The Life And Scandalous Times Of John Nathan-Turner

[Christopher]

I don't see any naivete there. He's not saying he's surprised that people are focusing on the salacious parts at the expense of the majority of the book; he's just saying, quite correctly, that it's an unfairly biased take on the work. Just because unfairness is predictable, that doesn't make it right.

 

[Nagisa Furukawa]

I don't see any naivete there. He's not saying he's surprised that people are focusing on the salacious parts at the expense of the majority of the book; he's just saying, quite correctly, that it's an unfairly biased take on the work. Just because unfairness is predictable, that doesn't make it right.

This is not a book called "John Nathan-Turner - A Life Devoted to the BBC" or something similar.

This is a book called "The Life and Scandalous Times of John-Nathan Turner."

It's absolutely, absolutely designed to make you go, "Ooh, what's the dirt in here?" He gets to have his cake and eat it too; he gets to draw them in with a salacious sounding title, get a lot of publicity from it, and then go, "Oh, no, no, that's just one small part in a larger book about more things!" If he truly felt this way, he wouldn't have named his book that or have been more vocal about the publishers giving it that title and bringing in attention he thinks is unfair.

 

[Mr Awe]

^ Seriously, he gives it that title and of course are going to be looking for that and talking about!

 

[Christopher]

^ Seriously, he gives it that title and of course are going to be looking for that and talking about!

But that's assuming that he gave it that title, and that may very well be untrue. A lot of the time, it's the editors or publishers who give a book a different title than the author wanted because they think it'll sell better. I've had that happen to me a couple of times myself, though at least I've been consulted in selecting a new title. But I've heard of cases where authors were saddled with more sensationalist or misleading titles than they wanted, especially in nonfiction.

 

[Atticus]

^ Seriously, he gives it that title and of course are going to be looking for that and talking about!

But that's assuming that he gave it that title,

He did.

 

[Nagisa Furukawa]

A lot of the time, it's the editors or publishers who give a book a different title than the author wanted because they think it'll sell better. I've had that happen to me a couple of times myself, though at least I've been consulted in selecting a new title. But I've heard of cases where authors were saddled with more sensationalist or misleading titles than they wanted, especially in nonfiction.

I mentioned that in my post. If that was the case, you think it'd be something he'd mention when bitching about people being drawn to this for salacious content.

 

[StCoop]

But that's assuming that he gave it that title, and that may very well be untrue. A lot of the time, it's the editors or publishers who give a book a different title than the author wanted because they think it'll sell better.

Given that it's a Vanity Published book I doubt there was any editorial interference involved.

 

[Mr Awe]

^ Seriously, he gives it that title and of course are going to be looking for that and talking about!

But that's assuming that he gave it that title, and that may very well be untrue. A lot of the time, it's the editors or publishers who give a book a different title than the author wanted because they think it'll sell better. I've had that happen to me a couple of times myself, though at least I've been consulted in selecting a new title. But I've heard of cases where authors were saddled with more sensationalist or misleading titles than they wanted, especially in nonfiction.

Fair to a point. However, even if he didn't give it that title, it still has that title. Consequently, the reaction is predictable.

Mr Awe

 

[Christopher]

^Again, whether the audience reaction is predictable or not has nothing to do with it, because he didn't say he was surprised by it, he said he found it unfair. Lots of predictable reactions are unfair. The cynic would say that it's surprising when anything in life is fair.

 

[diankra]

A lot of the time, it's the editors or publishers who give a book a different title than the author wanted because they think it'll sell better. I've had that happen to me a couple of times myself, though at least I've been consulted in selecting a new title. But I've heard of cases where authors were saddled with more sensationalist or misleading titles than they wanted, especially in nonfiction.

I mentioned that in my post. If that was the case, you think it'd be something he'd mention when bitching about people being drawn to this for salacious content.

Right, because saying that on network radio would really help to damp the fire... (rather than, for instance, setting up a follow-up headline of "Doctor Who sex expose writer slams publishers")

 

[Mr Awe]

^Again, whether the audience reaction is predictable or not has nothing to do with it, because he didn't say he was surprised by it, he said he found it unfair. Lots of predictable reactions are unfair. The cynic would say that it's surprising when anything in life is fair.

All right, I'll grant you that if he didn't give it that title and if he only said the reaction was unfair, I might agree somewhat. However, in that specific scenario, it sounds like he's blaming the public when he should be blaming the publisher.

Mr Awe

 

[Christopher]

Two sides of the same coin, though. Publishers play up sensationalism because audiences embrace it.

 

[JoeZhang]

Colin Baker isn't very happy:

The Sun and The Mirror published some of these allegations with pictures – on the front page – of John and myself with the respective headlines ‘Pervs of Doctor Who’ and ‘Doctor Who Sex Scandal’.

Despite the addition in minuscule print, a fraction of the size of the blaring headline in The Mirror, that I was ‘not involved’, the casual observer in a newspaper shop would see only one image of a Doctor Who on which to base their assumption of whom the headline was accusing of being the subject of a scandal.

The Sun’s exclusion of me from the allegations was in paragraph twelve of an article on page six. The front page used the word ‘pervs’ and there were two images above it, mine and that of the producer who was not a publicly recognisable face. What other conclusion would the casual observer arrive at but that I was a ‘perv’?

http://www.bucksfreepress.co.uk/yoursay/opinion/look/10322613.Why_did_papers_use_my_image_/

 

[Sindatur]

Colin Baker isn't very happy:

The Sun and The Mirror published some of these allegations with pictures – on the front page – of John and myself with the respective headlines ‘Pervs of Doctor Who’ and ‘Doctor Who Sex Scandal’.

Despite the addition in minuscule print, a fraction of the size of the blaring headline in The Mirror, that I was ‘not involved’, the casual observer in a newspaper shop would see only one image of a Doctor Who on which to base their assumption of whom the headline was accusing of being the subject of a scandal.

The Sun’s exclusion of me from the allegations was in paragraph twelve of an article on page six. The front page used the word ‘pervs’ and there were two images above it, mine and that of the producer who was not a publicly recognisable face. What other conclusion would the casual observer arrive at but that I was a ‘perv’?

http://www.bucksfreepress.co.uk/yoursay/opinion/look/10322613.Why_did_papers_use_my_image_/

I dont blame him. In my opinion, even if it's not "legally" slander, it most certainly is ethically slander, and I can't imagine they were completely aware of what they were doing and how easily it could be miscontrued (And how unlikely it would be for a passerby reading it through a window not to miscontrue it)

Who the hell wants to be subjected to something like that at anytime in their life, but, especially not when you're in your 70s and 80s and above.

 

[Starkers]

I hopes he sues em!

 

[Marc]

I hopes he sues em!

Be nice but as C. Baker states he's not really able to afford it - he's still got dependent daughters and his going after the media scum could impact them in as well.