I have probably written about it here previously but I do lead my professional life via the guidance of Paul Fussell and his remarkable essay 'Being Reviewed', one part of which in sum states that if you can't stand being reviewed negatively, don't write books and publish them. I actually feel this is more or less fair enough and I try to abide by its implications, one of which is, oversensitivity to reviews is pathetic. But it was interesting being in a few minds at once - I felt a bit savaged, and also a bit patronised, and also wishing I had a right of reply. But also I could assume the smart reader could see right through this review, which like so much of the guff I have received from the media kind of proves one of my points as outlined in the book (it's a light-hearted bit of fluff from a very middle-class, 'latte coiffing' point of view, which impugns my motives) and so I wondered whether it was ultimately a good or a bad thing. Fussell says, and my limited experience seems to prove, that if you're (or in this case, your product is) important enough to be talked about that's all that really matters.
Still it got up my nose particularly in tandem with the Safran thing which I have been playing over and over in my head since.
I shouldn't be so sensitive, as the book has gone into a 2nd printing, which means I have now to make some corrections. That's a good thing.
* Martin the publisher called me later in the day to commiserate on the review and suggest he was sufficiently irritated by it to 'arc up' with Dempsey/The Age on this but I said I didn't think this was a good idea. I felt a bit like I was being managed, but I am still not sure if my response is a little too emotional.