Alert Bitchery reader S sent me an email pointing me to some wonderful examples of dumbassery, AND a contest spawned by dumbassery. In the Smart Bitch world, there is no higher honor given than to those who come up with a fine competition out of someone else showing their behind.
Seems Blaze Jennifer LaBreque weathered of the experience of a scathingly mean review on Amazon.com. The reviewer, J. Wallace, was particuarly offended by an opening scene, and said “[s]ome may rush out and buy it, and any author who can convince her publisher to run with this deserves the income.”
Owwwwlch. One swipe and down go the readers, the publisher, the editor AND the author.
Now, one might quirk a brow at a Smart Bitch quirking her own brow at such a low blow in a review. I must point out that when we Bitches write a review, we are careful to pay attention to the plot and not the people behind it, and we rarely harsh on the author. There are exceptions to that rule, reserved mostly for authors whose books steadfastly and savagely suck up to stale stereotypes, but for the most part, we try to review fairly and explain why when we raise the scimitar of stank.
So while you may be thinking our pot may seem to be throwing glass houses at our kettle, I will continue with this fabulous tale.
Seems La Brecque has a damn fine attitude about such things, and says, “Gee I wish I could PAY her for that review,” because J. Wallace didn’t reveal the disgusting plot point that so turned her stomach, and in refraining from doing so, spurred sales of LaBrecque’s book.
And LaBrecque writes,“I don’t usually come with a money-back guarantee, but I’m making an exception in this case. If Ms. Wallace will stop by my table at RWA’s National Literacy signing (she’ll be there, according to her website), I’ll have $6 in cash with me at my table to reimburse her. That should cover the cost of the book, tax, and the mental/emotional trauma she obviously suffered during the read. She can keep the change for her scintillating review because I suppose I really should pay her.”
But then, Alison Kent explains the oh-so dishy and fascinating part of the story: not only does J. Wallace plan on attending RWA (per her own website, which several readers found by clever use of Google) but she’s an aspiring author whose manuscript is indeed in front of the very editor whose publishing house she offhandedly dissed in her review.
All together now: DOH!
I wonder if the query letter read, “You shouldn’t have bought that. So buy this instead!”
Alison was also clever enough to do a random drawing for three copies of Highland Fling which, of course, folks are clamoring to read, because if there’s hot naughty bits, we are ALL OVER IT. After that excerpt on Alison Kent’s site, I want to read this book. Srsly, once you have a whiff of that fine eau d’controversy, there is nothing better for sales.
However, no author should be prevented from being published because thier colleagues don’t like their opinions.
Once again, this isn’t about what the authors think. Let me repost something I posted at my blog today. Readers may not like that the following happens, but the following happens:
From author Leslie Kelly: “I know an editor who will NEVER buy a particular author because that author has publicly slammed the editor’s authors & basically said their books shouldn’t have been published.â€
From author Alison Kent: “I know personally of an author who was asked to never submit again because her publishing house found her too difficult to work with. So, yes. Money is important. But an author’s personality, how she meshes with corporate and editorial, and her way of conducting herself is also a consideration.”
Please note. These were EDITORIAL decisions not to buy. They had nothing to do with published authors’ opinions. They had to do with the submitting authors’ conduct.
People did go looking, but I’m confused as to what’s wrong with that. The information was Googleable. Sure, people had to go out of their way, but I’m just missing where it’s that horrible of a thing.
Have you tried to Google her based on the information at hand in that review? I couldn’t locate the website in question until someone else posted her whole name. You REALLY think all that took was a Google? And my next question: Why?
I am surprised at the vehemence with which I disagree with almost every point you’ve made in your last post, but to explain why would simply be a repetition of all the points I’ve made previously. Suffice it to say that I’m incredibly disturbed by the fact that so many people don’t seem to see what was done to Wallace’s name (by others, not by her) as a violation on many levels, far far far surpassing anything in the review itself. So before this interferes with my ability to read LaBrecque’s book, I’ll sign off debate mode and shift into reading mode.
Robin and the others are right. There is no way you could figure this out just by the information in the review. Someone had to know that the reviewer was an author or at least suspect it. And I don’t believe that editors would have sussed this out unless someone is sending the link, the website, etc. to them.
“The squirrel that you kill in jest, dies in earnest†-Henry David Thoreau
Thanks, Katie, for reminding me of this one! Thoreau was like the king of sound bytes before there were sound bytes. Quotes like this almost make me forget that the whole time he was at Walden his mother was still doing his laundry.
Ah, the wonders of blogland. I never cease to be amazed at how something that begins so seemingly inconsequential can get chewed up, spit out, poked, inspected and trampled upon, multiple times, until it grows into something seemingly very significant. The best part is seeing all the different viewpoints, the beliefs and values brought to the table.
I’ve decided I’m as fickle as they come, because with each post, I think to myself, “Yes! That’s right!” But clearly, everyone can’t be right, can they?
Perhaps they can – it’s a matter of opinion after all. Typically, I’m deeply opinionated, but on this subject, I can see where Ms. Wallace may have shot herself in the foot, and how others may have helped pull the trigger. Bottom line? No one can know for sure.
I’m probably way too naive at any rate – I only recently had someone who isn’t Harriet or a friend make a comment about one of my books on Amazon.
Stef, The Until Recently Amazon Virgin
(damn, that sounds like a good book – hoss woman loses her cherry!)
**I agree with you,Robin. There was no attempt at anonymity on the reviewer’s part. She didn’t shout out her identity with DOB, SSN, and her phone number either. Why would she? She wanted to express her opinion on a book she disliked and now a hord of people are googling for her like she dissed the Gettysburg Address.**
On one hand we have people saying she wasn’t trying to be anonymous, and on the other hand there are people saying the only way you can find her is by going to a lot of trouble.
I don’t know for sure that she was writing it, and thinking nobody would figure it out, but it seems right to me. It would take 1 or 2 lines to preface the whole thing with something about being an aspiring writing, and maybe giving a link back to the blog—if this is indeed the same woman. How about signing it with a first name?
I don’t know about you guys, but most writers whore out their information like their names should be Huggy Bear. Why wouldn’t this author do so? And not just for publicity, but just for disclosure? I would—both because it’s professional, and because of what has transpired here.
And if she was trying to fly under the radar, that is her perogative to attempt it, but the people who (allegedly) found her out—no matter how—didn’t do anything illegal, and nothing that bad, imo. Of course, I don’t think of their words as threats—if they were, well, that might change my take.
I’m continually surprised how much of your lives can be discovered through search engines, this aside from the suspicions that there was more to it. I won’t lie and say that I don’t use a pen name, but there is enough info here and there that someone who wanted it badly enough could track down all sorts of tidbits about me.
A couple months ago I was goofing around on MySpace, decided to search for people in my town, and stumbled upon a blog for a co-worker—no sooner could I say, *Holy Crap, I know that guy*—and I’m reading he just got laid off. This is info that was not supposed to be made official for days, the guy thinks nobody at from work is going to see it, and oops. And my only point in relation to this is that it really would not surprise me if J.Wallace just did not think people would figure it out.
I was saying that she used her name so she wasn’t trying to hide. Any other conclusions is pure conjecture and I’m seeing a lot of conjecture.
And do we know for sure we’ve got the right J. Wallace? Maybe we’re carrying on and giving unsolicited advice to some CPA somewhere?
And the google dogpile still troubles me.
**“The squirrel that you kill in jest, dies in earnest†-Henry David Thoreau
“To one whose mind is free, there is something even more intolerable in the suffering of animals than in the sufferings of humans. For with the latter, it is at least admitted that suffering is evil and that the person who causes it is a criminal. But thousands of animals are uselessly butchered every day without a shadow of remorse. If any person were to refer to it, they would be thought ridiculous. And that is the unpardonable crime. That alone is the justification of all that humans may suffer. It cries vengeance upon all the human race. If God exists and tolerates it, it cries vengeance upon God.â€
—Romain Rolland (from his 1915 Nobel Prizewinning novel, Jean-Christophe)**
I have no idea if it was this blog or another where I mentioned having worked at an animal shelter for years. The internet has seen enough of my rants, angst, and rage over the nightmarish things I witnessed.
This is where I work, and some of the fans of Animal Planet will recognize it:
http://www.metrotimes.com/editorial/story.asp?id=6665
The reason I left the shelter is that I basically was having a nervous breakdown after tamping down the pain of the job for years. I was sick of animals suffering, I was sick of people being ignorant, and I was sick of having to adopt animals out to dumbasses because it was a marginally better decision that putting the animal to sleep.
I actually didn’t find the scene in question funny either, but I took it as fiction, and as the writer saying that some crazy stuff happens in ERs. I have no issue with people saying they found that scene gross, just as I don’t think finding the scene funny means people are “Go, Go Animal Abuse!” There is a Stephen King movie where a dog dies that youcould not pay me to watch again because it’s just that sad for me, but I laughed when the dog flew out the window in There’s Something About Mary. Life can be funny and tragic, and is all too often both at the same time.
Robin,
Sorry we’re disagreeing on this—will endeavor to be less of a pain in the ass in the future.
I don’t think your average reader needs to give name, rank, and serial number. I do think that a writer who is talking about a book by another writer working in the same genre should state this tidbit up front. I don’t think anyone should send a posse after JWallace, no matter if she’s a writer, or tupperware dealer.
In most fields a person is obligated to state if there is a conflict of interest or a possible bias either way. Good Morning America does a story about the latest Disney flick, there will be a statement that ABC is owned by Disney. And it’s not because people can’t be fair, but because not stating it is more damaging to credibility than ‘fessing up. Not stating this—if she is the author—doesn’t make her bad, it just doesn’t play as well as copping to being a writer, or taking the time to show some writing chops by doing a “professional” review.
It possible that she made an enemy who outted her, but can you be outted if you’re not hiding? If she is the writer in question, she made herself vulnerable to someone with an ax to grind.
I do think that a writer who is talking about a book by another writer working in the same genre should state this tidbit up front. . . In most fields a person is obligated to state if there is a conflict of interest or a possible bias either way. Good Morning America does a story about the latest Disney flick, there will be a statement that ABC is owned by Disney. . . Not stating this—if she is the author—doesn’t make her bad, it just doesn’t play as well as copping to being a writer, or taking the time to show some writing chops by doing a “professional†review.
I have no idea why I’m jumping into this, but. . . Huh? Is there some sort of Writer’s Oath out there? Being an aspiring writer certainly doesn’t give a person any sort of special reading skills, just as it doesn’t give her any amazing perfeshunal reviewing chops. Frankly, I think it sounds overreaching when somebody posts, “I’m a writer, and I think blah, blah, blah,” on a frickin Amazon review. I’m not reading a review to find out what the writer inside you thinks. I want to know what the reader thinks.
The woman DIDN’T LIKE THE ANAL HAMSTER SEX. She was offended by it. Does that have anything to do with her being a writer?
As to conflicts of interest. . . I’ve never read, “I’ve been great friends with this author for years and I have a manuscript with her editor. AND I LOVED THIS BOOK!” That’s a conflict of interest. Aspiring to write in the same universe isn’t worth mentioning, IMHO.
No, there is not a writer’s oath. I merely think that it’s a good idea to be up front if you’re commenting on the writing of someone whose job you wouldn’t mind having. 🙂
Nicolette, you sound like Paperback Writer. I think HelenKay and others have debunked this quite thoroughly. A writer (published or not) can review a book fairly and critically without it being an attempt to get the other writer’s job. In genres other than romance, professional writers review each other all the time. It’s only in romance that there’s so much freaking out over it.
Believe me, if I ever get around to posting a review on Highland Fling, it won’t be because I want Jennifer Labrecque’s job. I like my job just fine and wouldn’t trade with anyone. Seriously.
A writer (published or not) can review a book fairly and critically without it being an attempt to get the other writer’s job.
Aside from that being a really ambitious plan *ha!*, there’s nothing to be done about that kind of heinousness anyway. If someone’s really out to harm the writer, they won’t post under their real name or anything close to their real name. It’s just one of those things we have to live with.
Ooo, was anyone around for that Amazon Canada debacle? I would’ve liked to have seen it. That was some good scandal.
Felice: I didn’t read that rund of discussions, but it sounds like I would agree with HelenKay. There is no doubt in my mind that anyone interested in a book, or reading, can and should discuss it. There is also no doubt in my mind that a writer/reader can just plain hate a book with no ulterior motives. FWIW, I do assume this to be the case with J.Wallace.
I’m saying I think that she—if she is the author in question—would have had an easier go of it if she would have stated she was a writer in the genre. It makes the reviewer seem honest, and there is no desire to track down someone who is right in front of your face, so people are going to be less inclined to even care. I can’t say she would have escaped all grief—but perhaps some.
The meat in this story was more that she was (possibly) tracked down than that she was a writer.
The day I say someone doesn’t have a right to her opinion is the day the pod people have converted me.
Rushing to get ready for work—forgetting stuff!!
My point was that disclosure allows the person to seem honest, and allows people to move on faster.
My point was that disclosure allows the person to seem honest, and allows people to move on faster.
Nicolette, I’m going to make you late! :cheese:
I agree with you on the idea of this (as far as stopping the gossip before it starts), but I don’t think it would’ve helped in this case. Seems like it would’ve resulted in, “She’s a writer? Well, who the hell is HER editor? *Google, Google* Oh, my God, she’s not even published! How dare she?!”
Nope. At work. 🙂 It quite possibly would have been a something either way, but perhaps it could have been better. I could be naive. I just would have went a different way with it.
I’m barely published ;), but that doesn’t stop me from sharing my views, and thinking of myself as a writer. Maybe that’s just a difference in personalities, because it wouldn’t phase me if people complained that I was not a big time writer—I would assume most people would see it as the crock that it would be.
I would still state I write just to have it out of the way. And it’s not because I can’t judge a story fairly, but because I want people to see me as forthright, and I think it’s fair for people to know that. It might mean that some people see it as professional jealousy (shrug)but nobody could ever say I was hiding possible motives, or that they didn’t know I had a *possible* interest in the matter.
Anyhow, it seems like there needs to be scandal in these parts, I’m just saying that in theory some of it might have been mitigated. Maybe.
I still want to know if we really do have J. Wallace, the aspiring writer, AND if she knows she’s being discussed and counseled on her career. Seems only right she should be allowed to comment if she wants.
It would be pretty funny if we had the wrong J. Wallace….:-)
>>“Quotes like this almost make me forget that the whole time he was at Walden his mother was still doing his laundry.”>>
:bug: LOL! This is why I like to remain ignorant about authors/entertainers I like. 🙂
>>“I actually didn’t find the scene in question funny either, but I took it as fiction, and as the writer saying that some crazy stuff happens in ERs. I have no issue with people saying they found that scene gross, just as I don’t think finding the scene funny means people are “Go, Go Animal Abuse!†There is a Stephen King movie where a dog dies that youcould not pay me to watch again because it’s just that sad for me, but I laughed when the dog flew out the window in There’s Something About Mary.”<<
Hi Nicolette! 🙂 Man, I couldn’t work at a shelter. I just have way too much empathy for animals, but I admire people who can do good for animals while being subjected to seeing all that suffering and misery.
I see what you’re saying about being able to laugh about things because you can make the distinction that it’s just fiction. I know I’m overly sensitive about animal issues. I’m not thinking someone is advocating animal cruelty if they laugh at “Something About Mary.” I just can’t watch it. I think I’ll be less sensitive when practices like factory farming & animal experimentation are acknowledged as atrocities they are. In the meantime ignore me if I get too preachy/sensitive about this topic. I really do have a sense of humor. ;-P
Katie,
I understand about things hitting someone the wrong way. And I understand about thinking people don’t do right by animals. No issue there. 🙂
I don’t think your average reader needs to give name, rank, and serial number. I do think that a writer who is talking about a book by another writer working in the same genre should state this tidbit up front. I don’t think anyone should send a posse after JWallace, no matter if she’s a writer, or tupperware dealer.
I don’t think we’re going to hit an accord in our opinions, Nicolette, because our fundamental assumptions are so opposed. I think J. Wallace fulfilled her obligations simply by posting her review; in fact, I think she COULD have posted anonymously and been completely fine. To me, what happened to her seems perilously close to stalking—I mean, think about it for a second. Someone had to read that review, then set out intentionally to figure out who she is, a task that requires WAY more than a fine hand with Google. Then someone informed LaBrecque, who, as someone put it, “rolled out the red carpet” by posting her humorous blog entry and inviting a ton of support from her friends. The assumption you are making that Wallace had to announce herself IMO places blame and responsibility on her for doing what she IMO had every right to do unmolested (state her opinion of a book on a book-buying and reviewing forum). And compared to the *acceptable* review Alison Kent just posted on her blog (explain the difference to me, someone, PLEASE), I still think Wallace’s was tame. And, more importantly, I don’t think it earned an excavation, examination, and what ultimately amounted to an pre-emptive obituary on the part of those who think she signed her own professional death warrant.
To me, what happened to her seems perilously close to stalking
I agree that it’s just plain creepy. The woman posted under her own name, which is about as honorable as it gets on Amazon, “fellow writer” disclaimer or not. And she posted with just her first initial which says to me that:
1) She’s not hiding behind a fake name just so she can blast the author.
2) She’s not hiding from people WHO KNOW HER in the industry.
and 3) She’s not really looking to be contacted about the review by people she DOESN’T know. Perfectly reasonable and wise, IMO.
But then somebody had to go on a hunt for the woman, for reasons I don’t understand, or maybe one of her friends purposefully ratted her out to others, which is, again, CREEPY.
But then somebody had to go on a hunt for the woman, for reasons I don’t understand, or maybe one of her friends purposefully ratted her out to others, which is, again, CREEPY.
Most of my opinions are characterized by a greater or lesser degree of ambivalence, but in this case I think what happened to Wallace is just plain wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Robin,
I don’t think she *had* to announce herself—clearly she didn’t have to and clearly she didn’t. I merely think that had she things might have play out differently.(If this is indeed the right woman.)
Let me be clear thatI don’t think this woman’s career should be in jeopardy over this.
I don’t think she *had* to announce herself—clearly she didn’t have to and clearly she didn’t. I merely think that had she things might have play out differently.(If this is indeed the right woman.)
Maybe. But don’t you find it ironic that the person(s) responsible for outing Wallace hasn’t(haven’t) stepped forward to “own” that act? Since we’re talking about professional responsibility and all.
And compared to the *acceptable* review Alison Kent just posted on her blog (explain the difference to me, someone, PLEASE),
Uh, Robin? Where did I say it was acceptable? Quoting myself: “I’m not publicly posting the link because I don’t want to incite a lynching, but there ya have it. An author reviewing another author’s work without saying a word about the author.”
All I said was that the review addressed the work, not the author. If you are assuming that equates to acceptable, then you are assuming without knowing what I feel, and are putting words in my mouth. Again. I haven’t said one way or the other if I find it acceptable or if I find it crossing the line.
‘I merely think that had she things might have play out differently.(If this is indeed the right woman.)’
Was she supposed to know in advance that such a riot would explode over a short little review? I never would have suspected anything so nonsensical.
‘But don’t you find it ironic that the person(s) responsible for outing Wallace hasn’t(haven’t) stepped forward to “own†that act? Since we’re talking about professional responsibility and all.’
I’d like more information on that myself. Good point, Robin.
Hey! Whoever outed this poor woman step up and own your actions!
Also interesting how many other blogs are dealing with this same subject. Does this always go like this when the community gets excited? Wow!! This has been eye opening for me. Don’t like what I’m learning.
All I said was that the review addressed the work, not the author. If you are assuming that equates to acceptable, then you are assuming without knowing what I feel, and are putting words in my mouth. Again. I haven’t said one way or the other if I find it acceptable or if I find it crossing the line.
Alison, as soon as you posted the scene in question from LaBrecque’s book because you “figured it would be fun” (quoting you directly), your actions moved out of the “strictly professional” realm for me. You think that I and other readers have so misunderstood you, overanalyzed and overreacted to your words and apparent intentions. You have spoken hundreds, if not thousands more words on this incident than J. Wallace has, and yet, with a wink and a nod, you invited responses to the scene Wallace found offensive (“Don’t say you haven’t been warned, LOLOL!”) and made an example of her as “an aspiring author [who] has committed a possible career-affecting faux pas online,” with an “unprofessonal” review. I mean you no offense, Alison, but I feel that you are asking me for something you have not been willing to offer Wallace, and I’m not talking about professional advice.
All I said was that the review addressed the work, not the author. If you are assuming that equates to acceptable, then you are assuming without knowing what I feel, and are putting words in my mouth. Again. I haven’t said one way or the other if I find it acceptable or if I find it crossing the line.
This wasn’t in reference to Labreque’s book, Robin. It was in reference to you commenting on the review I posted to the OTHER book. Keep up, please. 🙂
I can’t keep up – I’m totally lost at this point.
And sort of numb.
But maybe that’s the frostbite. It’s gettin’ damn cold in here, isn’t it?
I don’t think she could have known it would play out like this—no.
Sure, I think the people who found her or outed her should say so, but I’m thinking that several people now want it to go away.
This wasn’t in reference to Labreque’s book, Robin. It was in reference to you commenting on the review I posted to the OTHER book.
Yes, Alison, I know. But since everything you offer on your blog regarding this incident centers on your insistence that you are simply in professional advisor mode, I thought I’d cut to the chase and respond to the larger issue rather than the smaller one. Responding to the smaller issue, that of the second review you posted, would surely result in my intepreting your actions in a way you think is unwarranted, and well, we’d just end up back in the same old place. So I decided to skip a step. If you’d like to go back, though, and hash through whatever it is that prompted you to post that other review, I’d be happy to do that.
Wow. Talk about opening your can of worms and sticking a fork in it!
I’m just throwing this out there to think about, because every one seems to be throwing something at this point and I can no longer sit back and just read.
1) As a professional in the book industry for a day job, who also happens to be a writer, did anyone ever consider that her day job might be as a book reviewer? (That’s of course assuming the reviewer and the aspiring writer are the same person and it’s not someone else posting, because how could there possibly be more than one J. Wallace in the world.) Did anyone consider other professional reviewer’s reactions to this public shredding?
2) That perhaps RWA might have something to say if anyone goes to the national conference with the intention of “setting someone straight” as a possible grounds of membership termination if the person considered it as a threat to her career and went to the board about it?
3) That publicists are probably having litters of kittens by now, trying to decide how to spin this bitch-fest into a positive, so that someone in the media doesn’t get a hold of it right before the national conference is splashed all over the place and use it as a proof for the myth of how romance writers are all just housewives with nothing to do but shred each other?
Again, just throwing these thoughts out there.
When I’m not a housewife reading romance novels, I’m a politician. I get my reputation shredded on a daily basis. The teachers who teach my children are examined under a microscope to see if they are getting “special treatment” from the local politician. Every comment I make in public is scrutinized for larger meaning and hints of conspiracy.
However, when I’m annoyed at a colleague or at a political “enemy”, I tend to come out and say so, either face to face, in a letter to the editor, or in an interview to the papers. And there are certain repurcussions to those actions, ones which you have to be aware of before you open your mouth.
When posting about Romance novels, I use a nom de plume, because I’m really not interested in my local electorate confusing my personal interest in formulaic sexy novels with my educational priorities for the local school district.
So what burns me about this dust-up is the idea that authors are CONVINCED that J Wallace is an aspiring writer, and that it is their DUTY to “out” her as a means of offering her professional advice.
Pul-eese.
I’ve been professionally accused of having had an affair with another Board member, because he’s the only man on the Board, and well, obviously we must have been having sex for him to endorse my candidacy.
I have had parent volunteers offer to assist me in rewriting policies or interpreting Education Law, becawse I’m a wittle girlie who cannot understand the written word.
I have had administrators ask for public apologies from me after I publicly stated that my main priority was to ensure that a larger percentage of students Taking AP courses could Pass the AP tests.
And all of these were presented to me as constructive advice in order to help me advance my career, since it was clear that I was about to engage in professional suicide. And yes, “professional suicide” was the exact phrase used.
I believe that the author of the book in question took her “negative” review with a certain sense of humor. However, the rest of this just makes my stomach churn.
Please don’t tell me that the reviewer’s identity was discovered through Google (if indeed, J Wallace is the same person as that author who is not submitting to Blaze). Please don’t tell me that all of the discussions about what the editors will or won’t know about this person’s egregious behavior is only offered up as advice.
It smells wrong.
That being said, I’m not boycotting any author, or any such thing. But the thing smells like a witch-hunt, I’ve been part of those, and I don’t appreciate the “butter wouldn’t melt in her mouth” posters insisting that it isn’t.
I’m going back to lying down on the couch with my trashy novel, my silk shrug, and my bon-bons.
I’d like to post one more thing on this subject (even though I keep telling myself to stay out of it.
I looked at J. Wallace’s profile on Amazon.com. In addition to the Gerbil/Hamster/Mouse/Whatever book, she’s also got about nine other reviews there. This was the only bad review she wrote. The rest were 4 and 5 stars and a lot of those authors are known to this group.
Just saying…
So the moral of the story seems to be that one should always post Amazon reviews with a pseudonym… Good to know.
I recall reading a lengthy discussion of ‘owning’ one’s opinions in the community, but from the level of petty vindictiveness I’ve seen in this thread it’s hard to imagine why anyone would use her own name. I use a pseudonym on Amazon when I leave a review, even though I don’t often waste my time reviewing a book I don’t like. Why? There are lots of weird people out there and I don’t want to be pestered by somebody with a hyperactive aggressive streak.
I’d like to weigh in on the side of believing that using a helpless animal’s death by suffocation as humor is tasteless in the extreme, and for that reason I will not buy the book, nor anything else by that author.
And yes, I’d feel the same way about ill-treatment of a human.
And unless the book is an intentional satire on “Outlander,” the author deserves a couple of snarky reviews for lack of originality.
There are probably many readers who do not have very high standards when it comes to what they’ll read. As a fussy bitch who cringes at the abuse of grammar and punctuation, I would like to see more genuine critical reviews and less middle-school hair-pulling.
Lia—
There have been other reviews of this book that are just as negative, albeit more impressively witten, than J,Wallace’s review. If anything, that makes those reviews more damaging.