Times review of Sex.com

The Times has done a review of Sex.com. Short and sweet:

By Kieren McCarthy
Reviewed by Iain Finlayson

Civil law, not unreasonably regarded as a dry subject, is often rendered relevant by colourful cases. There is no more dramatic cause of dispute than money, unless it is sex — so the battle for the domain name sex.com had it all. The registered owner, Gary Kremen, alleged that Stephen Cohen, a conman and pornographer, had stolen this prime piece of internet real estate from him. McCarthy gives a fast-footed account of the trial and its upshot. “

  1. Hi Kieran, I much prefer both your articles to the published version.

    Both your articles had a flowing and well-paced narrative, whereas the published version was more about a series of paragraphs making distinct points.

    Admittedly, though, I wasn’t as keen on the intro to your second version, as I was the intro to the first though, but both of them were better than the one that ran. Your first intro, for example, was much more intriguing than the published version, setting the two protagonists one against the other, in present tense, a pretty tense situation, makes you wonder what it’s all about, that’s much more dramatic and gripping than the really dry and boring intro of in a few weeks time a middle aged man will be walking into a courtroom and pleading poverty with a judge. Where’s the drama, tension, the ‘what happens next I must read the rest of this article’ in that?

    The editor was nuts!

    And the irony of the misappropriated byline was delicious.

    Considering the premise of the sex.com saga is someone knicking the name of a website from someone else, for the editor to have ‘knicked’ your name to run someone else’s article… like I said, delicious irony.

    In a dozen years’ time are we going to read about the long-drawn out case of Kieran McCarthy battling to regain control of his name from an editor who stole it to run as a byline on someone else’s article?

  2. Hi Kieran,
    I’m really sorry about this, but I’m afraid I disagree. I haven’t read any of the 3 articles, as I imagine the Times is aware that most readers won’t. but I have read the opening paragraphs of each, and the only one I felt I’d want to continue reading was the one that appeared in the Times – both of yours were trying to engage, but I haven’t got time for that, the Times one told me what the article was about immediately, and, as I am interested in the subject, I’d probably read it. I think maybe your openings were trying to engage people who weren’t really interested anyway, even that perhaps you were less than confident that anyone would be interested at all.
    (I did read the review of your book in, I think, Prospect magazine, and will probably buy it sooner of later 🙂

    Warm Regards!

Comments are closed.