From the article, it appears the big sadness for the author was he wrote back and said he was happy to work with Kubrick to discuss getting it to where he was more comfortable with it, Kubrick never responded, and then sent lawyers. That's all that's rough for the writer, here.

> From the article, it appears the big sadness for the author was he wrote back and said he was happy to work with Kubrick to discuss getting it to where he was more comfortable with it, Kubrick never responded, and then sent lawyers. That's all that's rough for the writer, here.

Very. Who knows how many hours of sweat he poured into it, only to get it shelved when it was done.

This, IMHO, is a good reason to recommend everyone read The Mom Test at some point in their adult life.

What probably happened was that the author got the initial agreement from Kubric by being so persistent that Kubric agreed just to make them go away. A lukewarm reception from someone is just their polite way of saying "no".

> Most people will get nothing out of that book.

I disagree with this. Even if you're not trying to build a business, almost everyone would benefit from the ability to distinguish a "Yes (but not really - we just want you to leave)" and a "Yes (we're in agreement)".

Most people can't tell the difference between the two.

> Why speculate to excuse Kubrick and victim blame Hornick, when the answer is in the article? He was commissioned to write the book:

I'm not trying to excuse anyone, I'm just saying that there is probably more to this than we heard, and one possibility is that the author interpreted a lukewarm signal as a yes, when in reality almost all lukewarm "yes"'s are "no"'s.

> He had been commissioned to write the very first book on Kubrick by cinema specialist The Tantivy Press more than 50 years ago.

That just moves the problem by a single degree - maybe it was the Tantivy Press that pestered Kubrick until he said yes to make them go away.

PS I do not understand why parent, latexr, was downvoted so heavily. He's making an argument, and it's clear his making it in good faith, not merely being a jackass. I don't think that type of argument should be downvoted.

That's not very surprising either though.

I don't know many artists who would enjoy the prospect of justifying their art to someone who was skeptical of its merit from the start.

Not saying Kubrick did the right thing, just that it seems very on-brand for most people in his position.

The problem is, if you have a veto and don't use it; you are basically endorsing the book.

I this case the author agreed that Kubrick would read the final book and agree if it should be published. This removes the option he chose with all other books of simply ignoring them. Very different then Streisand effecting an independent author.

Saying I'd like to work with you to get this shippable is saying "I'm willing to let you put in an enormous amount of free labor as an editor."

The question raised is whether one can be as great an artist as Kubrick without succumbing to taking oneself too seriously.

We enjoy art from artists deep in addictions or mental health crisis.

Art can be morbid. Like an ongoing disaster that unfolds before us, we can't look away sometimes.

From article it sounded like the clause to 'veto' was really meant as a fact check. Kubrick would be able to get chance to leave sections out, or clarify. That he just rejected the whole thing was the surprise.

Like if someone hired you to do a Web Site, and there was of course some stipulation that you get to review it. Then you complain the buttons are the wrong color and just reject the whole thing.