Forrester was quite a SOB toward Crawford in his own right
OK, let's go back in time to 1950 or whenever 'Avalon Landing' came out.
Forrester stuns the world and writes one of the great 20th Century novels right out of the box. He wins the Pulitzer Prize.
Virtually every literary critic and reviewer in the world writes a review of "Avalon." The vast majority are glowing, a few are negative.
So here comes Robert Crawford, at the time a newly-graduated professor of English or literature at some university. He writes a book, focusing on four great authors, all dead except Forrester.
What does Pulitzer Prize winner Forrester do? He bluffs virtually all the leading publishers out of publishing Crawford's book, saying (falsely) he is working on a new book and publishers need to drop Crawford's book if they want to bid on HIS.
Why would Forrester get so cranked up over an (unpublished) book by an obscure English professor? He had been reviewed in every paper in the world (sometimes badly). What gives Forrester the right to squash unpublished books by obscure nobody writers??
If Crawford's book panned 'Avalon,' what the hell did Forrester care? It was already a worldwide hit; one bad review by some dude nobody never heard of wasn't going to change anybody's mind about it.
It would have been a nice touch if somewhere in the movie Forrester said, "you know, I really acted like a jackass 50 years ago."
================
4) You ever seen Superman $#$# his pants? Case closed.