A Clarification, Re: Rabid Puppy Nominee Johnson

Jeffro Johnson, a rabid puppy nominee for “best” related work, has discovered the blog post where, in response to his nominated work, I called him “a very, very, very, stupid but harmless man”.

Mr Johnson seems to consider this an insult, although I should point out that that is the kindest thing I have ever said or will ever say about anyone who willingly aligns themselves with the Rabid Puppies — I consider stupidity something to be pitied rather than hated, and I *do* consider him harmless from the evidence I’ve seen of his work.

However, Mr Johnson goes on to say that he is aware that no-one cares any more about writers such as Lovecraft, Dunsany, CL Moore, Moorcock, L. Sprague de Camp, Fritz Leiber, or Robert E Howard, all of whom he seems to believe he is rescuing from obscurity, and that I and others who don’t like his work “Maybe… just aren’t that interested in fantasy or science fiction.”

I can only apologise. I should have realised that Mr Johnson might find that post, and made myself much clearer than I was, because it’s plain from his writings that he lacks basic reading comprehension.

So, to clarify, I own books by all those authors, and the others he names. I am, to a greater or lesser extent, interested in all of them.

I’m just not interested in what a very dull-witted man without even the most rudimentary of critical analytical tools has to say about them.

I hope that clears up Mr. Johnson’s confusion. I am glad to have helped.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to A Clarification, Re: Rabid Puppy Nominee Johnson

  1. Andrew Hickey says:

    And just to clarify for my own readers, I do not, in itself, consider it a bad thing for him to be writing what he’s writing. Calling his writing stupid was meant as an accurate descriptor rather than a moral judgement.
    If his writing brings him or others happiness, then it’s good for him to be doing it, and I would normally never think of passing judgement, least of all on his intellectual capability — I’d have left him alone to do his thing if he had come to my attention, which he probably wouldn’t. However, twice, an utterly malicious actor has forced his work to my (and many others’) attention, and called on us to judge it fairly. And so I have. I’m genuinely sad that I’ve had to.

  2. gavinburrows says:

    Does he imagine that in writing about someone you make yourself comparative to them? Blimey, Jack Graham writes about Shakespeare! As soon as he learns this, he won’t be able to fit his head through the front door!

  3. I don’t think there’s any talking point on the sci-fi right quite as stupid as bemoaning how Lovecraft doesn’t get the attention and acclaim he deserves.

Comments are closed.