I rarely find time or energy to mock a person on a personal level. It's rarely worth the bother, especially considering that once I know someone well enough to be able to get them on a personal level, I know them well enough that I don't want to. (Though that could also be because I don't get to know people I can't respect, and I can't mock people I do respect.)
Which is why I find it humorous to be told what I wrote (and am writing) is slanderous (other than your very pointed and correct observation that it'd be libel, if it were actually false) -- because I had lots of fun dismantling the story, and sure, there's a personal attack but it's predicated on the conclusion that the story is full of holes. In other words, if the story were decent, there'd be no grounds for saying anything at all about the author. Libel and slander would be if I claimed the author obviously cheats on her taxes, which I have no grounds for saying; a critical review that says it's obvious the author doesn't research... well, if you can demonstrate your statements are true then it's not libel. Duh.
However, to then followup on a bad review and act like a self-defensive and self-defeating twit throwing personal accusations at the reviewer... well, that's kinda opening the door to all sorts of reactions, I think. Reactions I don't need to spell out, though, because I know I have a dwircle/flist that's smart enough to draw those conclusions on their own. All I have to do is point, and people are perfectly capable of laughing on their own.
no subject
Date: 7 Apr 2010 03:41 pm (UTC)Which is why I find it humorous to be told what I wrote (and am writing) is slanderous (other than your very pointed and correct observation that it'd be libel, if it were actually false) -- because I had lots of fun dismantling the story, and sure, there's a personal attack but it's predicated on the conclusion that the story is full of holes. In other words, if the story were decent, there'd be no grounds for saying anything at all about the author. Libel and slander would be if I claimed the author obviously cheats on her taxes, which I have no grounds for saying; a critical review that says it's obvious the author doesn't research... well, if you can demonstrate your statements are true then it's not libel. Duh.
However, to then followup on a bad review and act like a self-defensive and self-defeating twit throwing personal accusations at the reviewer... well, that's kinda opening the door to all sorts of reactions, I think. Reactions I don't need to spell out, though, because I know I have a dwircle/flist that's smart enough to draw those conclusions on their own. All I have to do is point, and people are perfectly capable of laughing on their own.