RIP Tom Clancy

[sr71plt]

You're just an imbecile. Debase his writing some other time, not in a memorial thread. Just say sorry to hear he passed and stay the fuck quiet about anything else. Start your own thread about what he did and didn't do, just not in this time and place.

Sorry, Royce. You're the one who has debased the thread--and, along with others, highlighted the truth of the publishing-industry constructed Clancy franchise by praising him for what he didn't do rather than what he did--and inviting the truth to spill out here.

And you can stick your commands where the sun don't shine. I haven't seen you contribute much of anything to Literotica.

 

[LadyVer]

My point was that sometimes, people like to post what they think is a clever little quip, when it isn't.

And crass, in this context, is praising someone for taking credit for someone else's work. I have no personal beef with Clancy, I have just always been a little annoyed that so much praise has been heaped upon him when that praise is for work others have done. The Hunt for Red October was a very good story, and well-written. It just wasn't written by Clancy.

So, like I said, R.I.P. Tom Clancy. But if you want to remember someone, try to remember them in their entirety.

I take it that means you didn't like what I said. I can deal with it. Sometimes I don't like your clever little quips either. If you had been more clear to begin with, I would have known what you were trying to get at.

Remembering someone in their entirety is a subjective matter. Especially when it's on a RIP thread that someone else created. I don't recall bashing the dead being part of a funeral service or memorial traditions. I think most people are aware of the issues involved with Clancy and his writing. For some reason, Pilot has the need to remind everyone again and again what a disservice Clancy did the holy industry of writing.

Haven't actually read the thread, have you, Lady V? Each one of my statements followed yet another praise of him for something he didn't do. Yes, it's too bad he's dead. It's also too bad these folks can't praise him for something he actually did rather than steal the credit from others and show how little they understand the publishing industry. (How easily they can be fooled.)

Why no comment for those repetitively making statements of praise that are verifiably false and insensitive and insulting to folks who actually did the work?

I read the entire thread. Interesting how so many people wondered why you were making such an issue over a dead man and his writing. You are again making something into what it wasn't. I don't know why. I don't care. A lot of people ended up benefiting from Clancy's work. I can't find fault with that. For some reason you do.

There you go with the whole thing about praise. It's not about praising the man for what he did, or didn't do, it's about paying respects to a man, PERIOD. It doesn't matter if he was a writer, actor or celebrity chef, the man died, we pay our respects to that man, not his body of work.

You have absolutely no concept of honour and integrity, nor do you understand the meaning of being a gentleman.

I hear what you're saying. To me, it's about respect for the dead and using someone's RIP thread to show how much one knows about the publishing industry.

 

[sr71plt]

I hear what you're saying. To me, it's about respect for the dead and using someone's RIP thread to show how much one knows about the publishing industry.

For me it also was respect for the living.

The people who benefited from the "Clancy work" were benefiting from a franchise effort (which will continue to use his name, I'm sure). Until the last decade or so, they weren't reading what only Clancy was writing. (And in the last decade, they were having a heck of a lot of trouble reading the books.)

It's like the John Jakes franchise (and I'm not sure there even is a real John Jakes. It might have been like Betty Crocker.)

 

[LadyVer]

For me it also was respect for the living.

The people who benefited from the "Clancy work" were benefiting from a franchise effort (which will continue to use his name, I'm sure). Until the last decade or so, they weren't reading what only Clancy was writing. (And in the last decade, they were having a heck of a lot of trouble reading the books.)

It's like the John Jakes franchise (and I'm not sure there even is a real John Jakes. It might have been like Betty Crocker.)

There are a lot of franchises in publishing. One is responsible for getting my son interested enough to start reading books and keep reading. I think that's a good thing. Whether the franchise has contracted a stable of writers to do the writing or one ghost writer, someone is writing stories that people want to read. If an author can franchise their products and earn a decent living from it, I say go for it. This in turn gives the author opportunities to write other stories and gives others a way to make a living.

 

[sr71plt]

Agree with all of that. Wouldn't fool myself about who was doing what in the franchise, though.

This has application to even a single author who does, in fact, do the writing of the book. The author's name is on the book, so the writing credit goes there, but the book is actually a production product. Unless it is self-published without an editor or a book packager, it's a "we" product, not just a "me" product. I've seen several authors get dropped by publishers because they went all the way through the process on their first book with the publisher acting like they thought it was just an "me" product.