a matter of “my interpretation”, which puts it into the doubtful category – I took the words that were actually written and the reaction is based on that which was far from doubtful in the original.

This is the game playing which annoys me, hence the tone of this comment.

By: Andrew Scott

Andrew Scott — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 22:19:16 +0000

Oh Dear James, you do believe in your own interpretation of the meaning in other people’s remarks so strongly, and yet I know for sure that you can be so wrong about what was both actually said and what was meant, by several commenters. It is, I’m sad to say, one significant reason why I rarely comment these days. Even when, in your reply, you provide in black and white evidence that you clearly did misquote me, adding the word “nasty”, you can only bring yourself to say apologies “if” you misquoted me. It is not a case of “if” James. You put the word “nasty” in all by yourself. I have enjoyed my foray into commenting here, but I expect it is over. I’ll still be reading from time to time though, and who knows, I may even get beyond 193 comments one day. Bye for now.

By: James Higham

James Higham — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 21:37:50 +0000

Firstly, Andrew – apologies if I misquoted you. The actual quote was “but with sharp little teeth and claws, even though they won’t actually do too much harm”, which of course was a put-down and not affectionate in the least. Not that I commented at the time but couldn’t resist this time.

Now, “persist in misquoting”.

I don’t, Andrew. Full stop. I don’t “persist”, I mean. Although there might be an error or two in the words, the intent is never misrepresented.

The other one you are referring to, I believe, is Tiberius Gracchus and he claimed I took his remarks out of context. Again, a point of view but disputed. I could equally claim “misrepresentation” of my own remarks in many places and one blogger [not you] makes an art form of it but I just let it go by, as I was going to with this one.

Now if you’d said, Andrew: “Doesn’t know when to shut up,” well I plead guilty to that.

By: Andrew Scott

Andrew Scott — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 21:03:37 +0000

You are doing it again James – Andrew Scott did not say “nasty little teeth and claws” despite your use of quotations implying that he did. Andrew Scott said “sharp little teeth and claws”, and it was actually an affectionate remark not a spiteful one. Why do you persist in misquoting your readers’ comments? You do it a lot, twisting them to suit whatever is in your head. I am not the only person to have noticed, or to have moaned.