Somehow I missed the Breaking Korea part. But congrats on your mention.
No no! Not ME! The man! Sean Thomas! I am going to revise the headline now. (Currently "I am agog, and dream of breaking Korea")
I think the answer is (1), too.I am dying to see the non-publicity pic you found of him, though. I am also now going to buy a copy of Dave R's book. Which does indeed sound much better than Mr Thomas's...
I think it's 1,2 and 3
Extremely droll. I visited e'luv and left a rather harsh critique of the gentleman in question, which has (thankfully) yet to pass moderation..
I think (2). No irony detected in there, at least by this north american (and veteran of many Usenet flame wars). The 'just kidding' at the end doesn't qualify, it's just a cop out, hastily tacked on at the end in case he gets called a (2). Or maybe it's a weak attempt at the insult formula that usually goes:"Fuck off you motherfucking cunt.With love,Sean"The only way he could be ironic is if he actually knows Dave and this is an inside joke between them(which doesn't look to be the case).I luv parsing knobby comments, me.
I'm only a simple soul so, without any shadow of a doubt, it has to be 2.
Did you know he's DM Thomas' son?
Clare - the pic you see on Dave's site is of the man himself.J-boy - what is Usenet? Does it hurt in a flame war? I am still erring on the side of (1) despite everyone's belief that it's (2) because I am pretty convinced he thinks he's clever. Ms B - I am not sure whether that makes it worse or better. I seem to remember a Welsh ex-friend of mine reading The White Hotel when were about 12 because it had sex in it. Am I thinking about the right DM Thomas?
Isn't that the only reason any of us read The White Hotel?I'm thinking he's going for (1) and as a consequence is coming over as (2).
Yes, DMThomas is my dad. Does that explain everything? You may have to read the follow up book to Millions - Never Change A Baby With A Hangover (Bloomsbury, June 2008) to find out quite how this unusual parentage has affected me.Or read my blog, www.toffeewomble.blogspot.comxxSean T
Ms B, heavens! CO, I know.And now to The Second Most Famous Author To Leave A Comment on my Site (the first was Alain de Botton, or rather Someone Pretending To Be Alain De Botton): Sean, hello and welcome. Are you liking the attention? You should do that thing when your comments are under your blog name. Then the people can click on the blue writing and see IMMEDIATELY, with ALMOST NO EFFORT that you look better in your photograph on your blog (moody, slightly narrowed eyes; possibly on honeymoon), than you do in your author photograph (deep sea fish crossed with albino frog). I am sure you very nice really, Sean, so do put us out of our misery - was it 1, 2 or 3? All my forgiveness-soaked loveNWM
Greetings to you too, NWM!Trust me, I wasn't offended by the photo remarks. I'm well aware of its albino frog quality. Indeed it's a subject of some debate as to why Bloomsbury chose that photo for the author shot. I think they wanted a pic that seemed 'humorous', to get over the comic quality of the book. However, what they got, according to my fiancee, is a shot that makes me 'look like a pedo just after he's molested some kid'.You all singularly fail to recognise a motivation number four behind my e-luv comment: I love a good Internet argument, me.Sean T
With respect*, Sean, you have singularly failed to realise I was not at all concerned about having offended you.Yes, arguing is fine, but isn't it more fun to argue without being horrid? (I am rarely horrid unless I think someone is Being Unfair, in which case I am Extremely Horrid, and then delete it - if it is a thing I am writing with my hands - and become Mildly Unpleasant.)So, which is it: 1, 2 or 3?NWM* Which is more incendiary/irritating: "with respect", or "singularly failed"?
Oh, if you insist. I think my comment was a combination of 1 and 3. I was very slightly annoyed by the critique of my book as 'rubbish' - who wouldn't be? - but not enough to make me interrupt my day to comment on a blog - unless I could have some fun doing it. Hence my absurdly over-the-top vituperation.And I am still rather fond of 'wankstain on the duvet of literature'.And no, arguing on the Net is no fun unless you give it real venom, you tedious South London slapper*.*playful irony.
Oh go on, admit you're a bit of a knob.
I am a bit of a knob. And a busy one at that, must go now.But before I do, one more thing: that Kiwi Dave chap should count himself lucky I was so nice and temperate with him. When I'm in a real spate I can be quite insulting.For an example, Google the words:"sour faced french cunt" in quotes. Then either scroll down to the bottom of the page, or just check out the cache.x
Oh gosh I'm scared.Really I am.So it wasn't a windup???? But then why would he admit to shagging sheep????
I am now positive he is number 2 but attempting to be number 3. Absolutely.
I see he writes for the Sunday Telegraph.
Actually I am now convinced that he is a "number 2".
Caroline - leave the sheep out of this. I've told you before. Petemaskreplica (is that your given name?), I am very much afraid to tell you that writing for the Sunday Times is far, far worse. J-boy dearest, I am very much afraid that you may have said all that needs to be said. I salute you.
What did I tell you? It's a definite 2.
Well, to the chap's credit he has entered into the spirit of the debate. So I think in the final analysis we're looking at being (2) while doing (3). With a fucking great coulis of (1).
How stupid. Why didn't I think of this earlier? If you are still in any doubt, you should consult Alanis Morissette, as she seems to have an excellent grasp of what consitutes irony.
There's something worse than writing for the Sunday Telegraph? You fill me with fear, Miss Monkey.And my name is an interweb affectation, as well you know.
Post a Comment