A fellow writer goes all emotional on the fact that John Locke did buy reviews. The man bought hundreds reviews to pimp up his stories. Sure this is bad, very bad, and not truthful to the readers that fell for these reviews and bought his books, and especially not for those that disliked his stories, however it does not change the stories he wrote. It's still the same stories and they'll eventually have to stand on themselves. If he proves to be a hack writer he eventually will sell nothing more, but if his stories are good he'll still be selling even after this poop that did surface.
Barry Eisler had a nice comment on the blog post: "I'm sorry, but this is just too much.
Reading is a "profoundly intimate experience… sacred… [and] the ultimate act of trust"?
don't know. Off the top of my head, I would have voted for making love
(particularly the first time), or allowing someone to operate on my
infant child, or knowing someone has my back in battle and will die to
protect me, or choosing the person I want to be by my side when I die.
But that's just me, and I suppose these things are idiosyncratic.
"As both a writer and a reader, I find this entire thing utterly repulsive."
just concerning, disturbing, ethically wrong, and such? Are you not
concerned that you'll have no superlatives left should you be called
upon to comment when, for example, a priest rapes an altar boy, or when
religious lunatics hold a rally at the funeral of a dead soldier
claiming he was killed because God Hates Fags, or when a politician lies
the country into war?"
Read the rest in the comments section.
I also did post a comment, guess which one. ;)