When the stakes are this small, duck for cover.
(Page 2 of 2)
Another wounded author took a deep breath and set things straight. “Shlomo Sand’s response to my review of the parody of historical scholarship he presents in his book illustrates perfectly the accuracy of my critique. In his letter, he substitutes belligerence for argument, and misrepresents the research by others which he quarries. His letter is replete with irrelevance, innuendo and inaccuracy.”
Another letter notes that an author was unhappy being caught out in an argument over the meaning of “prime mover” as used by Latin Aristoteleans. “I called the confusion ‘a howler’. Professor Hart now pleads guilty to the lesser charge of laziness in failing to make the distinction clear. But it is good to learn that he is very much better informed on these matters than is evident from a reading of his book.”
The surprise ending category includes this letter, worth quoting in its entirety:
I have just read Jon Garvie’s review of Jan Morris’s book ‘Contact!’ and I found the review to be so rude, disdainful and ill-considered that it was with great pleasure that I ordered the book immediately.”