Mark Helprin: All The Reviews Of My Book Sucked Because Publishers Assigned The People I Insult To Review It
from the interesting-theories dept
Mark Helprin, the well-known American author of many popular novels which are reasonably beloved, has painted himself into something of a corner, and now he seems to be lashing out at, well, everyone. You may recall that he wrote a silly, uninformed and downright ignorant op-ed piece calling for infinite copyright, a couple years ago. Of course, now he claims he wasn’t calling for any such thing, but the original piece shows otherwise. He was so upset that tons of people showed up to prove him wrong, that he ended up writing an entire book on the subject. Yet, his real complaint in the book wasn’t so much to push for infinite copyright (which, again, he insists everyone misread in his original column), but to smack around some silly commenters on blogs that made fun of him. He actually spends a lot of time dissecting anonymous comments right here on Techdirt in his book — carefully selecting some of the more idiotic ones, while taking others completely out of context. He used that to support his thesis that those calling for weaker copyright laws were idiotic digital barbarians. Yet, of course, anyone could pick and choose some idiotic comments from copyright supporters and make the same silly argument.
Besides, there were many other problems with Helprin’s book. It came across much worse than many of the commenters he attacked. It was filled with ad hominem attacks against these “digital barbarians” and repeatedly got basic facts wrong. Amusingly, considering he spends so much time mocking people for not understanding what he really was saying, the most incredible thing is that he does the exact same thing to almost everyone he criticizes. But, in the end, the biggest problem with Helprin’s book was that it just wasn’t very good. He gets so focused on his own use of language, that he fails to make a very strong point. And… nearly every single review of the book found exactly that.
But, Helprin is apparently not one to back down. Rather than respond to any of the complaints against his book — including the massive factual errors — Helprin has written up a 2,400 word screed slamming everyone for the poor reviews of his book. You see, it wasn’t that the book was bad, but that, once again, no one actually understood what he was writing. And why? Well, according to Helprin, because every publisher assigned the book to the very “barbarians” he was trying to insult with the book. And, since we’re all so clueless and inbred, of course we couldn’t understand it:
Nearly every publication, left, right, and center, assigned the book, with digital in its title, to a resident digeratus, a member of the very tribe I provoke, and thus it was that I came to sell rosaries in Mecca.
Again, he fails to respond to a single point raised by any of the reviews. Instead, he just whines that people thought he was clueless, but he insists he’s not. How could he be clueless? He quoted famous people!
It is why in making my argument I cite, and count as allies, Churchill, Thomas Hardy, Flannery O’Connor, Shakespeare, Yeats, Montaigne, and even Charles de Gaulle, among others.
But, the most ridiculous part of Helprin’s whiny defense of how every single reviewer got his book wrong is his reference to one particular passage that many reviewers pointed to:
It would be one thing if such a revolution produced Mozarts, Einsteins, or Raphaels, but it doesn’t. It produces mouth-breathing morons in backwards baseball caps and pants that fall down; Slurpee-sucking geeks who seldom see daylight; pretentious and earnest hipsters who want you to wear bamboo socks so the world doesn’t end; women who have lizard tattoos winding from the navel to the nape of the neck; beer-drinking dufuses who pay to watch noisy cars driving around in a circle for eight hours at a stretch; and an entire race of females, now entering middle age, that speaks in North American chipmunk and seldom makes a statement without, like, a question mark at the end?
This bit of luddism provoked a bunch of responses, suggesting that Helprin was reaching the “get off my lawn, kids!” stage of life. However, the real problem wasn’t just Helprin being an old fuddy-duddy, but the fact that he’s flat out wrong. Mozart, Einstein and Raphael did what they did without copyright for the most part. Mozart’s best works were actually highly derivative and he created his music at a time when copyright did not cover musical works. Raphael lived in a time before copyright. And Einstein’s works had nothing to do with copyright at all.
Perhaps there’s a simpler explanation for why no one liked your book, Mr. Helprin: it’s just no damn good.
Filed Under: barbarians, copyright, mark helprin, reviews
Comments on “Mark Helprin: All The Reviews Of My Book Sucked Because Publishers Assigned The People I Insult To Review It”
Want some cheese with that whine?
aww… does the baby want a bottle?
But seriously, did he even bother to take his head out of his own ass long enough to think about what he was writing. It’s like he just wrote whatever sounded good to him by “quoting” famous people and works. I can’t believe it, I actually feel sorry for him that he is so out of touch with reality.
This reminds me of Cartman thinking he wrote the “Gay Fish” joke. This guy’s ego is so out-of-wack that it manipulates his brain into thinking he is actually right about this one, and believes it so blindly that he can’t even see where he is clearly wrong. It’s sad really.
Re: Want some cheese with that whine?
Hmmm. Interesting theory. Do you think that Taylor Swift asked Kanye, backstage, if he liked Fish Sticks? It all makes sense now.
Re: Want some cheese with that whine?
Helprin, “beer-drinking dufuses who pay to watch noisy cars driving around in a circle for eight hours at a stretch…”
I resent that he’s misrepresenting me and my kin…it’s not eight hours, you douchetard…it’s four hours.
But seriously, it sounds like he’s trying to come up with something new in the copyright area, but with epic failure in his execution. If there are so many “critics” that misunderstand him, then he needs to write more conclusively and concisely.
Not My Fault!
They all just hate me because I’m so beautiful.
Hey Mark, here’s a free tip: try writing something good.
he’s flat out wrong. Mozart, Einstein and Raphael did what they did without copyright for the most part. Mozart’s best works were actually highly derivative and he created his music at a time when copyright did not cover musical works. Raphael lived in a time before copyright. And Einstein’s works had nothing to do with copyright at all.
and the “mouth-breathing morons in backwards baseball caps” etc are actually the product of the fashions promoted by big media.
I tried to read Helprin’s Op Ed piece which started this whole thing, but it’s complete BS. His entire premise is based on the erroneous belief that copyrights are property. Copyright is not a property right. It’s a government granted monopoly.
Copyright is barely even analogous to property. Sure, you could say that “Someone stole my song when they downloaded it without paying.” But that’s about as asinine as saying, “Someone stole JFK’s life when they murdered him.”
I'm going to say it
If everyone says that your book sucked, well then maybe you should learn to write better. If every one who read your book misinterpreted it, maybe you should learn to write clearer. If everyone is against you, there may be something wrong with you (or you’re just paranoid).
And for the record, Mr. Helprin, the “good old days” never happened.
I actually TRIED reading Helprin's book...
Plopped down the $20 or whatever for it and everything. I was unable to get past the first few pages, unfortunately.
I’ve been reading a lot of “copy-left” stuff recently, and was looking for something to balance it off. I was expecting a decent argument from the other side, but instead got Helprin’s whines and attempts at painting himself more intelligent than those he incessantly moans about. I don’t understand why he didn’t try writing a serious book on the topic.
I feel bad for the guy. It’s like he doesn’t understand what he’s trying to say, gets frustrated, and decides to insult everyone.
Re: I actually TRIED reading Helprin's book...
Hmmm.
Mark Helprin = Angry Dude?
Who is the guy?
Seriously. I don’t know. Do I even care that he wrote something?
Einstein's take
Einstein: “The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources.”
Those do not sound like the words of someone that is pro-copyright.
Whats wrong with Mouth breathing?
He basically described my entire family. Apparently he does not want any of OUR stupid money, because some stupid might rub off.
Hrm. I found his response to be funny and insightful. Maybe I am becoming an old curmudgeon.
Haven’t read the book, and likely won’t. To the degree it says what he says it says, I think he is likely dead on… except for copyright. The machine culture has changed the world dramatically, and not in uniformly positive ways. Incidentally, that view is (or should be) independent of political bent: industry has not been a friend to the environment that the left would protect, any more than it has been healthy for the culture the right (and apparently Helprin in particular) cherishes. The glory of this century is the achievement of individual rights. One of its downfalls is the abandonment of individual responsibility.
The trouble is that Helprin mistakes the role of copyright, because he confuses copyrights with property rights. As he admits he did not understand the scope or complexity of the issue before delving into it, this should not come as a surprise.
Lets at least be fair about his argument. He said the digital revolution (not copyright) would be good, if it led to increased production of outstanding creative works. Instead, he says, it led to cultural changes that bother him. One reviewer implied that he didn’t know what he was talking about because the digital revolution came after the cultural change, to which Helprin responded that the culture change started earlier, at the beginning of the machine age, and quoted contemporary authors for his evidence. You may disagree with him as to whether the digital revolution has led to increased creativity, but his argument at least seems valid (if not perfectly sound).
Re: Re:
If his arguments are as meandering and nonsensical as the one you presented here, it’s easy to see why he’s “misunderstood.”
More Einstein
“Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.” -Albert
If Mr. Helprin is subject to derision by members of the copy-left and it-wants-to-be-free, then he is on the right path given the elitist mentality of such members.
Re: Re:
“On the one hand information wants to be expensive, because it’s so valuable. The right information in the right place just changes your life. On the other hand, information wants to be free, because the cost of getting it out is getting lower and lower all the time. So you have these two fighting against each other.” – Stewart Brand, 1984
Re: Re:
If Mr. Helprin is subject to derision by members of the copy-left and it-wants-to-be-free, then he is on the right path given the elitist mentality of such members.
But that’s the thing. It’s not just subject to derision by whatever the “copyleft” is, but by pretty much everyone across the board. Take a look at this for example:
http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2009/05/20/book-review-digital-barbarism/
The problem isn’t “copyleft” or “copyright.” It’s that the book is flat out bad.
But it’s really quite incredible that you’d judge a book based on who hates it.
Re: Re:
And by “elitist” do you mean ‘given to intellectual discourse’?
Or by “elitist” do you mean ‘those who desire information and ideas to be freely available so that any person, rich or poor, has equal access’.
Yeah. Screw that, either way!
Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, the elitist comment is really quite odd. Because it’s quite clear that the elistist in the conversation is Helprin. Just reading his comments on this whole thing is talking down to everyone as being “barbarians.” Folks who want content spread more widely, and think that copyright gets in the way of that are not elitist at all. They’re talking about spreading information more widely, which seems like the opposite of elitism.
Very odd statement by that guy. No wonder he wants to hide behind being anonymous.
Did Mark Helprin suffer a brain injury?
Let’s ignore for the moment the fact that Mr. Helprin’s parents’ generation thought that their children would go to hell for listening to rock’n’roll. It isn’t as if that generational clash has produced any sort of social unrest or anything. Oh, wait…
It’s very nice and tolerant of Michael Masnick to qualify Mark Helprin’s comments as simply a “bit of luddism”. I would say that his words are no less ignorant and intolerant and insulting and baseless than the worst of the McCarthyisms. “Slurpee-sucking geeks who seldom see daylight”? Assuming, of course, that the alleged problem is not really related to the popular chilled dessert, I dare Mr. Helprin to look at the pre-corporate fame pictures of the founders of Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, Yahoo, and coutless others.
Or would Mark Helprin insist that it the fault of the above-mentioned people that the modern youth is as allegedly defficient as he paints it? Perhaps he would like to live in a society where the use of technology and the cultural content of the media is controlled by the people of “high moral statute”? Iran might be a nice destination. I hear they have a lively climate. I would, however, suggest that he stay away from South-East/South-Central regions – his former colleagues from the Israeli Air Force might have their own plans for places like Arak, and Bushehr, and Natanz…
Shame
It’s disappointing to see that he’s such a nut about this, because the books are really quite good.
I wonder if he realizes that the people on both sides of the copyright debate aren’t interested in promoting HIS view of a healthy culture, but rather in allowing the culture to promote what it wants.
His little rant makes him sound like some sort of would-be dictator who shouldn’t be involved in the discussion regardless of which side he is on. If his reasoning is based on what he personally finds tasteful and distasteful, and he really truly hopes that he can foist those tastes upon the world, then he’s worse than a luddite, he’s a bad type of person.
“The glory of this century is the achievement of individual rights. One of its downfalls is the abandonment of individual responsibility.”
I’m sorry, but I can’t let this go….
How does someone conclude this? How does one judge an entire century’s worth of human activity? What possible evidence is there for such a sweeping statement?
Re: Re:
One word. Okay fine, to be nice, two words: (borderline) megalomania
Copyrights, as far back as the late 18C, were not ruled as property rights by the highest Courts of British law.
And even property rights themselves are, as Edmund Burke would say, not absolutely inalienable.
If they were, the rights of slave owners to their property would still be inalienable.
Economic rights are powers and so should never be absolute.
Barbarian elitists! Now there’s a thought!
Bridging The Generation Gap
For mister Helprin in a format he may understand,
empty barrels make the most noise. And what a
noisy empty little book it is. They would be
childish scribbling but they lack the charming
naivety of a child. In the end what we’re served
is bluster and bore, finely wrought but nothing
more.
Based upon many of the comments I have read in this and previous articles on this site, I well understand where Mr. Helprin is coming from in his op-ed piece. Why bother to think for yourself by examining all sides of issues when you can have someone else do it for you?
Yes, there are some who actually try and do what Mr. Helprin bemoans as being the exceptions to internet commentary, but they seem to be distinctly in the minority.
BTW, Mr. Helprin is mindful of the limited times provision in the Constitution and thus is not an advocate of perpetualterms. To suggest otherwise misconstrues his points. Samuel Clemmens (sp?) was a strong advocate of infinite/perpetual, but this is not a position that Helprin supports.
Also BTW, the concepts of property in economic and legal theory are not coextensive/congruent. In the eyes of the law copyrights are generally accepted as legally defined property interests. Obviously, in the eyes of economics it is not viewed as such. No matter which is the proper view, it is useful to keep in mind that all property, tangible and intangible, is in one form or another a creature of law.
Re: Re:
Based upon many of the comments I have read in this and previous articles on this site, I well understand where Mr. Helprin is coming from in his op-ed piece. Why bother to think for yourself by examining all sides of issues when you can have someone else do it for you?
Wait, wait wait…. You’re the one claiming that you don’t need to read the book to insist it must be good… and THEN you mock others for not thinking for themselves.
Wow.
BTW, Mr. Helprin is mindful of the limited times provision in the Constitution and thus is not an advocate of perpetualterms.
Um. You should try reading Mr. Helprin sometime before making such a statement.
To suggest otherwise misconstrues his points.
No. It does not.
Also BTW, the concepts of property in economic and legal theory are not coextensive/congruent. In the eyes of the law copyrights are generally accepted as legally defined property interests. Obviously, in the eyes of economics it is not viewed as such. No matter which is the proper view, it is useful to keep in mind that all property, tangible and intangible, is in one form or another a creature of law.
That is entirely meaningless to the discussion.
Re: Re: Re:
My comment was made in response solely to the cited op-ed piece. It had nothing to do with the book.
Mr. Helprin raises many valid points, but it is so much easier to label him a fool than to try and graps their broader meaning.
As for “elitists”, I stand by the term. Persons such as Larry Lessig, Pam Samuelson, etc. personify what I mean by using the term. While it may come as a shock to many techdirt adherents, theirs are hardly the majority view, even among academics.
Reasonable minds can differ over what should be the proper scope of copyright law, but having studied countless papers on the subeject I note a recurring theme among “elitists” that they are right and everyone who expresses disagreement is simply wrong and uninformed.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Mr. Helprin raises many valid points, but it is so much easier to label him a fool than to try and graps their broader meaning.
Please, please, please. Share with these “many valid points.”
As for “elitists”, I stand by the term.
Really? You don’t want to do that.
Persons such as Larry Lessig, Pam Samuelson, etc. personify what I mean by using the term.
Seriously? People who are concerned about having information more widely spread and more widely shared are elitists? Uh huh. And folks like yourself who think information should be locked up and only the people with money can get access to them, and anyone else is a “barbarian” are *not* the elitists? Yeah… that’s believable.
Try looking in the mirror.
While it may come as a shock to many techdirt adherents, theirs are hardly the majority view, even among academics.
Whether or not they are in the majority view does not make one an elitist.
Reasonable minds can differ over what should be the proper scope of copyright law, but having studied countless papers on the subeject I note a recurring theme among “elitists” that they are right and everyone who expresses disagreement is simply wrong and uninformed.
If that were the case, you might have a point. But the problem here is that Helpring IS wrong and uninformed, and Lessig and others laid out IN GREAT DETAIL why.
You, on the other hand, have insisted that WITHOUT HAVING READ THE BOOK, Helprin must be right because Lessig disagrees with him.
Yes, that’s credible.
Again, I have to assume the reason you are anonymous is because you know what this sort of post does to your credibility. Why not sign your name to these posts, huh? If you are who I think you are, you said you were going to sign your comments. Apparently, you’re too afraid to stand behind what you say. And for good reason.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Sign name? I keep telling Vista to save a cookie, and Vista keeps ignoring my direction. Same thing is happening to my Google preferences and my homepage. The preferences simply disappear, and I haven’t a clue why this is so.
Note, please, that my comments are limited solely to the op-ed piece, and not to the book. The op-ed piece does make some thought provoking points (albeit at times in a strident manner). Having read his 2007 and subsequent articles, it seems to me that copyright law, while a part of his discussion, is not the primary focus. Obviously we have both read his articles (though with different take-aways), but it is lamentable that so many who comment have clearly not done so. Not only that, but many who comment can in no reasonable way be said to be contributors to a conversation. They rant. They curse. They exhibit no original thought. All these persons do is take away from the conversation, and not contribute to it.
As much as I may disagree with some of the points you raise, I do nevertheless find them informative and thought provoking. They are educational and force me to reevaluate many matters I have previously taken for granted. This is what a conversation should encourage.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Mr. Helprin raises many valid points…
From someone who hasn’t even bothered to read the book. Typical.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Once again, my comment(s) is/are limited solely to the op-ed piece, and not the book.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Once again, my comment(s) is/are limited solely to the op-ed piece, and not the book.
Just exactly which “op-ed piece” of Helprin’s would that be?
Yeah, that’s what I thought.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
The second one associated with the title of this post.
bogus comparison
“Mozart, … did what they did without copyright for the most part.”
Yeah. And how did that work out for him?
Re: bogus comparison
Yeah. And how did that work out for him?
He became a forgotten nobody that no one ever heard of. [/sarcasm]
I have read and enjoyed almost all of Helprin’s fiction. So here’s some advice from a fan, Mark – shut up and write… fiction.
Why is it that a rejoinder to 31 I submitted received a message pertaining to it being subject to review by a moderator? This seems unusual.
Re: Re:
Why is it that a rejoinder to 31 I submitted received a message pertaining to it being subject to review by a moderator? This seems unusual.
If the spam filter thinks it’s spam it will do that. I’ve gone through the spam filter, though, and it shows no such response to post 31.
Re: Re: Re:
Why is it that a rejoinder to 31 I submitted received a message pertaining to it being subject to review by a moderator? This seems unusual.
Looking deeper. It appears that you submitted a blank comment. It’s possible that you hit the wrong submit button. But the only comment you submitted was entirely blank. Blank comments often represent spam and are blocked.
Re: Re: Re:
Strange. I guess I will just chalk it up to a transitory glitch.
Granting that I am a barbarian. Why must I be barred from learning some culture over the Internet by this Mr. Helprin and his copyrights?
A Good Grief
Helprin isn’t that difficult to figure out (and that’s no knock against him, since few folks who make a living publishing their opinions are). He wants to be Truman Capote. He wants to be feted and hailed for his command of a good quote and his facility with language. Thus, everything that makes it obvious that people who are not as good as him on his that scale of values are more broadly celebrated, is to be short down with all the venom he can muster, so people can see what a wit and raconteur he is.
I actually sympathize greatly with him: this is his way of fighting off the undermining of his lifestyle. But we can all see that it’s misguided: techdirt commenters aren’t trying to make him be wrong through the force of our ignorance and rudeness, any more than he can possible make us be wrong through force of savage wit.
It reminds me of Jim Craig being accused of “killing” the newspaper, whether from ignorance or spite (greed’s ruled out, since he leaves millions of dollars in ad revenue on the table every year). But no one’s guilty of that murder; the world is just turning away from the business model that sustained newspapers. That hurts the people who have spent significant portions of their lives being so sustained, and their grief at this loss has been loud and long.
We should expect that, and forgive them for it; before this new better thing came along, “old media” gave a lot of joy and did a lot of good. Getting over the loss and working through the grief is going to be harder for some than others : Helprin’s on Anger, and may never leave it, whereas those he sees as his enemies are mostly well past Acceptance. I’m glad that Techdirt is keeping us abreast of this saga, but spending too many electrons mocking the guy seems a bit too much like bear-baiting to me. It’s not even elitism, just pointlessly cruel.
Writing Style Observation
While reading just the snippets included in the article, and regrettably I’m going to massively generalize here, I noticed that Helprin’s writing style seems to carry more flare than content. I realize he is attempting to draw a line in the intellectual dirt but he drowns his point in muddled sentences. The only person who speaks remotely like that is Dennis Miller. It seems he is going more for a compendium of proof he is an intellectual saint and therefore his opinions should count more. When everyone else lets him in on the big secret (he can’t communicate even wrong information well) he cries about it, for 2400 words. As was proved by the Mythbusters, you CAN polish poop but it still stinks!
(Helprin should repeat their experiment.)