The shit storm continues

It now appears that my earlier posting on this topic has been interpreted by one person as being couched in "a tone of relish" over what has happened. Astonishment at what some people have said would be nearer the mark, though not quite. I had a strong feeling there would be a reaction like this - and that it would have happened whether the reviewer used a pen name or not. The effrontery of publishing a fairly negative review would have been enough.

Check out some of the hysteria here. Thank goodness for some calm heads, like Stephen and Caroline.

I have also, absurdly, been accused of bullying. I completely fail to see how this can be justified. It was a fair review (far fairer perhaps than the one I had written). Nor do I think it was nasty either in tone or interpretation. I have seen far worse. I have written far worse. I would have preferred to have seen it published with the reviewer's name attached to it, but I can - and definitely now I do - understand the reason for their reticence. Perhaps all reviews should be anonymous. They might be more honest if they are.

You know, it's okay to say what you like about certain writers. For instance, I could criticise Stephen King's latest novel as much as I like and no one will say anything about it. But this isn't the case with every writer, even though it should be.