Home Critic's Corner

Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry.

Art Dudley, Listening, Stereophile, March 2007

Much to my chagrin I'm afraid to say Art Dudley has reduced himself to penning some near tabloid style trash in this article. In particular he has resorted to the innunedo and rumor game; not unlike that we have witnessed from some others here in recent days. Yet in regard to "the purportedly unethical behavior of the reviewer mentioned" (John Atkinson's wording) Dudley seems to have gone the extra mile in that he brings to the case some rather peculiar tortured logic.

He says "That's why it's sepecially sad when a writer has to make a special point of telling you he's not a thief, simply to keep your trust. It means he has failed twice".

Isn't that simply fantastic! Does it not seem the fellow would have done better to say nothing, to have not provided an explanation? Doesn't this peverse logic imply guilt by way of offering an explanation?

Then also there is the implicit question of the first failure?... after all the reviewer was said to have "failed twice". Was it, the first failure, the purported act itself, and if so has Dudley already passed verdict?


No Guru, No Method, No Teacher


This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
  Amplified Parts  


Topic - Art Dudley, Listening, Stereophile, March 2007 - bjh 20:53:55 02/24/07 (115)


You can not post to an archived thread.