"If you read the review carefully...."At that point I stopped reading.
I read the original review in the briefing and to be honest, I thought it was a bit weird. It did seem a bit like an attack in some ways. But I think that I might need to have a more well thought out response to it than that to be able to comment....and I have no insider knowledge of Sydney Anglicanism to draw from either.
To be honest, I read it and didn't think it was that unkind to MPJ. He may feel differently, of course, but if I were him I'd feel more misunderstood than maligned. Bit funny to pick a book not about Chappo to review in an edition all about Chappo and complain that it's not about Chappo. I went and bought me a copy of the book about Chappo instead!
Clarifying - I realise what I meant isn't quite what I said. 'didn't think it was that unkind to MPJ' ...because it wasn't taking a swing at where he was actually standing. Misunderstood (and therefore unfairly maligned) rather than simply maligned. That is, if it were me, my colossal ego would tell itself, harrumph, they missed the point completely, so I'll ignore the criticism. But Michael's ego may not be quite as towering, so it might still sting. Curse the limitations of blog comments on a tired brain afternoon. Even that final line was meant to mean "I completely ignored the review; was reminded about the book that should have been reviewed, namely Chappo's bio, and then grabbed a copy second hand because it was out of print; and am glad MPJ has written sensibly on his actual topic.Apologies to Michael for botching all that!
1. I suspect Tony's actual critique is actually fair.2. I think the refusal to hear the charge about isolationism is disappointing.3. I agree the framing of the piece was both confusing and ill-advised.