Mumsnet members get a 10% discount from Boden (including free returns and free delivery), The White Company, sweaty Betty, Luxury Family Hotels, JoJo Maman Bebe, Siblu, Blooming Marvellous, GLTC, Bump to 3 (the official online shop for Grobags) and more. Click here for more info Join mumsnet here.
As you said " he likes the Clash so that catapults him onto the stratosphere as far as I'm concerned. Plus he raised his son alone after that helium voiced freako ex wife of his buggered off so I RATE HIM "
hear hear! I think Julie Birchill was unbelievably cruel to their son - he was left to pick up the pieces.
I am not sounding like myself as I am trying not to disentangle myself from this sorry mess. I was having a laugh, in the best spirit of MN - we are not Netmums after all. I am not going near your last post with a barge pole, sorry.
Gosh there's a bit of over-analysis going on here surely.
I thought his responses were lighthearted and fine for this forum- he seemed game for it really. I don't think his books are the most amazing in the world, but there are very few I do (Haruki Murakami , Alan Booth (RIP), Somerset Maugham are my heroes). They're fine for light reading though and there's lots to be said for that! I don't think he's claiming literary greatness is he?
I would have liked to see a more serious and considered response to Scummy's question, but I think he came across just fine. As well as anyone can on here really.
lol Zippi. You are dying for me to be in angst over something. I am touched It will never happen ove TP beleive me. A bit of tongue in cheek outrage though is a good tonic.
And all tabloid journos dfo is sit on their arses bitching and af he thinks that's pathetic...
All his columns are like that.
And his 'but thanks for letting me into the debate' - cos he then obvioulsy demonstrated such a cutting edge understanding of it, friend of Greer or no - but maybe he thought he'd better dumb down for us being a herd of dumb muthas
What constructive criticism can one give to someone who writes for therapy?
Oh I have been such a bitch then! I can feel the self-loathing taking over, thus making TP all insightful and brilliant and proving us all twittering fools...what have I done?!!
I thought he was being sarky, like I was putting myself forward as trivial. Had my guard up after the misogyny warning! Maybe I just made myself look stupid and paranoid. Ahem. As you were...
He said (or implied) that my name suggested I loathed myself (it didn't have the bogeyman bit on then). I said back that at least no-one loathed me enough to call me Tony Parsehole (childish, I know). DP hadn't heard of TP or the viz column, and just thought I was being pathetic like calling him pooface or something. His respect for me plummeted
I thought he was very sarcastic to me, but someone else said he was being nice, so maybe I am just paranoid. Anyway, I don't much like his books, but I'm sure he's nice enough when you get to know him. I've liked some of his mirror articles even, but lots are a bit too ranty. Still, nothing wrong with that either - MN specialises in ranting...I don't understand why everyone thought his typing was amazing though - I thought he was using cut and paste from earlier in thethread? Good idea actually. Now I will have to try and predict what my next post will be here, and have it all prepared
Silly to ne squabbling amongst themselves or about Parsons of all people. The latter I would agree with! What a waste fo precious effort. I am defending myself though, not arguing about Parsons.
not at all Mrs Mattie: I have no interest or opinion in connection with Tony Parsons' books -I don't think I ever read any of them - but I am surprised at the degree of vitriol and hatred doled out on this thread. It really does make you sound like a nasty spiteful group of bullies.
I haven't got my handbag out! Don't be cheap MT. I'm not remotely threatened by the fact you disagree with me, as I assume you are not by the fact I disagree with you. We are exchanging opinions is all. Is healthy.
OMG listen to you all...so much venom and resentment. Why not dish it out to someone who actually deserves it like an arms dealer or murderer or something?
you sound like a bunch of tired and slightly envious harpies. It's quite amusing though so feel free to continue.
No one is saying it isn;t hard, but women do do it all the time. Parsons had to do it cos he happened to marry a bigger twat (allegedly) than himself.
That was his unique selling point. Becasue it was unusual when millions of women were in a similar situation but had no uniqueness to it. It was all too common. Great, he converted a bad situation into a winning one. Lets not take that away from him. Good business acumin.
MrsMattie Being a lone parent doesn't make you an only parent or even mean you raise your child alone literally. It means you live with the child in a residence that does not also house the other parent. I've been a lone parent and it's hard (and I had a very good support network and a very comfortable income).
and OMG is he milking it now?! It is the best thing that ever happened to him. Loads of women raise there children aloone all the time, why are people so impressed by Tony Bleeding Parsons doing it?! It's because he goes on about it all the freaking time!
I think you are taking this a bit too seriously 100times. Just take a deep breath fgs. This is Tony Parsons, not Tony Danza!
And I did not say that he was disengenous and cynical but the stunt itself. The opening gambit, the pitch, the (excuse the pun) tone. So put your handbag away. You have no need to be threatened by my opinions, or call them something they aren't, just becasiue they don't agree with yours.
The reason I haven't read his books is becasue I've read his journalism.
He didn't quite raise his son alone. That's the thing: he has been quite happy to pimp his personal life as long as it paints him as 'Saint Tony, the poor bloke who raised his kid alone while his horrible wife went off to become a lezzer'. So, he spends years 9and earns shit loads) prannying on about himself....but i have to be polite and respect his boundaries and stick to speaking about his God awful books?
well he likes the Clash so that catapults him onto the stratosphere as far as I'm concerned. Plus he raised his son alone after that helium voiced freako ex wife of his buggered off so I RATE HIM.
ahundredtimes, I didn't realise he was only here to discuss his book! I completely disagree that we should not discuss him as a person, he markets his personality as well as his books, it is not just about his 'work', he started off byt telling us something about himself as a father, was more than happy to talk about his relationships, and his life, and aspects of his personality too. That's the rub. I read man and boy, wouldn't read anything else by him, but it doesn't mean I am not entitled to question his responces to some questions, or dislike his attitude, and discuss that.
I haven't read all the aftermath of this, but it sounds really interesting, and I'll be catching up later. Just wanted to say that I hold my hands up, I was rude to him, it was lazy, and I didn't properly explain why I have such an objection to him. I do however find him deeply unsavoury. I thought the way in which he responsed to ScummyMummy's questions was absolutely pathetic and very defensive. He is so obsessed by his own popularity, fine, he is open about the fact that he likes to be liked, but I think his pursuance of popularity is obsessional and imo very unlikeable. He is self congratulatory in the extreme , and takes himself terribly seriously rendering himself entirely devoid of a sense of humour. The way he 'flirted' here last night was revolting, and the way he opened with the nonsense about the Roald Dahl was calculated, cheesy and insincere, it put me in the mind of this and is definitely a competitor for vomit-inducing-insincere-spin prizeof the decade!!
Saying that someone is doing something for money, that they are disingenuous and cynical is name calling. Why? Because it's all about the person, and not about THE WORK.
Saying 'I read this book, and I found it really difficult. I struggled with the way you portrayed the women, and I found I disliked your use of language when describing the female form' is criticism. Why? BECAUSE IT'S ABOUT THE WORK.
God, you are impressive. I wish I went to see all these things. I might need to have a day trip. I went to the Louise Bourgeois thingy ages ago, after you mentioned it on 10/10. I loved that.
All criticism is undemocratic? We are getting unstuck here because you didn't criticize his work and yet you think you did. That's what you think you are defending? Yes?
MT on the sofa during Late Review, not having seen anything she is reviewing saying 'I've never seen Mark Rothko and I don't want to. I don't have a Mark Rothko size hole in my life. If he was alive I would be thinking HUH, he's just having this retrospective because he wants to make money. Takes me to point this out to you all RIGHT? You should be more cynical.'
Right, so by your thinking The Late Review and all criticism is undemocratic. <guffaw>
This not withstanding the fact that no ones opinion has been challenged here, except mine. I have repeatedly stated I do not mind counter criticism, that I am only stating my opinion and that that is no threat to others. But we appear to have fallen down the rabbit hole once again.
I wish I could muster up ebough energy to be cross - and defend muyself - but against what? There is no argument here. It's just madness.
zippi- I'm not sure what I think of his books. I bought My Favourite Wife to read on the train and at night because I was going to an academic conference and wanted some light reading to read around it. Didn't want to have to concentrate. I did stay up reading it one night which is always a good sign although I couldn't quite decide what I thought as I was reading the book. I do think the books I've read seem to feature men having affairs - the male main characters are never that likeable - I think perhaps that's the problem I had with My Favourite Wife, but I liked his answer to me last night and I will buy the next one.
Because what drives that attitude isn't a desire to express a democratic opinion, it is a desire to cut someone down to size and have a go at them, just because they can. Not nice.
If you'd wanted to criticize his work and challenge him on that, then fair enough, fair dos. But you haven't done that, because like me you've never read one of his books.
I just think this general dismissive slightly bullying attitude - not you, it happens a lot - smells of little shits with a hint of power - oooh here's someone on MN, I can insult them. I wouldn't normally have an opportunity to do that. oooh, look at me, Isn't this democratic.
You don't treat anyone like this. Okay. Yet the fact that Parson's is himself a critic and that entails giving opinions on the work and creative/commercial motives of someone, is lost on many it seems
Yes MrsM I think that is the truth. I've never read a book by him, and I'm sure I don't much want to.
I don't understand why this is so black and white. Because I've never read a book by him, and don't much want to, it doesn't mean that I think he's a worthless shite, hawking his book around and therefore worthy of my ridicule.
I don't treat anybody like this. Because I think that you should treat people with a modicum of respect it doesn't make me pious or outraged, and it doesn't mean that I think we should all fall off our chairs with gratitude that he is on MN.
All of you lovely, polite, grown up people and not a single interesting question between you. Hmm. Wonder why that is? Could it be that he isn't very interesting?
Oh please, there is no need to get all outraged and pious about this. I'm not asking you to change your opinions. I'm not challenging them, just giving mine.
Zippi, I've never criticised him for being "nice" and have never inculted him either. Since when was giving a critical opinion insulting? We are all in deep shit if that's the common perception.
Carm, can lazy not be applied to ideas? I never mentioned his physoical activities, only specifically ideas.
But all these differences of opinion aside which are meaningless, most of you were entertained for an hour, so it was a success. If any of you buy his turgid book his PR team will also have a success. It's all good it seems.
and it is surely true that being rude and insulting is not going to bring an oh yes id be delighted from any future invitee that you might think is worthy of gracing mumsnet
And it's not WRONG to spend three years writing a book, and then want to get out and sell it to people. It doesn't make you a suspect person. It's part of the job.
Though this isn't really about TP for me. It's about an attitude which says,= - yes come on MN if you think you're hard enough, we'll knock you down to size, blah blah blah you think your so great huh?
he is in the field of popular culture not academia
he doesnt claim any different
i only vaguely know of him mainly from his seventies music journalism none of which i can actually now remember but i will read a book of his after this thread
not least because some mns i respect like jimjams seem to rate them and they sound quite interesting enough for me to give him a punt
i might even take to checking his daily mirror column online just to see what he says now too as you seem so anti
Oh now come on, he is NOT lazy, he churns out books and articles. Whether his writing has merit is a different matter completely.
And I am not totally without critical faculties, I would like to think that I am one of the more measured posters on the board.
The opinion I had of TP pre this web chat has not just disappeared into the ether but I do think he was a pleasant and interesting guest.
And tbh I don't think that Shera GM would have acquitted herself well here at all, even if she did have the mettle to show up. I suspect her intellect typing skills wouldn't have been up to the job.
And fwiw I think the role of a critic is to judge a work by understanding what the artist wanted to do or tried to do, and then judge whether or not they managed it.
I don't see any merit either. It's just rude. It's not clever or sceptical to acknowledge that what they are doing is publicity for their book - and then criticize them for doing that. It doesn't meant that people don't understand that he is dong publicity. He is. It's his job fgs.
You might not respect his work - then I think you can say so, and say why
I am sure he would agree with the role of critic - of noticing inconsitancies and appeals to emotion - seeing as he has made a living out of it and I don;t mind you criticising me for it.
Carmenere, I think the same thing would have happened had the Goldsmith woman turned up. She's have aquitted herself just by doing so.
Being skeptical is a good thing. I think too many of you think all criticism is bad. It isn't. Its essential! Blind and ignorant cynicism is a diffrent animal all together though - and the few times I've read any Parsons editorials - AND in his views on feminism - all seem stuffed full of that. All blame with no ideas. Not a war crinminal - a tad extreme don't you think? - just lazy basically. I'd prefer people with ideas.
Oh come on, he acquitted himself pretty well considering the amount of animosity and indifference that preceded his arrival. He answered a few questions, ignored a few questions, raised his profile a bit. He was the more polite and friendly party. He may have said some stupid obtuse things in the past but he is hardly a war criminal. It was an interesting hour.
I can feel the self-loathing taking over, thus making TP all insightful and brilliant and proving us all twittering fools...what have I done?!! 
