Nothing to see here

That absurd Patricia Cornwell post that I made last week has attracted more traffic, and almost as many comments, as anything I've posted in months.

So I deleted it.

Now I know why people attack bestselling writers: it gets attention. Since I don't want that kind of attention, I removed it. I will, however, leave all the boring posts active. Read those instead.

Comments

[I.J.Parker]

So this is not about P.C.?

You know, in most of the comments about her, there is this refrain of regret that she could not or would not produce any longer what had made her fans fall in love with her books in the first place. I think people felt cheated and it didn't help that she kept signing million-dollar contracts. After a while, a certain amount of anger developed.

Mind you, though, her books still sell madly. It's incomprehensible.

[Clea Simon]

I'm sorry I missed it, David. I posted my review of her new one (written for the Globe) and also got a flood of comments. But most of them were thoughtful - people discussing why they give up on series, or why they think authors give up. Only one or two flakes. But my little blog doesn't get that much traffic, I guess. I'm grateful!

[Maxine]

It's still there in the RSS though! I am looking at it as I type. And cached in Google.
On the Internet, you can't bury the bodies ;-).
I J Parker makes a good point, I was one of the commenters who expressed the sentiment described.

[Bill Peschel]

Obviously, it's your call, but I found your opinion refreshing.

[Sydney]

Are you sure you weren't contacted by several of Ms. Cornwell's lawyers, or maybe several bulky bodyguards and told to remove disparaging comments at once? ;)

[David J. Montgomery]

I wasn't contacted by Ms. Cornwell's attorneys -- although that would have been funny if I had.

The purpose of the original post was to make light of an absurd situation (i.e., an author blaming a rash of bad reviews on some sort of conspiracy). It was intended to be humorous.

In retrospect, however, the post was beyond the scope of what I'm trying to do with CFD, as was the resulting discussion. So I decided to forestall any further debate by deleting it.

That being said, I stand by the comments I made regarding the book in question. It stinks.

[Sydney]

I don't know. You look at Van Gogh's self-portrait with his head bandaged and ask if it helps to know his personal demons, the fight with Gauguin that cost him part of his earlobe. I think it does. Cornwell's work cannot be separated from her life. Her life is a spectacle and increasingly, so are her books. She's a shameless self-promoter. She always has been. She invites us to stare. So we're staring.

[Elaine Flinn]

Alas, we writers are expected to be 'shamless promoters' by our publishers! So I can't fault her for that - just lousy writing.