tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7452732101544377991.post7328668672783327966..comments2023-05-29T06:12:59.272-05:00Comments on Disjointed Observations: David Mack & My Destiny ReviewsJonathan Polkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01629784845492490477noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7452732101544377991.post-45452509787975326302009-06-27T00:11:33.828-05:002009-06-27T00:11:33.828-05:00I appreciate the reply, Dave. Apology accepted, n...I appreciate the reply, Dave. Apology accepted, no hard feelings here.Jonathan Polkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01629784845492490477noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7452732101544377991.post-34004003150756905112009-06-26T18:56:41.399-05:002009-06-26T18:56:41.399-05:00Jon,
While I don't wish to engage in a point-...Jon,<br /><br />While I don't wish to engage in a point-by-point debate of your reviews, it is clear that I owe you an apology.<br /><br />I should not have singled out your reviews for mockery or criticism; or, if I did choose to respond to them, I should not have taken such a demeaning stance in doing so.<br /><br />My elisions from your text were also not fair to what you wrote, in letter or in spirit.<br /><br />I also regret mischaracterizing your review of Keith's novel, and for doing so in a manner that demeaned you personally.<br /><br />As you so correctly point out, bad reviews are a part of the business, and I should have accepted yours with better grace.<br /><br />I apologize for my previous rude reactions, and for preemptively stifling the discussion on my LiveJournal (though that was for other reasons that, again, I would like not to revisit).<br /><br />I hope that you can accept my apology in the spirit in which it is offered.<br /><br />Penitently,<br />David MackDavid Mackhttp://www.davidmack.pro/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7452732101544377991.post-73789862653402774582009-03-17T08:34:00.000-05:002009-03-17T08:34:00.000-05:00Jon--You are the great gadfly of the Star Trek uni...Jon--You are the great gadfly of the Star Trek universe! I could care less about the debate over Star Trek novels, but what interests me about this character "David Mack" is the way he turns a seemingly transparent and playful text (his blog) into a closed system that allows him to say what he wants and block out/ignore responses to his words that he doesn't care for. I use the word "seemingly" because on the surface it appears that by bringing attention to and posting negative reviews about his work, Mr. Mack is creating a censorship free space. However, he is merely creating a myth (ala Roland Barthes) of transparency, and it fascinates me how he achieves this. When I checked out his post about your reviews of his work, I was expecting more than a list of his "favorite quotes" from your reviews and a link to your texts. You didn't post a disjointed (no pun intended)series of qoutations to discuss his work, rather, you took the time to write three thoughful pieces that expressed your opinions about Mr. Mack's work (not the man himself). It would seem from an (honest) rhetorical angle, that Mack should respond in a like fashion and try to open up a dialogue about his books and directly address the issues you raise about them. Instead, you get an incredibly defensive rant that tries to pass itself off with "humor." What I don't understand about this whole thing is why Mack cares so much? The reviews on "Disjointed Observations" were published months ago and Mack is just getting around to responding to them now? So, kudos to you great trekkian gadfly--I believe this whole thing can only be a positive for you as it gets your work out there to a larger reading base.Gary Reeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11504753751544647429noreply@blogger.com