Twitching by numbers - Book only available on Amazon (2 Viewers)

[Steve Babbs]

It can be bought for £11.99 now and it's fair to say its average review score has gone down considerably.

 

[pppppvvvv]

Its on amazon for £22.93 as the main Amazon price, and also being sold by Amazon for £11.19 in small print underneath the main price.
Presumably they are tryng to catch peope out who have gone blind from reading too much "Twitching by Numbers"!

 

[Butty]

Enough.
Stop publicizing this idiot production.

 

[mikejf]

Out of stock at £11.19. Shame, quite fancied it myself...
Cheers
Sid James

 

[pppppvvvv]

£22.93 it is then!

 

[Stephen Dunstan]

I don't expect this to be a popular view but neither side has covered themselves with glory. If Garry has paid for an editor they should have advised him to remove the passages referred to. But there has also been a pile on, reasoned criticism of what he has written is clearly merited but it has gone well beyond that.

 

[dantheman]

I don't expect this to be a popular view but neither side has covered themselves with glory. If Garry has paid for an editor they should have advised him to remove the passages referred to. But there has also been a pile on, reasoned criticism of what he has written is clearly merited but it has gone well beyond that.

Kind of my thoughts too.

I got so far as reading the twitter thread replies and amazon reviews the other day. Setting the scene of the 70s, which to be fair, probably was what it was. Clumsy or whatever, but hey, honest? Were those 4 highlighted passages on the twitter thread the worst of a small number of similar passages, or the tip of a stinking pile of misogynistic crap? Seemed fairly harmless to me (albeit possibly a tad clumsy as mentioned). Anyone on here read any Mills and Boon recently*? Or any tabloids? It stated somewhere that it became more 'birdy intense' later on?

*(Ok, probably not)

 

[Andy Adcock]

I don't expect this to be a popular view but neither side has covered themselves with glory. If Garry has paid for an editor they should have advised him to remove the passages referred to. But there has also been a pile on, reasoned criticism of what he has written is clearly merited but it has gone well beyond that.

As is usual with these same characters when they get involved, including J Gearty who seems to be offended by life generally.

 

[Alcina]

and the kind of sexism which discourages women in what is already a very male-dominated hobby.

Last time I looked I was definitely female

Owen e: criticising a book you don;t like is one thing. Bullying the author for 'political incorrectness' until he withdraws his work from sale is cancel culture.
BethEngland: it wasn't available yesterday when I went to buy it. To add to the mystery, Amazon is now selling it direct for 11.99.

 

[BogBean]

Last time I looked I was definitely female

Owen e: criticising a book you don;t like is one thing. Bullying the author for 'political incorrectness' until he withdraws his work from sale is cancel culture.
BethEngland: it wasn't available yesterday when I went to buy it. To add to the mystery, Amazon is now selling it direct for 11.99.

It's not being withdrawn from sale. Being re-categorised as "Adult" (sic), or something

 

[PYRTLE]

Garry tweeted a couple of days ago that he had withdrawn the book from sale. Surely that is the end of the debate whether or not he was "bullied" into it or not. The rest is garbage from those either jealous of his efforts or trolling twerps as mentioned delicately by AA.

 

[Steve Babbs]

It has not been withdrawn.
Jealous! Of what? Nope.
"Trolling twerps" include many women talking about how they feel uncomfortable when birding as they feel there is a lot of misogyny in birding. A view likely to be reinforced if they visit BF sometimes. I suggest you read what they have to say.

 

[Mark Batten]

As is usual with these same characters when they get involved, including J Gearty who seems to be offended by life generally.

Difficult to decide what is most offensive: Gary’s “shite” book or those leading the social media campaign to have the book removed?

We are talking about a book written by Gary Bagnell, not Shakespeare or Jane Austen, although it is clear those who are "unhappy" appear to have read the publication from cover to cover - surely a cure for insomnia

Let’s be clear Gary’s book is awful in so many ways: It is badly written and some of the content may be considered inappropriate and for some even offensive. Gary was offered lots of advice and this book could have actually been about “twitching tales” instead of a blow by blow life story account, which nobody is interested in reading.

Will I be buying this garbage? -absolutely not. Does Gary have a right to publish?- yes he does. Should Gary be expected to withdraw the book from publication as a result of a Twitter campaign by those who are offended ? - on balance probably not.

This book (and I use the term book loosely) should have been allowed to fail as it’s contents clearly deserves. Unfortunately the continuing observations (this post included) draws attention to a publication which rightly should to be consigned to the bin of history ASAP.

No doubt those in the birding community will be subject to an “analysis’ of why Gary’s book iis so offensive in a column in the March edition of birdwatch magazine.. Fortunately I will not be reading that either

 

[ambduck5]

Two things to avoid. This months edition of birdwatch magazine and Gary's book

I haven't read Gary's book but it probably wouldn't interest me anyway. However, I couldn't agree more about the Birdwatch magazine comment. Yet another price increase (20% in 12 months) and an example of 'wokery' gone mad. Do I really want to read about some female birders 'wife'? I have all 367 editions of Birdwatch published to date but will not be purchasing any more. It has been going downhill for a long time. Little more than a list of rare bird sightings these days and reports of overseas trips by hypocritical so-called 'environmentalists'

 

[Stephen Dunstan]

I haven't read Gary's book but it probably wouldn't interest me anyway. However, I couldn't agree more about the Birdwatch magazine comment. Yet another price increase (20% in 12 months) and an example of 'wokery' gone mad. Do I really want to read about some female birders 'wife'? I have all 367 editions of Birdwatch published to date but will not be purchasing any more. It has been going downhill for a long time. Little more than a list of rare bird sightings these days and reports of overseas trips by hypocritical so-called 'environmentalists'

I think some of this month's Birdwatch was good content, the profiles of inspirational women involved in ornithology and birding in particular. But some of it was woeful. This was the excerpt from the humour piece about male birders they chose to highlight in large print:

"As a species they're easy to spot: obligatory bins, three long, thin legs held together with gaffer tape and scruffy plumage made entirely out of pockets."

Other gems in the same piece included "The species is mostly solitary, but at times will flock together" and "They're not always the most confiding of species. On first meeting they might seem gruff and grumpy". This apparently from a professional writer.

I am sure it is ever more difficult to write fresh stuff about birding and balance increasingly polarised viewpoints, but it's a far cry from when Anthony McGeehan wrote stuff that was good enough to go on to be published as a book.

 

[Farnboro John]

I think the sooner people start treating each other as people instead of trying to hatefully force them into divisive boxes the better off birding as a hobby will be. The only agenda should be "which way to the bird?"

John

 

[Mark Batten]

I haven't read Gary's book but it probably wouldn't interest me anyway. However, I couldn't agree more about the Birdwatch magazine comment. Yet another price increase (20% in 12 months) and an example of 'wokery' gone mad. Do I really want to read about some female birders 'wife'? I have all 367 editions of Birdwatch published to date but will not be purchasing any more. It h

I think some of this month's Birdwatch was good content, the profiles of inspirational women involved in ornithology and birding in particular. But some of it was woeful. This was the excerpt from the humour piece about male birders they chose to highlight in large print:

"As a species they're easy to spot: obligatory bins, three long, thin legs held together with gaffer tape and scruffy plumage made entirely out of pockets."

Other gems in the same piece included "The species is mostly solitary, but at times will flock together" and "They're not always the most confiding of species. On first meeting they might seem gruff and grumpy". This apparently from a professional writer.

I am sure it is ever more difficult to write fresh stuff about birding and balance increasingly polarised viewpoints, but it's a far cry from when Anthony McGeehan wrote stuff that was good enough to go on to be published as a book.

I agree that it is very difficult to write new/fresh stuff on a subject such as birds and birding, particularly on a monthly basis. Still feel this can be done without making some of the content more suited to being in a Guardian editorial which is one of the reasons I no longer subscribe.

 

[Steve Babbs]

The only agenda should be "which way to the bird?"

Isn't that twitching rather than birding.

Happy new year John. 🥂

 

[Mike Cross]

Well we had the "George Michael" of birding. Who knew that we had the "Cosmo Smallpiece" of birding too?
This is all very sad. This looks like the literary version of having your social media account hacked. I cannot believe that he did get some independent oversight on the content of the book. Then again i gave an opinion on twitter on the title and he blocked me. In my opinion Twitching by Numbers sounds like Painting by Numbers i.e requiring no skills or aptitude, going through the motions, copying etc. Little did i know about the content.

 

[Andy Adcock]

I think some of this month's Birdwatch was good content, the profiles of inspirational women involved in ornithology and birding in particular. But some of it was woeful. This was the excerpt from the humour piece about male birders they chose to highlight in large print:

"As a species they're easy to spot: obligatory bins, three long, thin legs held together with gaffer tape and scruffy plumage made entirely out of pockets."

Other gems in the same piece included "The species is mostly solitary, but at times will flock together" and "They're not always the most confiding of species. On first meeting they might seem gruff and grumpy". This apparently from a professional writer.

I am sure it is ever more difficult to write fresh stuff about birding and balance increasingly polarised viewpoints, but it's a far cry from when Anthony McGeehan wrote stuff that was good enough to go on to be published as a book.

Would this be treated as humour if written about a female?