this post was submitted on 17 Jul 2025
31 points (83.0% liked)
Books
6173 readers
140 users here now
A community for all things related to Books.
Rules
- Be Nice. No personal attacks or hate speech.
- No spam. All posts should be related to books.
Official Bingo Posts:
Related Communities
Community icon by IconsBox (from freepik.com)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's just strange that, despite criticising Trump constantly, he'd choose this specific thing to defend him on.
He could have said nothing.
He could have reasonably assumed that "client list" is short hand for data on who the clients are; a list formed posteriori by the investigators.
But instead he said "people who think there is a way to learn the identity of the clients are crazy".
For a successful author, such poor grasp on the language is suspicious.
He's not defending Trump. He's just clarifying an important point of truth.
If you have the habit of wanting simplistic ways of looking, simply because in this case it'll make your enemies look bad (even if they are, as in this case, very very bad people), you should break that habit. Sooner or later it will turn on you.
I have no idea why so many people are snatching onto this thing as a reason to say bad things about him. I sort of suspect it is because of addiction to "gotcha!" and being able to be superior to people. He made an important point unclearly, and than clarified. That's okay. It's Twitter. He's way ahead of the curve even for a normal social network, and he's been using his Twitter account to publicly shit on Trump for quite a long time. You should give him credit for also being committed to precise truth at a time when it's not very popular at all.
Its not clarifying anything.
His point is only valid for the most literal pedantic interpretation of "client list". An interpretation that any author should be embarrassed about insisting on.
So, between the choices of
"this prolific and renowned author has literal interpretation and refuses to accept any other interpretation"
or
"author infamous for including child SA in a novel, supports defense of child predators"
I know which one I lean towards