Writers and Critics

At least one other LJer has blogged about Michael Crichton's revenge against Michael Crowley, who wrote an article critical of Crichton's book STATE OF FEAR. For those who came in late, Crowley felt Crichton's science questionable and his prose potboilery. Crichton took his revenge by adding a minor character named Mick Crowley to his latest book, NEXT, and making him an underendowed child rapist.

This has been blogged about elsewhere. While reading the entry on Firedog Lake on the subject, I was treated to some of the usual "how they see us". When referring to the fact that Crichton has never been "a particularly gifted wordsmith", TRex goes on to add:

As is too often the case with science fiction authors, readers are so caught up in the "Gee-whiz! Neato!" aspects of what they're reading that they fail to notice that the characters are stock, the dialogue is clunky and stilted, the plotting is abysmal, and that the narrative thread limps along like a Pontiac with three flat tires.

I would say, as an aside, that this is also an issue with pop fiction in general, but I'm biased, and anyway, that's beside the point. In any event, Crowley posted his response in the online edition of NEW REPUBLIC. Thus did I learn about "the small penis rule",

As described in a 1998 New York Times article, it is a sly trick employed by authors who have defamed someone to discourage their targets from filing lawsuits. As libel lawyer Leon Friedman explained to the Times, "No male is going to come forward and say, 'That character with a very small penis, 'That's me!'"

(No comment as to how one would prevent a woman from suing for defamation. Small tits? Plastic surgery? Aren't we worth defaming?)

::Steers the bus back onto the essay road...::

So Crichton has played by that rule, and has thus allowed Crowley the chance to change the game in midstream, for Crowley ends his calm, even-handed article with the following:

Crichton launched his noxious attack from behind the shield of the small penis rule because, I'm sure, he's embarrassed by what he has done. In researching my article, I found a man who has long yearned for intellectual stature beyond the realm of killer dinosaurs and talking monkeys. And Crichton must know that turning a critic into a poorly endowed child rapist won't exactly aid his cause. Ultimately, then, I find myself strangely flattered. To explain why, let me propose a corollary to the small penis rule. Call it the small man rule: If someone offers substantive criticism of an author, and the author responds by hitting below the belt, as it were, then he's conceding that the critic has won. (Bolding mine)

Because it's all about who wins.

That's why you never answer critics--or at least file off the serial numbers, or let your readers/fans fight the good fight for you. Because acknowledgment, especially when emotionally-tinged, grants too much power to the critic. In his article, Crowley was able to allude to the decline in sales of Crichton's books, and to provide readers the mental picture of "the smoldering Crichton, alone in his darkened study, imagining in pornographic detail the rape of a small child." The failing writer, too much in touch with the seamy side of his creations. Financial and emotional underendowment. The small penis rule wielded as a scalpel instead of as a club.

Because there are ways you can do it while seeming quite, quite civilized, and don't think Crowley doesn't understand that.

Writers and Critics

At least one other LJer has blogged about Michael Crichton's revenge against Michael Crowley, who wrote an article critical of Crichton's book STATE OF FEAR. For those who came in late, Crowley felt Crichton's science questionable and his prose potboilery. Crichton took his revenge by adding a minor character named Mick Crowley to his latest book, NEXT, and making him an underendowed child rapist.

This has been blogged about elsewhere. While reading the entry on Firedog Lake on the subject, I was treated to some of the usual "how they see us". When referring to the fact that Crichton has never been "a particularly gifted wordsmith", TRex goes on to add:

As is too often the case with science fiction authors, readers are so caught up in the "Gee-whiz! Neato!" aspects of what they're reading that they fail to notice that the characters are stock, the dialogue is clunky and stilted, the plotting is abysmal, and that the narrative thread limps along like a Pontiac with three flat tires.

I would say, as an aside, that this is also an issue with pop fiction in general, but I'm biased, and anyway, that's beside the point. In any event, Crowley posted his response in the online edition of NEW REPUBLIC. Thus did I learn about "the small penis rule",

As described in a 1998 New York Times article, it is a sly trick employed by authors who have defamed someone to discourage their targets from filing lawsuits. As libel lawyer Leon Friedman explained to the Times, "No male is going to come forward and say, 'That character with a very small penis, 'That's me!'"

(No comment as to how one would prevent a woman from suing for defamation. Small tits? Plastic surgery? Aren't we worth defaming?)

::Steers the bus back onto the essay road...::

So Crichton has played by that rule, and has thus allowed Crowley the chance to change the game in midstream, for Crowley ends his calm, even-handed article with the following:

Crichton launched his noxious attack from behind the shield of the small penis rule because, I'm sure, he's embarrassed by what he has done. In researching my article, I found a man who has long yearned for intellectual stature beyond the realm of killer dinosaurs and talking monkeys. And Crichton must know that turning a critic into a poorly endowed child rapist won't exactly aid his cause. Ultimately, then, I find myself strangely flattered. To explain why, let me propose a corollary to the small penis rule. Call it the small man rule: If someone offers substantive criticism of an author, and the author responds by hitting below the belt, as it were, then he's conceding that the critic has won. (Bolding mine)

Because it's all about who wins.

That's why you never answer critics--or at least file off the serial numbers, or let your readers/fans fight the good fight for you. Because acknowledgment, especially when emotionally-tinged, grants too much power to the critic. In his article, Crowley was able to allude to the decline in sales of Crichton's books, and to provide readers the mental picture of "the smoldering Crichton, alone in his darkened study, imagining in pornographic detail the rape of a small child." The failing writer, too much in touch with the seamy side of his creations. Financial and emotional underendowment. The small penis rule wielded as a scalpel instead of as a club.

Because there are ways you can do it while seeming quite, quite civilized, and don't think Crowley doesn't understand that.