Bad reviews/rejections -- see if this makes you feel better

[E G Logan]

Have you just spent years researching a book, while juggling the 24/7 requirements of a very large family and a very demanding job, only to receive... well, a disappointing response?

See Simon Heffer's review of Jacob Rees-Mogg's The Victorians in the Daily Telegraph. Heffer begins by awarding it one star out of the possible five and remarking, "parts of this appear to have been written by a baboon". Some of what he goes on to write suggests those might have been the best parts, in his view.

He concludes with: "Rees-Mogg thanks the people who inspired him to produce this book. They have done him no favours. No intelligent person needs to read it; no unintelligent person should, because it would compound their misfortune."

Ouch. Oh, Ouch.

 

[Carol Rose]

Why on earth should someone else’s bad review make us feel better? That’s terribly ungracious.

 

[E G Logan]

I suppose it is. Bad attack of schadenfreude, maybe.

 

[Steve C]

He is a throwback to Victorian times and a bit scary. A little surprising that the Wallygraph takes a swing at him. Perhaps the book should be marketed under a different genre, I read this in the Guardian. "Reading this book is like living inside a scary version of Lewis Carroll’s Wonderland."

The Victorians by Jacob Rees-Mogg review – history as manifesto

Confidence and moral purpose made Britain great, argues this poorly written book, designed to reflect the rightwinger back to himself at twice the size

www.theguardian.com

 

[Webbwalker]

Why on earth should someone else’s bad review make us feel better? That’s terribly ungracious.

Because it's Jacob Rees-Mogg. You need a British context.

 

[Carol Rose]

I know who he is. And I don't think it matters who it is or what context someone thinks I need. I would never feel good about another author getting slammed in a review.

 

[Steve C]

The link goes elsewhere but even the correct one is hidden behind a paywall

 

[Carol Rose]

Thanks to a fellow Litopian, THIS is the correct link directly to the review. @E G Logan I've edited your original post so the link is correct. Appears you still need to register/pay to read the entire review, as @Steve C points out.

 

[E G Logan]

Which is precisely why I didn't put the link in. I didn't mean it to look like a link.

 

[Carol Rose]

Which is precisely why I didn't put the link in. I didn't mean it to look like a link.

It was a link when you first posted it, just not the link to the review. It went to a political article. Did you mean not to post any link at all? I’m confused.

Either way, if you’re not able to edit the post yourself, I’m happy to remove the link. Just let me know.