My book's chapters

[Trevor]

DEDICATION
BOOK'S OVERVIEW

1. MY FAVORITE SOUTH AFRICAN FILMS
2. SA FILM EVENTS 1895 - 2017 (I chose to stop in 2017 because that's when I stopped writing)
3. MEMORABLE MOMENTS IN SA FILMS
4. SA FILM PRODUCTIONS 1910 - 2017
5. FILMS BANNED UNDER APARTHEID
6. THE SUBSIDY FILM SCANDAL PRODUCTIONS
7. SUCH IDIOTS ARE NOT ARTISTS: THE ANTI-SOUTH AFRICAN FILM GENRE
8. INDEX OF UNDERPANTS

[Newt]

 

[Rev. Powell]

Sounds good except Chapter 8 stinks!

[bob]

Does the index have a scratch and sniff portion?

[Trevor]

[Trevor]

Sounds good except Chapter 8 stinks!

Always did 

I am a bit concerned about the idiots chapter where I take on foreign filmmakers who made anti-South African films as I really let them have it: I don't know what American libel laws are like. 

[Rev. Powell]

Sounds good except Chapter 8 stinks!

Always did 

I am a bit concerned about the idiots chapter where I take on foreign filmmakers who made anti-South African films as I really let them have it: I don't know what American libel laws are like. 

Probably similar to S.A. law, S.A. has a common law history. Opinions are not libel, only facts are. If you state your opinion that Michael Bay is a terrible filmmaker, that's not libel. If you knowingly falsely claim Michael Bay has syphilis, that's libel.

[Trevor]

If you knowingly falsely claim Michael Bay has syphilis, that's libel.

Aww crap, that was one of my comments I made  

I don't reflect on people like Richard Attenborough and Richard Donner personally, just their films. Incidentally, I always wondered if Attenborough knew he was playing a South African in The Great Escape?  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Bushell

[Trevor]

Does the index have a scratch and sniff portion?

[Trevor]

And I just got a rejection letter from one of the publishers which said " While your book is valid in terms of history it is unfortunately not fully academic in nature"

WTF is that supposed to mean exactly? 

[LilCerberus]

And I just got a rejection letter from one of the publishers which said " While your book is valid in terms of history it is unfortunately not fully academic in nature"

WTF is that supposed to mean exactly? 

Was it supposed to be academic?
I bought a couple movie books when I was younger because I was a movie buff.....

[Alex]

And I just got a rejection letter from one of the publishers which said " While your book is valid in terms of history it is unfortunately not fully academic in nature"

WTF is that supposed to mean exactly? 

You mentioned about your letting loose on certain movies, might that be what they mean?

[Trevor]

And I just got a rejection letter from one of the publishers which said " While your book is valid in terms of history it is unfortunately not fully academic in nature"

WTF is that supposed to mean exactly? 

You mentioned about your letting loose on certain movies, might that be what they mean?

They don't have my full manuscript as yet and certainly not that chapter, so they didn't judge my full manuscript 🤬

[Newt]

And I just got a rejection letter from one of the publishers which said " While your book is valid in terms of history it is unfortunately not fully academic in nature"

WTF is that supposed to mean exactly? 

More citations and footnotes?  More cowbell?   

[Rev. Powell]

And I just got a rejection letter from one of the publishers which said " While your book is valid in terms of history it is unfortunately not fully academic in nature"

WTF is that supposed to mean exactly? 

It means you chose the wrong publisher.

Hey, at least you got a quick answer. I've been waiting 2 months to hear back from a publisher. (They did verify they had my proposal, so...)