›

Wall Street Journal review of my book

TheRealJimWrightTheRealJimWright New Jersey
in Literary 007 Posts: 12
In the middle of these crazy times, The Wall Street Journal reviewed my book today and went into a bit of depth about the real James Bond and spies who were ornithologists -- and more.

https://www.realjamesbond.net/2020/04/the-wall-street-journal-review.html

The book should be available online now. Best, Jim W

Comments

  • RevelatorRevelator
    Posts: 2,918
    Congratulations on having The Real James Bond positively reviewed in such a high-profile publication! The actual JB certainly had a more interesting background and life than I had anticipated. I will have to seek out a copy of the book, which I hope reaches a very wide audience.
  • BT3366BT3366
    Posts: 1,917
    Congratulations. I'm sure there are still people outside the fan base (maybe some within) who never realized the name was taken from a real person.

    And how cool is it the article was done by a journalist named Dominic Green? B-)
  • TheRealJimWrightTheRealJimWright New Jersey
    Posts: 12
    Yes, very cool. It gave me a quantum of solace.
  • HowardPrimerHowardPrimer Cleveland, Ohio
    edited April 2020 Posts: 3
    I noticed the WSJ review was copy-and-pasted into another site. I work for a publication, so I'm more sensitive to this than others. I've noticed it a few times on this site, and I want to say something about it. That review is copyrighted material. Every time someone copy/pastes -- usually to get around a paywall -- it takes money out of the writer's pocket and makes it harder for the publication to fund future stories. Copy/pasting into a forum or a site with a copy/paste is not harmless. The journalist who wrote the review is trying to earn a living, just like everyone else. Please respect that. Thank you.
  • RevelatorRevelator
    Posts: 2,918
    I highly doubt the writer of that review--who has already been paid for it--is going to mind if the author of the book he enthusiastically reviewed posts the review on his website a few days after it appeared. Neither the reviewer or the WSJ (which is well funded by Rupert Murdoch) will sustain damage from an author posting reviews of his books online.
  • HowardPrimerHowardPrimer Cleveland, Ohio
    Posts: 3
    Disagree. Quoting a few sentences and linking to the review is a courtesy. Copy and pasting the entire review into your own site is stealing someone else's work. The reviewer might have already been paid, but the traffic/potential subscriptions missed out on will hurt funding for future reviews.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,812
    I'll take that point and adjust my posts to highlight the link and opening paragraph, @HowardPrimer, that's reasonable. My earlier intent of course was to make the material easily accessible (and include the source link), plus I've reacted to copyright notices on a page. But posting the entire content isn't essential.

    Regarding the author himself sharing it, I think that's beyond question really. And expect reprinting older materials from the 20th Century isn't so much a conflict.

    But what I really must resolve to do is continue reading Mr. Wright's fine book. I'm impressed so far.
    ED-AZ562_bkrvji_JV_20200331181950.jpg

  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,281
    I'll be buying a copy of this book soon. It sounds very good.
  • RevelatorRevelator
    edited April 2020 Posts: 2,918
    HowardPrimer wrote: »
    Disagree. Quoting a few sentences and linking to the review is a courtesy. Copy and pasting the entire review into your own site is stealing someone else's work. The reviewer might have already been paid, but the traffic/potential subscriptions missed out on will hurt funding for future reviews.

    All of that is doubtful. There wouldn't be much to link to anyway, since Wall Street Journal reviews are behind a paywall--only subscribers can read the text. And I doubt any potential subscribers to the WSJ were turned away by the fact that the complete text of a single book review turned up on Mr. Wright's site. The review was also reposted several days after it had appeared in the paper, and was already "old news." Nor is the WSJ's funding for future reviews imperiled, since it's part of the Murdoch empire, one of the wealthiest media conglomerates on earth. If this case involved a small, imperilled publication I would be more inclined to agree with you.
  • HowardPrimerHowardPrimer Cleveland, Ohio
    Posts: 3
    It's not doubtful. It's the truth. Copyrighted stories posted on websites are not there for copy-pasting as you see fit. I've seen many people in my business lose their jobs from lost revenue because readers think everything is there for the taking based whatever reasoning they've decided. Please respect the author's work.
This discussion has been closed.