I offered Vell Bruixot (Catalan: The Old Wizard) an opportunity to respond to my Deconstruction of A Criminal Book Review. Surprisingly, s/he has responded.
Here is the wording of my offer to him/her below:
Your review of my book is abusive, malicious, vicious, fraudulent and dishonest. It deliberately and deceitfully leads the unsuspecting reader to believe that the book review was written after reading the entire book…
I have written my personal response to your book review on my blog. There is not enough space available here (Amazon comment box). I invite you, and anyone else who is reading, to copy and paste the link below, in your browser.
Read my response, and even write a response to me, which, if it is printable, I will consider publishing your remarks on my blog for readers to read also. Here is the link below:
Thomas Jerome Baker
Author of “I Live In Chile”
The response, mind you, is a response to my providing Mr./Ms./Mrs. (?) Bruixot two (2) possible options to remedy his/her defamatory remarks against my character.
Option 1: Apologise
Option 2: Legal proceedings against him/her for defamation of character under Article 416, Penal Code of Chile:
(Quote) Art. 416 Es injuria toda expresión proferida o acción ejecutada en deshonra, descrédito o menosprecio de otra persona. (end of quote)
To refresh our memory, Bruixot wrote the following personal attack (ad hominem), defamation of character:
Paragraph 1: (quote) “… a childlike writing style that suggests heavy indulgence in dangerous drugs or severe closed-head injury… (end of quote)
Paragraph 2: Bruixot also wrote the following personal attack (ad hominem), defamation of character: (quote) “…for someone who should not be allowed in public without adult supervision…” (end of quote)
Paragraph 4: Bruixot also wrote the following personal attack (ad hominem), defamation of character: (quote) “Mr. Baker’s lame attempts in this area paint him as a charlatan, a fraud.”
(end of quote)
In his/her concluding remark, Bruixot wrote this: (quote) “It gets worse from there. It’s not even useful as entertainment, nor are its pages suitable for wrapping small fish.” (end of quote)
Now we come to the prologue of Bruixot’s response.
As we recall, Bruixot has written a book review after reading only the FREE portion of the book.
Bruixot did NOT read the book he/she reviewed.
Further, Bruixot completely misunderstood the FREE portion of the book that she/he “read”, showing poor reading comprehension ability.
The other option is that Bruixot fully understood the book, and deliberately deceived the unsuspecting reader, when Bruixot wrote, (quote) “The writer claims that the language spoken here is the purest form of “Castilian Spanish.”
Although Bruixot wishes to pass himself/herself off as an expert on language and grammar, his/her grammatical knowledge and reading comprehension is severely limited to prescriptive rules of grammar and literal interpretations of language.
Vell Bruixot: Reading Comprehension Limited to Low Level, Literal Interpretations of Language In Use
(Quote) For the record, here are my exact words (from the FREE portion of the book) which anyone can read for themselves. Now, I quote the book itself, directly:
I Live In Chile, page 11: (quote) “…due to our isolation from the rest of the world, we have evolved the Spanish language to a state of perfection. We speak it so purely, Castilian Spanish (Castellano), that at times, even we do not understand one another…” (end of quote)
Vell Bruixot, does not the clearly evident contradiction JUMP OUT at you? If the language spoken here is so “pure”, then it makes absolutely no sense that we can not understand each other!
How could you misinterpret something so simple? How could you even for a second think that the meaning was literal?
I want to be absolutely clear, leave no doubt whatsoever in anyone’s mind about Vell Bruixot’s poor reading comprehension ability. Bruixot attached no importance to the contradiction,
“We speak it so purely, Castilian Spanish (Castellano), that at times, even we do not understand one another…”
His/her mind completely ignored the lack of coherence between language purity, on the one hand, and an inability to understand one another, on the other.
Since she/he didn’t “get it”, didn’t understand the conceptual mismatch, his / her mind resolved the matter by declaring, (quote) “The writer claims that the language spoken here is the purest form of “Castilian Spanish.” (end of quote)
Bruixot followed that up with a blistering prescriptive grammatical attack, concluding, (quote) “Mr. Baker’s lame attempts in this area paint him as a charlatan, a fraud.” (end of quote)
Perhaps Bruixot would be willing to better accept his/her poor reading comprehension if the explanation comes from an academic authority on the subject, Professor Ronnie Cann, Personal Chair in Linguistic Semantics, as he delivered his inaugural lecture entitled “Doing Language“:
“…certain aspects of an utterance, written or spoken, depend for their interpretation on the context in which the utterance occurs.” – Professor Ronnie Cann: Linguistics and English Language, School of Philosophy,
Psychology and Language Sciences, University of Edinburgh.
At this point, one would think that Vell Bruixot would be busy writing an apology to me. Most logical, reasonable people would concede their mistakes, apologise, and get on with their life.
Not Vell Bruixot.
Vell Bruixot is an old soldier who is unable to admit the war is over. Bruixot has been deconstructed. She/he has been caught with his/her hand in the cookie jar.
Vell Bruixot is like a chess player, who will not resign a hopelessly lost game, although it is unsportsmanlike (for highly skilled, ethical players) to continue playing, forcing a checkmate.
So be it.
Vell Bruixot, here are your exact words. Shame on you for not apologising to me…