Aaannddd he’s still pissed at me

So, I felt like I owed the Professor a direct response, so I emailed him. It basically summaries what I said in my previous post, but let me copy and paste it here for full disclosure. Let me emphasize how I was trying to be nice with bold:

“Dr. Harrigan,

This is Jen, the author of the original nine page “diatribe” against your book. First, I’d like to thank you for linking to my blog in your email – free advertisement is always nice. Anyway, I just want to say that I honestly apologize if I originally came off as directly calling the you racist/sexist/homophobic in my blog post. I didn’t believe you were actually this way: I mainly thought the book just came off the wrong way, and you failed to express your true intentions. I know I had said that to my friends before typing up my review, but I guess that disclaimer wasn’t as clearly stated in the final product. I’m also sorry for any cruel spirited ad hominem attacks I may have used. At the time of writing the review, only a couple of my friends read my blog, so I didn’t expect anyone (especially the author) to ever see it. Then the review hit Pharyngula (an extremely popular atheist blog, which you probably know) and exploded over the internet. I guess this is a good lesson to be careful of what you put online.

That being said, I do not apologize about my main criticisms in the book. I still stand by my opinion that it was poor writing and a bad message for promoting atheism. I feel sort of bad that I’ve upset you, as that wasn’t my goal. But negative reviews are to be expected when you present your work to the public – especially if you actively send out the book for people to review. Professional authors don’t take every negative review as a personal insult that requires a direct individual response. No, they take the criticism and move on. Not everyone is going to like your book. If Dan Brown (I actually enjoyed the DaVinci code, by the way) spent all his time responding to critics, he would not only appear childish, but he would never get anything done. Not everything you write is going to be brilliant. I’ll freely admit I’ve written a lot of horrible stuff before. And again, for the sake of honesty…you get a bunch of friends and family members to read your stuff, and of course most of them will say it’s lovely…but they’re probably either being nice, or really aren’t literary experts. Maybe you should have listened to your writer friend who said she couldn’t get past the sixth page.

And since it seemed you had specific questions for me, let me address the most important ones:

-When you talk about feminism and homosexuality in your email, I actually agree with you. Again, I just think your views came out the wrong way in the book. It happens. Sometimes we intend to write one thing, but people interpret it another way.
-You say I don’t really address the male characters and a couple of the female characters, that I get some of my facts confused…yes, that’s true. To be honest, it was for brevity’s sake. My nine page “assault” was already getting long enough. I didn’t think my book report was going to be graded by the author himself, so I wasn’t taking perfect notes. I admit to completely missing the other black character. Either the description of him being black didn’t stick in my head, or I got it confused with another character (which happened frequently, since you had way too many characters…also explains the Mickey Mouse watch). The only part of the book I skimmed was the couple page conversation on boxing between Slane and the dominatrix, so I promise I was trying to pay attention.
-You say that you don’t see any of the demeaning things about women that I’m apparently just making up. Just because you, a male, do not see it, doesn’t mean it’s not there. And I promise you I’m not trying to make things up. I’m honestly not one of those “rabid” feminists who takes offense at everything – I’m fairly laid back. I make off colored jokes myself. I’d be afraid what a “real” feminist would say if she read the book.
–It was not my initial goal to damn your book. I was honestly quite excited to read a fiction novel about atheism and sex – I wouldn’t have opened it if I didn’t want to read it. I even kept reading with the hopes that it would get better – I wanted to like it! But by the time I was mostly done, I realized that was not going to happen…and that I should at least share my experience with my friends. I’ve also talked to a member in a Californian atheist group who read your book, and she agreed with my review (though she read your book before reading my review). It’s not just me.
-I did not have some “Writing 101” book open with a checklist of things to catch you on. I’ve taken two creative writing classes, I write frequently, I’ve read many books about writing, and I have a lot of practice critiquing stories.
-I’m not quite sure what you expect me to think of the dildo battery thing. Hooray? I’m not offended, if that’s what you think. I actually think it’s quite interesting and admirable that you spent time in the shop to study people’s behavior.
-I’ll try to control myself and not start a diatribe against elderly teachers in the future, as apparently I’m likely to do that.

I guess you’re just going to have to take my word for it when I say I wasn’t trying to be mean or spiteful. I read the whole book, paid attention, and tried to write an honest review. It’s up to you to decide if you want to believe me or not. I hope you don’t take any of this too personally. It’s silly to make enemies when we both agree on so many things.

-Jennifer, aka, “The Avenger””

Another student [Susan] from a campus atheist group also responded to him and CCed me in the email, saying she read most of the book, most of the blog entry, and most of his email, and that she basically agreed with me…and that many students at the CFI world congress agreed the book was awful. Kudos to her for sticking up for me.

Well, our esteemed Professor has replied again:

“Jen,

I don’t need writing advice from amateurs or lessons on how to take criticism. As for consulting an editor–why do you people seem blind to this–I did. Roy P. Fairfield wouldn’t have changed a word of the book. He loved it. Who is doctor/professor Fairfield? For thirteen years he was associate editor of The Humanist along with Editor Paul Kurtz, the author of Humanist Manifesto II. Kurtz wrote in Free Inquiry that his close friend Roy saw to it that the Manifesto came to life. We all owe a lot to both of them. It doesn’t seem to have dawned on you that you trashed Roy as well when you trashed my book on Amazon–inches from Roy’s praise–and by implication in your Blaghag Blog and the Pharyngula Atheism Blog. By intension or ignorance or judgment deficit or carelessness you distorted the book and made it a source of public mockery. Mistake me not, criticism I expected, any creative work–especially a book like mine that touches on radioactive subjects–gets it, some more, some less. Say my character development is poor, plot weak, syntax horrible, that’s part of the criticism game. I am talking about deliberately, for whatever reason, misrepresenting a book’s content.

Susan, try reading an e-mail before answering it.

John Harrigan”

Ouch. You know, usually I wouldn’t be offended being called an amateur writer – because I am – but from this literary guru, that’s a low insult. And yes sir, I do think you need to learn how to take criticism, because you’re still harassing some 21 year old chick on the internet who made fun of your bad book. Boo hoo. I also like how “by intension or ignorance or judgment deficit or carelessness” I distorted his book. It’s of course not his own fault for writing a steaming pile of shit!

I think my kindness towards this guy has about run out. Is it snarky email time, everyone? I’m thinking yes.

Aaannddd he's still pissed at me

So, I felt like I owed the Professor a direct response, so I emailed him. It basically summaries what I said in my previous post, but let me copy and paste it here for full disclosure. Let me emphasize how I was trying to be nice with bold:

“Dr. Harrigan,

This is Jen, the author of the original nine page “diatribe” against your book. First, I’d like to thank you for linking to my blog in your email – free advertisement is always nice. Anyway, I just want to say that I honestly apologize if I originally came off as directly calling the you racist/sexist/homophobic in my blog post. I didn’t believe you were actually this way: I mainly thought the book just came off the wrong way, and you failed to express your true intentions. I know I had said that to my friends before typing up my review, but I guess that disclaimer wasn’t as clearly stated in the final product. I’m also sorry for any cruel spirited ad hominem attacks I may have used. At the time of writing the review, only a couple of my friends read my blog, so I didn’t expect anyone (especially the author) to ever see it. Then the review hit Pharyngula (an extremely popular atheist blog, which you probably know) and exploded over the internet. I guess this is a good lesson to be careful of what you put online.

That being said, I do not apologize about my main criticisms in the book. I still stand by my opinion that it was poor writing and a bad message for promoting atheism. I feel sort of bad that I’ve upset you, as that wasn’t my goal. But negative reviews are to be expected when you present your work to the public – especially if you actively send out the book for people to review. Professional authors don’t take every negative review as a personal insult that requires a direct individual response. No, they take the criticism and move on. Not everyone is going to like your book. If Dan Brown (I actually enjoyed the DaVinci code, by the way) spent all his time responding to critics, he would not only appear childish, but he would never get anything done. Not everything you write is going to be brilliant. I’ll freely admit I’ve written a lot of horrible stuff before. And again, for the sake of honesty…you get a bunch of friends and family members to read your stuff, and of course most of them will say it’s lovely…but they’re probably either being nice, or really aren’t literary experts. Maybe you should have listened to your writer friend who said she couldn’t get past the sixth page.

And since it seemed you had specific questions for me, let me address the most important ones:

-When you talk about feminism and homosexuality in your email, I actually agree with you. Again, I just think your views came out the wrong way in the book. It happens. Sometimes we intend to write one thing, but people interpret it another way.
-You say I don’t really address the male characters and a couple of the female characters, that I get some of my facts confused…yes, that’s true. To be honest, it was for brevity’s sake. My nine page “assault” was already getting long enough. I didn’t think my book report was going to be graded by the author himself, so I wasn’t taking perfect notes. I admit to completely missing the other black character. Either the description of him being black didn’t stick in my head, or I got it confused with another character (which happened frequently, since you had way too many characters…also explains the Mickey Mouse watch). The only part of the book I skimmed was the couple page conversation on boxing between Slane and the dominatrix, so I promise I was trying to pay attention.
-You say that you don’t see any of the demeaning things about women that I’m apparently just making up. Just because you, a male, do not see it, doesn’t mean it’s not there. And I promise you I’m not trying to make things up. I’m honestly not one of those “rabid” feminists who takes offense at everything – I’m fairly laid back. I make off colored jokes myself. I’d be afraid what a “real” feminist would say if she read the book.
–It was not my initial goal to damn your book. I was honestly quite excited to read a fiction novel about atheism and sex – I wouldn’t have opened it if I didn’t want to read it. I even kept reading with the hopes that it would get better – I wanted to like it! But by the time I was mostly done, I realized that was not going to happen…and that I should at least share my experience with my friends. I’ve also talked to a member in a Californian atheist group who read your book, and she agreed with my review (though she read your book before reading my review). It’s not just me.
-I did not have some “Writing 101” book open with a checklist of things to catch you on. I’ve taken two creative writing classes, I write frequently, I’ve read many books about writing, and I have a lot of practice critiquing stories.
-I’m not quite sure what you expect me to think of the dildo battery thing. Hooray? I’m not offended, if that’s what you think. I actually think it’s quite interesting and admirable that you spent time in the shop to study people’s behavior.
-I’ll try to control myself and not start a diatribe against elderly teachers in the future, as apparently I’m likely to do that.

I guess you’re just going to have to take my word for it when I say I wasn’t trying to be mean or spiteful. I read the whole book, paid attention, and tried to write an honest review. It’s up to you to decide if you want to believe me or not. I hope you don’t take any of this too personally. It’s silly to make enemies when we both agree on so many things.

-Jennifer, aka, “The Avenger””

Another student [Susan] from a campus atheist group also responded to him and CCed me in the email, saying she read most of the book, most of the blog entry, and most of his email, and that she basically agreed with me…and that many students at the CFI world congress agreed the book was awful. Kudos to her for sticking up for me.

Well, our esteemed Professor has replied again:

“Jen,

I don’t need writing advice from amateurs or lessons on how to take criticism. As for consulting an editor–why do you people seem blind to this–I did. Roy P. Fairfield wouldn’t have changed a word of the book. He loved it. Who is doctor/professor Fairfield? For thirteen years he was associate editor of The Humanist along with Editor Paul Kurtz, the author of Humanist Manifesto II. Kurtz wrote in Free Inquiry that his close friend Roy saw to it that the Manifesto came to life. We all owe a lot to both of them. It doesn’t seem to have dawned on you that you trashed Roy as well when you trashed my book on Amazon–inches from Roy’s praise–and by implication in your Blaghag Blog and the Pharyngula Atheism Blog. By intension or ignorance or judgment deficit or carelessness you distorted the book and made it a source of public mockery. Mistake me not, criticism I expected, any creative work–especially a book like mine that touches on radioactive subjects–gets it, some more, some less. Say my character development is poor, plot weak, syntax horrible, that’s part of the criticism game. I am talking about deliberately, for whatever reason, misrepresenting a book’s content.
Susan, try reading an e-mail before answering it.
John Harrigan”

Ouch. You know, usually I wouldn’t be offended being called an amateur writer – because I am – but from this literary guru, that’s a low insult. And yes sir, I do think you need to learn how to take criticism, because you’re still harassing some 21 year old chick on the internet who made fun of your bad book. Boo hoo. I also like how “by intension or ignorance or judgment deficit or carelessness” I distorted his book. It’s of course not his own fault for writing a steaming pile of shit!

I think my kindness towards this guy has about run out. Is it snarky email time, everyone? I’m thinking yes.

The Professor responds!

So, many of you here probably know the book review I did for the Professor and the Dominatrix, and my dissection of its less than stellar purple prose. In fact, I’d guess that’s how the majority of you found my blog. There was a lot of debate if John Harrigan, the author, was even a real person or not. Was he just a poe? Was this whole book a big joke? (Yes, the book was that bad). No one seemed to be able to find any information on this elusive professor.

Guess who I just got an email from.

How can I be sure it’s him? One, it’s from the email he included in his letter that came with the book. Two, the writing style is exactly the same kind of rambling stories as the letter and book. Three, I don’t think anyone would take this much time out of their life for a minor hoax. And Four, apparently my brother’s girlfriend has actually met the guy, and vouches that he is in fact real.

Yes, I got an email from the Professor, and he is not happy. He’s so unhappy, in fact, he wrote a giant response to my book review and emailed it to every person he had sent a free copy to. I have to give him kudos though – at least he linked to my blog in the email! Free advertisement, woo! Since I’m a nice girl, and he obviously wants his opinion known, I’ll be kind enough to post his email below. I’m not one to silence disagreeing opinions.

I’m going to say my main response right now, in case you can’t make it through his email (which I don’t blame you). I admit, I feel sort of bad that I’ve upset the guy, as that wasn’t my goal. But at the same time, I’m a little honored that a random 21 year old blogger could upset someone enough that they take the time to write up such a response. I think this really illustrates the difference between a professional author and well…someone who’s not. Authors don’t take every negative review as a personal insult that requires a direct individual response. No, they take the criticism and move on. Not everyone is going to like your book. Not everything you write is going to be brilliant. I’ll freely admit I’ve written a lot of shit before (though I didn’t self publish it and send it to hundreds of strangers…). I think some people just honestly don’t understand that they’re not great writers. You get a bunch of friends and family members to read your stuff, and of course most of them will say it’s lovely…but they’re probably either being nice, or really aren’t literary experts. This builds up this false sense of security in your writing ability, which is far more dangerous than a healthy level of cynicism. When you’re proofreading, it’s probably best if your “Oh this is crap, gotta fix that, what the hell was I thinking” to “I’m AWESOME” ratio is greater than one. Just sayin’. And you know what, it’s okay if you’re not a great writer – we’re not all brilliant at everything. I’m tremendously clumsy at most sports and can’t play a musical instrument. Should I wail away at a piano and still expect people to say I’m Beethoven? No.

I will say just this: I AM sorry if I originally came off as directly calling the author racist/sexist/homophobic. I mainly thought the book just came off that way and was a failure to express his true intentions. That is, he was TRYING to be progressive, but unfortunately failed miserably. I know I had said that to friends before typing up my review, but I guess that disclaimer didn’t get into the final product. I’m also sorry for any bitchy ad hominem attacks I may have used. At the time of writing the review, only a couple of my friends read my blog, so I didn’t expect anyone (especially the author) to ever see it. Then the review hit Pharyngula and exploded over the internet (it was even being Twittered!). I guess this is a good lesson to be careful of what you put online.

However, I do not apologize about any of my criticisms in the book. I still stand by my opinion that it was awful writing and a poor message for promoting atheism. It’s unfortunate if that hurts your feelings, but the world is a cruel place. If anyone wants to read this book and post their own opinion, be my guest. You don’t have to agree with me. If you live near me, I can lend you the book.

Anyway…for your reading pleasure, here is the email with some of my comments. I realize this may seem hypocritical, since I just said how lame it was to respond to someone not agreeing with you…but I am a bored college student with nothing else to do.

“(Sent to those who have received a copy of my book.)

Purdue Jen’s Criticism of Harrigan’s The Professor and the Dominatrix.

Jen invites readers to visit her at http://blaghag.blogspot.com/2009/04/book-review-professor-and-dominatrix.html. I did and read her “scathing” (nine page) assault on my novel–linked by some of her chorus of correspondents (nine pages more) to the writings of atheist Ayn Rand and the two religionists Tim Lahaye and Bill O’Reilly–people I’d rather not be linked to. The comment from the chorus I liked best was, “The book brought vomit to my mouth.” I got the impression that she meant the review did that, not the book. Umm…yes, that’s why she said “book” and not “review.” Obviously what she meant. Another neat one was, “The book proves that God does nor exist because He never would have allowed such a book to be written.” So much for Free Will. So much for sarcasm.Some thought I might be an undercover Christian trying to make atheists look bad by identifying myself with them. Sigh. Others thanked Jen for saving them from reading the book–“taking the bullet” for them.

I haven’t had anything to do with college students for over twenty years. It was delightful to get a touch of their minds again, their enthusiasm for justice, even when misguided. Jen, God love her, intimated that if she ever had a class with me–the Giant Troll, the al-round bigot who fixedly smiled at her from the back cover–she’s drop it. Technically I meant a class in the style of Prof. Slane, but now recognizing that they are effectively the same person – yes, I would drop it. Or more likely, give up on taking notes once I realized there was no rhyme or reason to any of the lectures. Perhaps I could bring her along like I did Elsie in the book. In my defense, when I retired, my students established a scholarship in my name. Has that ever happened before? Anywhere? Don’t tell me it has: I don’t want to hear it. …Yeah, I’m not even going to waste my time with this one.

So, let’s get to it. I’m going to correct her paper; just part of it, otherwise the corrections could go on for nine pages. First, let me say, Jen obviously likes to write and is rather clever. She could probably sell salt water at the ocean side and sell her opinions as facts when in an argument. Woo. Well, we all tend to do that. Distorted optics is a world-wide disorder, religiosy or atheist, doesn’t matter. Jen has a thing about the demeaning of women. I do too. It is one of my big gripes about the sky-god religions–all three of them give me a pain in the bowels.

Perhaps a point of contention, I don’t see men and women as genetically equivalent (gender feminism) but as genetically complementary, with a lot of similarities. They play complementary roles in reproduction, in raising children. Yet, this can be quite tricky. Female penguins have been known to donate an egg to a “married” male pair to hatch and raise the little one. With cloning likely in the future, what next? Have you ever tried to objectively define homosexual? Real buddy penguins have been known to break up and take off with females. Republicans become Democrats! Baptists become atheists! Behavior can change. Most homosexuals (cultural and genetic) don’t change over, yet some cultural ones do. I actually mostly agree with him here. I just think he did a poor job at expressing his views in the book. Some play on both sides of the fence, depending on situation and opportunity. More fun, they say. Aaand that shimmering moment of agreement is gone. Insert a bisexual facepalm here.

No cheers from Jen on the male characters I worked over: the killer, Officer Fudpucker, Senator Gaylord Sludge, Reverend Smiley Tuttle, porno Slick Wilson, governor’s aide Tom Collins. I’m sorry, apparently my nine page “assault” wasn’t long enough. Let me go back and include every single character I missed. Jen said that I described all the women in my novel as either young and ditsy or old and disgusting. That’s an outright lie. Or, more likely, she has herself so hyped-up about the way women and homosexuals have been mistreated that she has become hyper-vigilant in looking for any sign of the old bigotries. See a sign and she becomes “The Avenger.” The sign? Do I get a bat signal? Ooo ooo ooo! Is it a giant vagina in the sky? The villain in the story is a homosexual. Awwww. Off and running, she then saw signs I was attacking women and blacks, too. I am inordinately fond of women. By choice, my primary physician is a woman. I voted for Obama. I have gone out of my way to emotionally support homosexual patients–even managing their money and medication, finding them a place to live, featuring one in a nationally- distributed education film. The “I have a black/gay/female friend so I’m obviously not racist/homophobic/sexist argument has been torn to pieces so many times, I’m not even going to touch it. On women, I just don’t find in my writing the demeaning stuff that Jen does or imagines or makes up. Just because you, a male, don’t see it, doesn’t mean it’s not there. Woah, sorry for the triple negative. I suspect that she was intent on damning the book from the first page on. (More on that later when I discuss The Silence of the Lambs.) Actually I was really fricking excited to read this book. Sex and atheism? Hell yeah!

Consider, dungeon workers Kitty Kentuck and Tilley Jones are two charmers with good hearts and humor. Sexy plus but not ditsy. They get a lot of pages. Jen doesn’t even mention them. Again, let me turn it into a 20 page review. Honestly, I didn’t like them much either. Old, neat, kindly Birdie Cabe has the whole second chapter to herself. I wrote her to contrast the homosexual psychopath of Chapter One. Jen’s description from reading me, “Frumpy old hotel maid who does nothing but talk about her deceased husband.” My description in part, “She pressed the draperies-control button on the wall by the multi-paned window: the motor hummed and the draperies opened and the morning sunshine streamed in. She looked out the large window, thinking again of Charlie, feeling lonesome enough to cry.” Clearly, she had loved Charlie. What Jen did to my beloved Elsie really got to me. I started Elsie, Beauty Queen of the Onion Festival, as the dumb blond of jokes, but with a heart, then evolved her to smarter than she seemed, finally to a real Wonder Woman who was the only one to face the killer and set him on the run. Did Jen even read the page? Yes, yes I did. The female detective was seen by Jen as someone for other officers to hit one. Jen gave me another demerit for having the detective briefly become embarrassed in the porno shop interview. Simply awful that I did that. I gave the detective full credit for being a good cop in the tradition of her murdered father. The murdered bisexual clergyman’s prostitute wife I defined in the middle of the story as tragic. “When he (the lover all through her college years) left, she felt as if the bottom had dropped out of her life. She had no purpose. She knew, deep down, that she was desperate. She avoided loneliness by living unconcerned, living for amusements, but got bored and kept trying harder to amuse herself by being extreme in what she did. A thought haunted her: you can’t make a life out of games and amusements. In a way it seemed as if she had died.” It was after the loss of her lover that she became a prostitute. Jen, made her only a “skanky ho” on the basis of how she read me, keeping to her belief that I demeaned women. Fine, I guess she was a desperate, emotionally traumatized ho. My bad. I stand corrected. She criticized my dominatrix for a desire to find a good man, angry that I had not kept her fully independent. She distorted the roles of others and left out three more (that makes five) in a list she presented as complete.

Continuing with distorted optics, Jen’s misreading, as I have noted, carried over to race. I introduced the black mayor in a chapter beginning with a discussion of the development of black English in Africa and America. He was defined as smart and savvy but slipped into the black English of his parents when upset–he was upset in a good part of that chapter. I occasionally ignored political correctness to phonetically spell Irish, Mexican, and Italian accents. ‘Tis more realistic, the way people actually sound. It didn’t annoy me out of political correctness. It annoyed me because it’s BAD WRITING. Jen really had a blind spot for the good black policeman who always spoke standard English. He stood out on several pages, including the final chapter. How could she have missed him? She said there was only one black in the story. Huh, okay. I will admit that I have absolutely no idea what character he’s talking about, so I must have missed him. Maybe I didn’t realize he was black because his reversion to stereotypical ghetto talk wasn’t beaten over my head for three straight pages. I’m going to give him th
e benefit of the doubt that this wonderful black character exists, since I really don’t want to have to reread the book to double check.

A minor item to be sure, she even saw the Mickey Mouse watch on the wrong person, an example of her constant tripping and falling through the text. Heaven forbid I put the Mickey Mouse watch on the wrong cop! That was such an important and relevant part of the plot!!! I don’t buy into her claim that she was really trying to do an honest review. Honestly, yes, I was, but I guess you don’t have to believe me. I had no reason to go into the book against you. Some part early in the story really burned her. Well, okay. The sheer awfulness of the first third of the book burnt me off. I admit to skipping the couple pages on boxing, but that’s really all. I didn’t even skim the rest, but maybe my brain was involuntarily shutting itself off. I have an impression that she then prepared for her diatribe by consulting a book or chapter on bad writing and attributed everything she found to me, desperate blows. No, I just really enjoy writing. I’ve taken two creative writing classes, read a number of writing books, and write quite a bit myself. I have had a lot of practice critiquing stories. I promise you, I did not go to the extra time and effort to consult other books. Please kept in mind that an experienced editor praised my book and that my articles and scripts have always been considered tops. For ad hominem attack look at this: “Has this guy (me the author) ever even had sex. If he has, I feel bad for whatever woman had to put up with it.” I can’t write, I can’t even screw, I’m in a bad way!

There are three fully-homosexual male characters in the story: the serial killer; one of his victims, Valentine Sisley; and a denizen of a gay bar. The gay bar one is interviewed by a gruff and tough and homophobe cop named Fudpucker. These four characters are within the bounds of reality. To keep to reality for the chapter on Slick Wilson’s porn store, I got permission from a porn store owner in Florida to spend a week of evenings behind the counter to study customers. It was quite interesting, good duty. You’d be surprised who buys. This store, as is Slicks, is clerked by women and sells some scanty clothes. The majority of shoppers were young to middle-age women, singularly and in groups. When they bought dildos, they were always sure to get the right batteries. What do you make of me for saying that, Jen? Yay for women wanting vibrating dildos? I’m not sure if I’m supposed to be offended at this paragraph or something, because I’m not.

The demeaning of women Jen conjured up from my story reminds me of an event that happened when I was in the fourth grade, Catholic school, boys on the left by the windows, girls on the right by the blackboards. The kid at the desk in front of me cut a ripper. Everyone looked, even the nun. The kid turned and pointed at me. So, you’re saying someone else wrote this horrible book, and they put your name on it?

Jen trashed my book in every way; “Horrible, unintelligible writing . . . Rambling, nonsensical monologues.” (Like this?) Her detailed condemnation was enough, as I have noted, to bring vomit to the mouth of one of her fans. That’s effective writing. Um… I think we already established… ….oh, never mind, it’s not worth it. I have seen this sort of thing before in an attempt to trash Dan Brown’s The DaVinci Code. The critic claimed that Brown had no knowledge of writing, couldn’t put together a decent sentence, diagramed paragraphs as proof. The critic didn’t mention religion at all, just Brown’s terrible writing. I actually quite like the DaVinci Code. I’ve said it before: it’s not beautiful writing, but the story is so engaging that it makes up for it. The Professor and the Dominatrix utterly fails at both rhetoric and plot. Several years ago, a church in my home city of Portland, Maine requested a permit to have a bonfire in the city park. They wanted to publicly burn Harry Potter books. They didn’t get the permit. In Thomas Harris’s classic suspense novel The Silence of the Lambs the serial murderer is a psychopathic homosexual known to the FBI as Buffalo Bill. As I recall the movie, there is one scene where he is sitting in front of a cosmetic-desk mirror wearing his jacket made of skins peeled from women he kidnapped. He is carefully applying lipstick, a cosmetic early used by Egyptian female prostitutes to denote the specialty of fellatio by bringing the color of the labium and vulva to the facial lips. Also, as I recall, a group of male homosexuals in reaction to the story angrily criticized Harris. And, it seems to be politically incorrect to link pedophile priests to homosexuality, which I do in the book. I doubt that Harris, any more than I by having a homosexual psychopath in my novel, was downgrading homosexuals per se. A male homosexual sadist who wanted to be a woman fit both stories. Obviously, being a homosexual doesn’t make one a killer on a pedophile.

My first page revealed the killer to be homosexual. As I said, perhaps setting Jen off from page one on? Did you notice when reading her criticisms how quickly she rejected my social explanation of a bad relationship with men being the cause of man hatred by the two “dykes-taking-over” students? Yes, because it is a horrible unfounded stereotype? Nothing aberrant about them: no need to find a cause. For a discussion of the role of experience as source of uncommon behavior, see my discussion of the Flanagan masochist case on pages 67-68.

Jen’s writing suggests to me that she is excitable weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee, prone to race along, miss things, decode by illusion. Or I didn’t think my book review would be graded by the author, so I didn’t think it would be that big of a deal. She is so upset by fem and sex issues that she distorts what she reads in the same manner that some religious people distort by seeing demons and the devil lurking–just the way the pious killer of the story does. If you think I’m bad, give this book to a “rabid” feminist and see what they say. I’m seriously very laid back about fem issues.

Professor Slane says to his students, “Hear me loud and clear, sexuality in itself does not make a person bad or unworthy of respect.” Sexual behavior is so varied. Most kids start out as simple (to use a British slang word) wankers. Then what often follows seems unbelievable. There is a toe licker in the book, a TV producer that gets off by being spanked, and. a tri-sexual priest (tries anything sexual). Some (those of little imagination?) stay with wanking.

I conclude now. I wrote The Professor and the Dominatrix–a book on mind-corroding religion; sex, the big player in the mind; and violence, the tool of hatred–to be more active in exposing religious nonsense. The nonfiction books by greats such as Richard Dawkins are double-damn good. But what about all those regular American folk who don’t read science or seriously consider their religious beliefs? One day I read that there are eight million references to Anna Nichole Smith on the Web. I had it. Load a book with sex to attract the regular folk. Yes, load it with some of the most horrendous sex scenes I’ve ever read. Put in pious bad guys, atheist good guys. The Professor and the Dominatrix was born.

I have always been laid back about sex or anything that people agree to do that doesn’t create a disturbance or hurt others or themselves.. Fairly early in life I learned that some people enjoy hurting others. Two older boys in my neighborhood would chase down a younger kid and stick his head between a forked branch of a bush–every yard had a bush or two–then yank the ends of the branches together. One time I nearly passed out from choking. To this day I cheer when the bad guy gets trounced in a TV wrestling match. Have been known to take on bullies. Take one on in the book. Returning to the fourth grade for a moment, as I said, Catholic School, boys sitting by the windows, girls by the blackboards, a park just a half-block away. Teacher’s pet Roberta and all-round boy Richard were absent from class after recess. The nun went out looking for them. Found them behind a tree in the park going at it to beat the band. She led them back to class, stood them up-front, and gave a loud (accurate for a nun) description in detail of exactly what they were doing that would lead them straight to hell.. I added nuns to the bully list. To this day just the sight of a nun makes me inwardly cringe. Back in the first grade Patti never got caught. The nun must have had a urinary problem because she was forever leaving to go to the teacher’s room. Little Patti would dash to the front of the class and expose herself, several times a day. We all would wait for the performance, in time had a lookout by the door.

Forgive me, I am an old man–mid eighties–and my mind tends to turn back time. Oh god, now I feel kind of bad. It’s one thing to rip into a retired professor, but it’s another thing to do it to an 80 something year old man. Am I a bad person? I have wondered if Patti became a stripper? Roberta a guilt-laden nun to save her soul? Or did she just decide not to get caught again?

I hope I haven’t bored you. Amazon and I will appreciate your comments on the book’s page where you see “Create Your Own Review.” No response is the worse thing. But apparently if you give a negative review, he will write you an email about it.

******

A matter for student writers: I submitted a query letter to Prometheus Books last year. After waiting ten weeks, I was informed by an editor that they were not taking general fiction at that time. A friend had just been published by PublishAmerica. I got a contract for Prof. & Dom. a week after submission. I was very pleased. They seemed to be a successful company, so they claimed. (One of Jen’s chorus, apparently a professor, said he knew instantly what kind of book it would be once he saw the publisher’s name. Do you always make book-by-the-cover judgments, pal? Tom Flynn reviewed a PublishAmerica book last year that he found good enough to note in Free Inquiry.) I was given six days to correct the proofs. I was determined to meet the deadline, even thought in intensive care and on heavy doses of morphine. (How Satan stayed Satin.) Even morphine can only explain so much. PublishAmerica doesn’t have relationships with print reviewers, TV, or radio. The kind of awful stuff they have the reputation for can be seen in the very last pages of my book. Some of their authors bid for publicity at the back of all PublishAmerica books. Look at the religious titles in mine and you’ll laugh. They overprice so that when they have a sale to their authors of 40% off, they still make good money. They will put your book cover on valentines, encase a copy of your first royalty check in plastic–for a fee. My friend who introduced me to PublishAmerica had a royalty check of about five dollars bounce at the bank last month. Yes, they do make their money by selling to their own authors. Really, it is heart-breaking for a lot of people–the whole publishing industry is. A good article for you folks who write is “The Last Book Party” in Harper’s Magazine, March 2009. Only three of any ten well-edited, well-published, and actively-promoted books ever make money.

I have a cousin who has been trying for a lifetime to get published. Has read all the books on how to write, listened to radio programs where authors are interviewed, everything. I sent her twelve pages of my first draft of Prof. & Dom. for comment. She called me on the phone–as she is prone to do and talk for hours at a time–and said, “How can you write stuff like that? I’ve read six pages and I can’t read anymore.” (Shades of Jen.) Why, oh why didn’t you listen to this sane human being? It was my description of the bonobos that did it, the GG stuff. I used to share a table in the faculty dinning room with an elderly teacher from the education department. She had not read a novel written after 1945 because of the “F” word. She’d roll over in her grave if she read about the whang Captain Marvel. (My spell corrector doesn’t like the “h” in whang but my dictionary prefers it.) Damn! Jen will seize upon the elderly-teacher story and use it
for another diatribe! I guess I need to keep up my trend of hating on old people now.

How did I get the marvelous comments from the experienced educator, author, editor Roy P. Fairfield? I read an article by him in Free Inquiry, saw that he lived in Maine, called him on the-telephone, and asked him to take a gander at my script. He was busy finishing a history book, but looked anyway. (Now, he has just finished yet another history book–and he‘s older than me).

The editor of The American Rationalist has been talking about reviewing Prof. & Dom. May it not bring vomit to his mouth. Ee-nuf.

　

John Harrigan”

EDIT: The Professor responds again – still cranky!

Limiting reagents

You know you’ve reached an extreme level of laziness when you work using the idea of limiting reagents. I’ll put something off as long as possible until I’ve run out of some substance that is just too important to do without. For example:

Laundry:
Limiting Reagent: Panties. Girls can’t really get away with wearing underwear more than a day. Ew. Laundry day!

Dishes:
Limiting Reagent: Whatever you don’t have a disposable version of.
Don’t have any plates left? No problem, you have paper plates! Out of paper plates? If your food isn’t too messy, paper towels will do! I find that cups tend to be the most common limiting reagent, since I usually don’t have plastic cups sitting around, and I’m not to the level where I’ll drink milk out of the bottle.

Food:
Limiting Reagent: Money
Money? Yes, there is no such thing as a food limiting reagent. Even if your cupboards are bare, you can always order something or go out. That is, until, you realize it would be cheaper to get off your lazy ass and just go grocery shopping.

That being said, it’s time for a Walmart run. Not because of any of these things, though…but because I have fallen victim to the Limiting Reagant that trumps all Limiting Reagents: tampons. Curses! Oh well, I was almost out of toilet paper too anyway, and I’m not going to start substituting stuff for that…eww.

We need an Atheist Jonas Brothers?

PZ wants to know where the teeny bopper atheist songs are? Look no further. If I could sing better than Rock Band karaoke I’d make a video. If anyone with talent wants to sing it, be my guest:

To the tune of the Jonas Brother’s SOS (yes I have the song and had to listen to it over and over again to do this, shut up, it’s addictive)

FSM

Told you I made dinner plans
For you and me and someone else
Have you met my noodley friend?
Well I’m done
With pretending to be apart of your
congregation

Oohh this is the FSM.
Please don’t you condemn
Makes as much sense as God
It’s true
He made the mountain for you
And the midgit too

See the decline of pirates on this graph?
Cause global warming – now don’t laugh
Better believe I’ve been
Touched by his appendage

So this is where the story ends
Linking you to talk.origins
Well I’m done with texting
Learn something about evolution

Oohh this is the FSM.
Please don’t you condemn
Makes as much sense as God
It’s true
He made the mountain for you
And the midgit too

See the decline of pirates on this graph?
Cause global warming – now don’t laugh
Better believe I’ve been
Touched by his appendage

Next time I see you
Don’t tell me I’m going to hell
Because I don’t believe in it LOL

Oohh this is the FSM.
Please don’t you condemn
Makes as much sense as God
It’s true
He made the mountain for you
And the midgit too

Oohh this is the FSM.
Please don’t you condemn
Makes as much sense as God
It’s true
He made the mountain for you
And the midgit too

See the decline of pirates on this graph?
Cause global warming – now don’t laugh
Better believe I’ve been
Touched by his appendage

His appendage

His noodley appendage

Natural Sexuality

“Alright everybody, quiet down, we’re going to get started,” grumbled Lion. He glared at the menagerie in front of him, squawking and snorting away obliviously. “I SAID QUIET!” he roared. The crowd was silenced and turned wide-eyed to the speaker. “Ahem. Thank you. I’d like to welcome all of you to the second meeting of the Animal Association of Family Values. First off-“

“Wait a second,” piped Bear, “who the heck voted you king of the jungle?”

Tarsier rolled his eyes, which was quite spectacular and frightening to those around him. “Maybe if you weren’t hibernating through our last meeting…”

“Enough, enough,” grumbled Lion. Everything always took ten times longer at inter-species meetings. “Let’s just get down to business, shall we? The topic for today is humans – or Homo sapiens – and their-” he paused to sneer distastefully- “unnatural “heterosexual monogamy” business.”

“Oh come on,” whined Albatross, “are we still going on about that? There are plenty of examples of monogamy across the animal kingdom. 90% of birds are monogamous!”

Bear whispered under his breath, “Only 3% of mammals.”

Albatross huffed. “You mammalists! Really.”

“Oh come on, Albatross,” said Lion. “We all know that’s not entirely true. Only a tiny fraction of birds are actually sexually monogamous. You guys just can’t help getting some on the side. And wasn’t there even a new study that lesbian child rearing pairs are highly prevalent in Albatross?”

“…Maybe,” Albatross blushed, sinking back into the crowd.

“Anyway,” continued Lion, “it has become apparent to the Association that this human deviancy is out of control. It’s simply not natural compared to the mating habits of the rest of the animal kingdom. Well-” he corrected, feeling Albatross’s glare, “it’s not the majority at least. And we all know the most common habits are the best. And even if it is found in other animals, that doesn’t make it right! Look at how quickly they’re out breeding us! The resources they waste on frivolous wedding ceremonies! The anguish they cause themselves feeling like they’re forced to stay with their partner for a lifetime! Why, we’re doing them a favor to point out the error in their ways.”

Bear grumbled. “So what do you suggest we actually do about it?”

Lion stroked his mane proudly. He already saw this question coming. “Well, first we should define what exactly it is we find natural. That way the humans know how to act properly. For example, polygyny is the most common mating system in vertebrates. I have to mate with my many lionesses thousands of times a week, whether they like it or not. Humans? Once a week, maybe if they’re lucky, and with only one female!”

“Woah there,” piped Marmoset. “What about polyandry? Us girls are allowed multiple mates too!”

“Please,” huffed Dwarf Mongoose. “Why are we talking like everyone should get the chance to mate, anyway? Only the dominants should reproduce! I don’t even let my subordinate females ovulate!”

Bonobo grabbed Marmoset and Mongoose in a big hug. “Can’t we all just get along? I mean, we have sex regardless of gender to solve disputes! Doesn’t that sound great?”

Tarsier sneered. “Maybe if you hippies would have watched your cousin a little closer we wouldn’t be having this discussion!”

“Now, now,” muttered Lion, trying to regain order as it looked like Bonobo was about to burst into tears. “Maybe we shouldn’t just focus on mating systems. Like, what’s with all this step parenting business? They should kill all the previous cubs – er, children – when they start a relationship!”

“Ha!” laughed Praying Mantis. “Just kill the children? Why, the women should kill the male! What a good meal they’re missing out on, letting all that meat go to waste. They only need him for his sperm anyway! So illogical.”

Lion frowned nervously. “Well, I don’t know about that-“

“Pshh, why need men at all?” said Whiptail Lizard. “Parthenogenesis works perfectly fine for us!”

Tarsier rolled his eyes again. “Who invited the feminists?”

“Why is it always about females anyway?” piped Seahorse, floating in a small pool for the aquatic animals. The Animal Association of Family Values didn’t discriminate across taxa. “Males should be the ones who give birth! Female birth is just weird.”

“Yeah, but only if they keep their young on their back,” said Giant Water Bug.

“Or in their stomach,” croaked Platypus Frog, burping up a tadpole.

Fig Wasp buzzed excitedly around Lion’s head. “And why do humans have an age of consent? My sons will mate with my daughters before they’re even born!”

“Consent?” Mallard Duck looked around confused. “What’s that? You mean you don’t just go around raping your females?”

Beg Bug giggled excitedly. “I do. I’ll stab my junk through their abdomen if I have to! They call it “traumatic insemination,” but you know they’re just asking for it.”

“Hell, I don’t even care if they’re dead, I’ll still do ’em,” croaked Cane Toad. Many of the animals blanched.

“You’re all nuts!” cried Fungus in the back. “Why do you only have two sexes anyway? Why, some of my cousins have hundreds!”

“What the hell are you doing here, Fungus? You’re not even an animal!” snarled Lion.

“Animalists!” cried Fungus, and slowly oozed away.

“Look,” sighed Lion, exasperated at the animals’ squabbling. “Maybe we should put this off until next month’s meeting, when we’ve had more time to think about it. We can still agree that heterosexual monogamy is unnatural, right?”

“Right!”

“Alright. Let’s just leave it at that for now and move on to our next topic. So our boycott of Papa John’s is going well…”

The evolution of penises

Or whangs, if you’d prefer.

There’s a scientifically interesting and delightfully anti-arousing article over at Scientific American with an overview of why human penises are how they are. Even if you think evolutionary psychology is a load of arm chair philosophizing bunk (which it sometimes is), you can at least extract some immature giggles from this one. And honestly, he does a decent job at pointing out some of the drawbacks and limitations of evo psych. But wait, these researchers actually did an experiment on the “semen displacement hypothesis” instead of just sitting around and thinking!

“The researchers selected several sets of prosthetic genitals from erotic novelty stores, including a realistic latex vagina sold as a masturbation pal for lonely straight men and tied off at one end to prevent leakage, and three artificial phalluses. The first latex phallus was 6.1 inches long and 1.3 inches in diameter with a coronal ridge extending approximately .20 inches from the shaft. The second phallus was the same length, but its coronal ridge extended only .12 inches from the shaft. Finally, the third phallus matched the other two in length, but lacked a coronal ridge entirely. In other words, whereas the first two phalluses closely resembled an actual human penis, varying only in the coronal ridge properties, the third (the control phallus) was the bland and headless horseman of the bunch.”

“Hey honey, how is grad school going? Research okay?” “Uh…yeah, it’s great, Mom.” “Do anything interesting today? What exactly are you studying again?” “Um…human…behavior. Yeah.” “That’s nice sweetie. So when you’re a doctor you can write us prescriptions, right?” “…I’m not going to be that kind of doctor, Mom.”

And then he proceeds to jump off a bridge.

Anyway, it gets better:

“Next, the authors borrowed a recipe for simulated semen from another evolutionary psychologist, Todd Shackleford from Florida Atlantic University, and created several batches of seminal fluid. The recipe “consisted of .08 cups of sifted, white, unbleached flour mixed with 1.06 cups of water. This mixture was brought to a boil, simmered for 15 minutes while being stirred, and allowed to cool.””

What did I learn during my PhD? How to make fake semen! Comes in handy more often than you’d think!

“In a controlled series of “displacement trials,” the vagina was then loaded with semen, the phalluses were inserted at varying depths (to simulate thrusting) and removed, whereupon the latex orifice was examined to determine how much semen had been displaced from it. As predicted, the two phalluses with the coronal ridges displaced significantly more semen from the vagina (each removed 91 percent) than the “headless” control (35.3 percent). Additionally, the further that the phalluses were inserted—that is to say, the deeper the thrust—the more semen was displaced. When the phallus with the more impressive coronal ridge was inserted three fourths of the way into the vagina, it removed only a third of the semen, whereas it removed nearly all of the semen when inserted completely. Shallow thrusting, simulated by the researchers inserting the artificial phallus halfway or less into the artificial vagina, failed to displace any semen at all. So if you want advice that’ll give you a leg up in the evolutionary arms race, don’t go West, young man—go deep.”

Indeed, sir. Indeed.

Seriously, the idea of a bunch of grad students pumping together two sex toys filled with flour semen paste is the most ridiculous image in my mind. There’s no way any human being could have done this with a straight face. I would like to see a psychological study on just how fucking awkward and hilarious that situation must have been.

I’m not sure if I would be overjoyed or mortified if my job as a grad student was to pick out suitable sex toys and then see which scoop out fake semen best. It would sure make a good bar story, at least. I’d have all the guys.

Christian Websites

I’m not sure what’s worse. Seizure inducing websites that look like they were made in the 90’s, or the most extreme, intense, James-Bond like Flash-happy websites.

Neither seem to make me want to convert to Christianity much.

Speaking of crappy Christian websites, I skimmed through the Westboro Baptist Church’s upcoming hate mongering sites. Apparently May 17th they’ll be in South Bend, IN protesting Obama’s commencement speech at Notre Dame:

“Notre Dame Commencment – Obama Hates you, take U 2 Hell! E Angela Blvd & N Notre Dame Ave How appropriate that the biggest pedophile mill in the whole entire world would have Beast Obama speaking at their 2009 Commencement. We will be outside with some good words on our signs. No need to try to hide from the words, little spoiled figs.”

Yes, take that you little spoiled figs!

I’m actually kind of jealous. Maybe before I graduate we can do something so scandalous that they’ll come picket us. It almost seems like a badge of honor!

Pepsi: Funding the evil Homosexual Agenda

I always knew there was a reason why I prefer Pepsi over Coke.

The American Family Association (which you know must be awesome because it has “Family” in its name and has a big Jesus fish behind its logo) is organizing a boycott of PepsiCo. Why? Because Pepsi is supporting the evil homosexual agenda! What sort of vile things has Pepsi done? From boycottpepsico.com:

  • Pepsi gave a total of $1,000,000 to the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) to promote the homosexual lifestyle in the workplace.
  • Both HRC and PFLAG supported efforts in California to defeat Proposition 8 which defined marriage as being between a man and a woman. HRC, which received $500,000 from Pepsi, gave $2.3 million to defeat Proposition 8.
  • Pepsi requires employees to attend sexual orientation and gender diversity training where the employees are taught to accept homosexuality.
  • Pepsi is a member of the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce.

Oh no! The horror! How disgusting! Why, pretty soon Pepsi will be injecting its products with soy (which obviously makes you gay), and it’ll be the Gaypocalypse!

You don’t believe me? Look at these horrible, horrible commercials and shows Pepsi are supporting:

See, Pepsi turned him gay! Noooooooo!

It’s perfectly fine for three dozen women to drool over a hot guy, but once you add a single guy from Queer Eye it becomes the work of the devil!

And there’s not even any Pepsi in the next one, it’s just a show they sponsor:

Oh, heaven forbid, two guys making out, funny awkward discussion about sex. I’ve never seen that with a heterosexual couple on a tv show!

Well, I really must be doomed. I’ve drank so much Pepsi over the years that I must just be ready to burst at the seems with gayness. Sorry guys, but after I finish the 2 liter in my fridge, I’m going for the boobies only.