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.
Were I an aquiring editor, I would certainly think twice about buying anything from her. Not from revenge, but from the impression the review has given me of her personality. The manuscript would have to be incredibly good for me to take the chance of working with her.
This is an interesting comment because it intersects with some reader discussions regarding whether an author’s online personality should influence a reader’s decision to try their books. From a human nature POV I totally get what you’re saying here, but I wonder if this is more a girl thing or a genre thing—that we have to like or respect the people whose work we support. Interesting discussion.
This is an interesting comment because it intersects with some reader
discussions regarding whether an author’s online personality should
influence a reader’s decision to try their books.
Yep, there’s a bit of hypocrisy here. Authors want to be able to say whatever they want when they are talking about readers, reviewers and bloggers. But woe betide the author who makes a personal attack against another author. Or do we so soon forget Snarking the Snark and all the anon posters that came out in support of that?
If editors/agents could care less whether an author attacks a reader (the hand that does truly feed them) why would they care if the attack goes against an editor or another author? Isn’t it the content of the book that always prevails and not the face behind the content?
RE: Should one go after a Amazon reviewer/isn’t it petty discussion…
Once an Amazon reviewer posted a review of a story collection featuring some of my fave authors, one of whom I’m very close with in real life.
But for one author, the reviewer went nuts saying that one story was a reprint from another collection and that it was dishonest, cheap and horrible that the author and publisher would do such a thing… and that they’d never trust that author/publisher again.
But thing is, the story wasn’t a reprint. It did feature some of the same characters because it was a sequel to the other story the reviewer had remembered.
So I looked up ms. “real name” via google. Learned she was a bigtime F/T pious church lady in the heartland.
And so instead of telling her off, I wrote her a nice email, in the voice of a concerned churchy-type lady, telling her nicely where she was wrong and yes, using my Google based knowledge of her churchy-ness to guilt her into seeing how she had committed a sin by making a false accusation.
Oh and did it work! She was horrified and amended the review. Mwah ha ha ha!
So, am I evil? I don’t think so. But I can take it.
I’m going to regret saying anything about this at all. I know I am, so here I go…
I find it interesting that so many people are jumping on this one lone woman who expressed an opinion on a book she bought and read. She didn’t like it and said so, so what? I’ve said worse things. I don’t see the one remark as that bad at all. And people have said mean things about books and authors I loved. I’ve recovered.
And if it is, it was her right to say so. Who’s been hurt? Sounds like the author is doing just fine. I’m sure the editor has dealt with much harsher comments than that. I don’t feel sorry for the publishing house at all. And unless somebody here has a crystal ball I don’t believe anybody can honestly predict what will happen to the reviewer’s manuscript in the long run. You may be surprised.
And the rodent….
I read something on the internet a while back about porn movies being made where mice are crushed under the foot of the actress for some kind of sexual gratification. Probably another urban legend, I don’t know, but when I read about it I got angry. This scene everybody’s saying is not that big a deal makes me angry. Animal Cruelty isn’t that funny to some people, I’m one of them.
And there are more important things to worry about than what this one woman does after reading one book.
Later
Is everyone googling the amazon reviewers? I just never think to do that. That seems to take a lot of effort.
This is an interesting comment because it intersects with some reader discussions regarding whether an author’s online personality should influence a reader’s decision to try their books. From a human nature POV I totally get what you’re saying here, but I wonder if this is more a girl thing or a genre thing—that we have to like or respect the people whose work we support. Interesting discussion.
My hypothetical response has less to do with human nature than with economics. In my experience, people who write that sort of review tend to also be the ones who can’t handle being critiqued. I would expect Ms. Wallace to be the sort of author who has to be handled carefully during the editing phase of getting a book ready to print. Given two manuscripts of similar quality, I would opt for the one I believe will be easier to work with.
And no, the influence of an author’s personality on sales to specific individuals is neither a girl thing nor a genre thing. I see it all the time in SF circles, especially among military SF fen, a testosterone-laden bunch if ever there was.
The whole gerbil-up-the-butt urban legend exists as a way for gay people to be cast as perverts, and gay sex to be cast as perverted.
Seeing it used so cavalierly made me feel uncomfortable as a person, as an aspiring author of romance, and a reader of romance.
It’s not funny to make fun of the politically and culturally weaker among us.
Okay, I usually try not to piss anyone off over here and I am going to try to ask my question without doing that now, but I just have to know…why are people so upset about the gerbil? I can understand if you don’t think it is funny. I understand why SpecRom Joyce felt it was a cheap shot at gay people, even though it did not strike me that way. But we are talking about a fictional gerbil. I am pretty sure no real gerbils were harmed in the writing or research of “Highland Fling.” And this is in no way in the same league with some gross rodent snuff film (Jeez, I hope that isn’t real.)
I love animals and I would never condone the cruel treatment of an animal. I love people even more, but I am in no way offended when some poor innocent human character dies in a horrible, gruesome way in a Stephen King novel. I LOVES me some Stephen King!!!!
I guess I just wonder if those who are so worried about the animal cruelty in this book are equally offended by cruelty toward human characters in fiction or if it is only the animals that bother them.
BTW, if J. Wallace had phrased her objections to the gerbil scene in the same way as SpecRom Joyce, I would have had more respect for her review.
I worked at an animal shelter for several years, and we were dedicated to the animals, but also developed a gallows sense of humor. We had to learn to laugh at some of the tragic stuff.
I’m not offended by a fictional, anatomically incorrect (tail), hamster. I’m more concerned about real animal abuse. Save the real hamsters—adopt them and knit tails and little sweaters. Oh, and get them a little wheel. They’d like that.
>>I guess I just wonder if those who are so worried about the animal cruelty in this book are equally offended by cruelty toward human characters in fiction or if it is only the animals that bother them.<<
Karibelle, the simplest way I can explain it is that it’s a turn off for me. Even knowing that it’s fiction, that’s how it works for me. I think about the fact that animals are completely helpless in this world and dependent on humans for survival. Don’t mean to get to heavy but you asked.
As for wondering if I get as upset about cruelty towards human characters – why you’re asking? I sense there’s something more to your question. Myself, I was dealing with just the facts of the subject when I mentioned it, nothing more.
And yes, I do get angry about cruelty towards people in the books I read and it’s a turnoff for me.
But really, the point I was trying to make is that this woman had a right to her opinion and to speak it and probably even to eat it if she had to, even if it wasn’t popular.
“As for wondering if I get as upset about cruelty towards human characters – why you’re asking? I sense there’s something more to your question.”
Acutally, I asked because I wanted to know. No hidden agenda. No attempt to start something. It just occured to me that I don’t remember anyone here being as concerned and disturbed by the fate of a human character as several people seem to be about that gerbil. Maybe it is because in MOST romances only the truly horrible people die terrible deaths and all of the good people get a HEA.
I was curious so I asked and I appreciate your answer.
You know, the only thing that bothers me is that she used RESIDENT and INTERN interchangeably.
Because they aren’t.
My interest in this book has been repiqued.
Assuming I’ve been reading accurate summaries of Highland Fling’s opening, it IS cheesy. First, because it’s a cheap and definitely unimaginative hook. Second, because the specious humor in such a scenario is outdated, even to my old ass. Third, because if an author can’t get her rodent characteristics straight, she should leave rodents out of her cast entirely. Fourth, because even though many readers find humor in many things, bestiality usually ain’t one of ‘em. I applaud the Amazon reviewer for risking the slings and arrows of the “prude” haters (like, how the fuck do her comments make her a prude?) and getting in that little snark about the editor. Quite frankly, there are many editors—and I apply the term loosely—who deserve far worse than that.
Now, regarding the fourth point above, I don’t want to hear any crap about the scene not involving bestiality. It did. (Maybe I’m being too much of a literalist, but any time an animal is victimized by human sexual perversion, and I don’t care if it’s a freakin’ worm, the term bestiality applies.) The only way LaBrecque could get off the hook would be to claim it was a mythological creature—a hambil, a gerbster. That would also be the only way to get off the hook of her own dumbassedness.
Anybody gonna review this book anytime soon?
I’m a bit behind on this, because I’ve been too busy sleeping off the Sore Throat From Hell the past few days, so here are some thoughts of mine, without reading any of the previous comments, and a few days late and a dollar (plus tax) short or however the hell that saying goes:
1. I don’t think that review was all that scathing or controversial. Yes, Wallace crossed the line just a tad with her “any author who can convince her publisher to run with this deserves the income” comment, but given that reviews of mine have made cracks like “Yeah, the Undead franchise has been so good to [MaryJanice] Davidson that she’s now saving other people the trouble and is blatantly ripping herself off”—and this is one of my nicer reviews—I really have no room to be pointing fingers at this reviewer.
If there’s one thing about the review I think is a legitimate complaint, it’s that it’s not interesting—being entertaining while getting your bitch on goes a long way, I’ve found, and can sometimes lessen the sting of a criticism.
2. The cheerleaders who showed up, wagged fingers and said “Now, now, if you have nothing nice to say, say nothing at all” and the not-so-veiled threats about Wallace now being unpublishable makes me a whole hell of a lot more uneasy than the review ever did. Wallace had an opinion. It was a silly opinion, in my opinion, but by and large, she wasn’t horribly impolite about it. And now people are dog-piling on her. I can’t help but feel a bit sorry for her.
3. The excerpt was pretty funny, because heh heh, shaved hamsters. Though hamsters don’t have tails, and their snouts aren’t particularly pointy. Sounds more like a rat or a mouse to me. Although the doctor did ‘fess up to making all of that up, so my pedantry is pointless.
4. It is enough to know that there is a four. Though to be honest, I don’t know what four is for.
Keith Chesney. Kenny Chesney. See I said I wasn’t a country music fan. 😉
Anybody gonna review this book anytime soon?
Amazon informed me today that my copy just shipped (I have free two day shipping with every book), and as soon as I finish it, I’ll be happy to pass it on to Sarah or Candy if either of them wants to formally review it.
Hey, Robin, if you want to take a crack at reviewing it, we’d be more than happy to publish this as Guest Bitchery.
What d’you think?
Hey, Robin, if you want to take a crack at reviewing it, we’d be more than happy to publish this as Guest Bitchery.
What d’you think?
My first reaction was to beg off, but after reading Alison Kent’s latest blog entry on this whole deal, instead I must say thanks and yes, I will ‘take a crack’ at being a guest bitch with my review of Highland Fling.
The cheerleaders who showed up, wagged fingers and said “Now, now, if you have nothing nice to say, say nothing at all†and the not-so-veiled threats about Wallace now being unpublishable makes me a whole hell of a lot more uneasy than the review ever did. Wallace had an opinion. It was a silly opinion, in my opinion, but by and large, she wasn’t horribly impolite about it. And now people are dog-piling on her. I can’t help but feel a bit sorry for her.
I think what I find unconvincing about Alison Kent’s latest blog entry arguing that she’s only interested in the lack of business wisdom in Wallace’s review is the way entries at both her and LaBrecque’s blogs have invited some ugly comments directed at Wallace. Although I don’t think Kent was aiming for that, once she posted the “‘stomach-turning’ snippet,” IMO, the focus of her comments broadened substantially from the business etiquette issue. Intended or not, IMO that seemed a provocative invitation to comment more directly and critically on the nature of Wallace’s outrage.
But even if I take at face value Kent’s argument that this is all about the poor business decision Wallace made, it’s revealing that Kent compares the relationship between author and publisher to that of employee and boss in a corporate setting. If that’s really how it is, I’m way more inclined to question the so called professional rules of an industry that it seems to be should built on the integrity of individual author’s voices. Especially since the greatest offenses I registered in that “review” were those against the craft of writing, which does NOT, strangely enough, seem to be the focus of critique about an aspiring Romance author like Wallace.
Me thinks LeBrecque is fucking genius for inciting the riot. Maybe she paid the commenters to get all Mean Girls on Wallace’s ass because she’s getting a whole lot of pub and blog time when I hadn’t even given her books a passing glance before.
Although I don’t think Kent was aiming for that, once she posted the “‘stomach-turning’ snippet,†IMO, the focus of her comments broadened substantially from the business etiquette issue.
Not exactly what you’re getting at here, Robin, since I posted the stomach-turning snippet last Friday, the payback post yesterday, four days later.
Especially since the greatest offenses I registered in that “review†were those against the craft of writing,
Tomatoes. Tomahtoes. Most of the authors posting saw the greatest offenses to be the slam against the publisher.
This whole thing is leaving me scratching my head. People chasing all over the internet searching for info on a person who wrote a nasty Amazon review. It seems to me, the author of the review wasn’t familiar with that old, old, old urban legend, so she obviously didn’t get the joke.
I don’t think that review was all that scathing or controversial. Yes, Wallace crossed the line just a tad with her “any author who can convince her publisher to run with this deserves the income†comment…
I’ve certainly read much more scathing reviews and I’m not even sure she “crossed the line” because Ms. LeBrecque is obviously quite happy with all the attention.
The national heatwave must be frying peoples brain cells, because this is much ado about nothing.
It’s blog marketing 101. Pick a negative review. Label it scathing and mean. Say something pithy to encourage the clique to come out in your support and watch your sales rise. Would this be Trash Blogging? (kind of like dumpster diving?)
SpecRom Joyce said:
*The whole gerbil-up-the-butt urban legend exists as a way for gay people to be cast as perverts, and gay sex to be cast as perverted.*
…And LaBrecque’s use of it in this context only serves to perpetuate this attitude. That neither the editor nor anyone else at the publishing house thought about this angle makes them fair game, in my book. There must have been another way for LaBrecque to achieve her comedic aim without giving people yet another chance to think, “Oh, those gays are sick!”
As for whether it’s politic for an author (aspiring or otherwise) to diss a publishing house and/or editor, well, obviously it’s not, since the Romance-writer community apparently can fit on the head of a pin and enjoys nothing more than using Google and snark to protect the backs of those in their clique.
Not exactly what you’re getting at here, Robin, since I posted the stomach-turning snippet last Friday, the payback post yesterday, four days later.
Right, and the way I read your second entry, with all the quotes from commentators like myself and Jane and Candy et al, was as a clarification that all you were trying to do is suggest that what Wallace did is poor business sense. If that’s the case, why stir the pot with the “snippet”? I’m not going to insult your intelligence by suggesting that you had no idea that would marshal the troops on LaBrecque’s behalf. As I said on your blog, if LaBrecque knew what she was going with that Richard Gere urban legend, she could have predicted some negative responses. And regardless of my opinion on those responses, and my belief that everyone is free to disagree with anyone else, I am very uncomfortable with the idea of belittling other readers for their hot buttons.
Tomatoes. Tomahtoes. Most of the authors posting saw the greatest offenses to be the slam against the publisher.
I’ll repeat here the offer I made on your blog regarding your assertion that some of us are seeing and reading too much into all of this:
So how about we negotiate a deal? If I buy that all you folks are doing here is offering Wallace the benefit of your experience and knowledge of the publishing business, that is, helping her and any other aspiring authors out there, will you be willing to buy that Wallace’s review isn’t a hateful curse on Harlequin authors, editors, and publishers, but merely a poorly worded and personally outraged review? I’ll take the bullet if you will.
Robin:
But even if I take at face value Kent’s argument that this is all about the poor business decision Wallace made, it’s revealing that Kent compares the relationship between author and publisher to that of employee and boss in a corporate setting.
More like a contractor/client. You never know what forum someone you’re marketing yourself to is visiting. People often drop their “public place” manners on the net; that’s one reason why many people google anyone they’re considering hiring, whether employee or contractor.
Candy:
If there’s one thing about the review I think is a legitimate complaint, it’s that it’s not interesting—being entertaining while getting your bitch on goes a long way, I’ve found, and can sometimes lessen the sting of a criticism.
I think the environment plays a large role in that.
Amazon isn’t a gathering spot for friends to chatter and snark. It’s a business, and I think a lot of people expect others to be on their business manners there.
Amazon isn’t a gathering spot for friends to chatter and snark. It’s a business, and I think a lot of people expect others to be on their business manners there.
On the contrary, Ostrea, I think of Amazon.com as a very informal sort of place, and the reviews to be off-the-cuff observations and gut reactions. The ones that are in any way honest, anyway. There are restrictions to expression on the site, such as no cussing, but other than that, anyone can post reviews.
There are a whole lot of other Amazon.com reviews that are a whole lot more vicious—both to the book and to the author. Check out what some men wrote about Pat Barker’s WWI trilogy, and their indignant reactions that a mere woman should attempt to portray what it’s like to be a soldier, and how dare she write about homosexuals in the army. Wallace’s review can’t even compare to that sort of venom.
I’m with Tara Marie: it’s a tempest in a teapot, and I’m not sure why panties are so twisted, but hey, all this righteous indignation sure makes for fun reading.
I have a question about the editor/publisher not buying the reviewer’s hypothetical work (which is what led to all the “friendly” warnings from pub’d authors).
How would any potential editor/publisher know that the reviewer was an aspiring author? There’s nothing in the review to indicate Wallace is an author. It seems to me that the only way to know is to google the reviewer’s name (which is apparently what blogland has done). Am I really supposed to believe that editors/publishers google the names of each and every snarky and/or bad reviewer? How would they have the time? Do they even care? And if e/p’s don’t seek out and destroy (as I suspect) then do badly reviewed authors who out snarky reviewers do it simply to “punish” said reviewer?
Also, isn’t it just as unprofessional for pub’d authors to bash this reviewer as it is for the reviewer to have bashed the book? Seems rather pot and kettle to me.
On the contrary, Ostrea, I think of Amazon.com as a very informal sort of place, and the reviews to be off-the-cuff observations and gut reactions. The ones that are in any way honest, anyway. There are restrictions to expression on the site, such as no cussing, but other than that, anyone can post reviews.
It’s the difference between a group’s conversation at one table—or several—at a bookstore coffee shop and reviews posted on the shelves. But I’m just speculating on why Amazon reviews get people more upset than blog snarkery. I suspect it flows from the same phenomenon that gives us “It must be true—I read it on the net!” Blog reviews are more obviously opinion pieces; I think Amazon has more of an “official” atmosphere to a lot of people, whether it deserves it or not.
There are a whole lot of other Amazon.com reviews that are a whole lot more vicious—both to the book and to the author.
Oh, certainly. And they get their share of gossip time in their associated communities, too.
How would any potential editor/publisher know that the reviewer was an aspiring author? There’s nothing in the review to indicate Wallace is an author. It seems to me that the only way to know is to google the reviewer’s name (which is apparently what blogland has done). Am I really supposed to believe that editors/publishers google the names of each and every snarky and/or bad reviewer? How would they have the time? Do they even care? And if e/p’s don’t seek out and destroy (as I suspect) then do badly reviewed authors who out snarky reviewers do it simply to “punish†said reviewer?
Gossip. It happens in all genres, not just romance.
Some authors are trying to punish the reviewer. Some are just gossiping, reacting to someone else’s investigation, or simple recognition, of the reviewer. That, too, is not unique to romance.
Also, isn’t it just as unprofessional for pub’d authors to bash this reviewer as it is for the reviewer to have bashed the book? Seems rather pot and kettle to me.
Yep. Ideally, an author doesn’t respond to reviews. (Think Anne Rice.) There seems to be an unspoken exception to quiet thanks, often with links. I’ve seen a couple of authors comment that they agreed with a reviewer who pointed out a weak place in the book and wished the reviewer could critique their next book before they turned in the manuscript.
It does seem to be more acceptable in romance. I’ll leave it to people more familiar with the community to speculate why.
Blue, there’s nothing in the review that reveals her (his?) identity. Someone likely finked to the author.
Candy, I’m with you on the threats. They say now that it’s just ‘advice’ but to me that’s a crock. Like someone said in an earlier discussion, say it, but
own
it.
Maybe the SmartBitches(TM) should start a Cafe Press shoppe and sell bracelets with WWND on them. ‘What Would Nora Do?’ We could take up a collection to send them to any ABB, including the most recent inductees.
Maybe the SmartBitches(TM) should start a Cafe Press shoppe and sell bracelets with WWND on them. ‘What Would Nora Do?’ We could take up a collection to send them to any ABB, including the most recent inductees.
Uhm, you’re not talking about Nora Roberts here are you?
Yes, that’s who I was talking about. If more authors acted like Nora, we’d have much less to snark and dish about.
I understand that the urban legend has been linked primarily to the homosexual community, but in practice I have seen a lot more “accidents” occur between heterosexual couples who are seeking marital aids to spice up their lives. I find it interesting that everyone who is referrng to the gerbil up the bottom thinks immediately that it refers to gays. I initially thought kinky people who don’t realize that having an animal up your bottom is more likely to kill you than give you pleasure.
And thank you, I think it was Victoria who mentioned the interchangeable intern vs resident. There is a huge difference in status and responsibility. I can see a newbie intern requesting assistance with identification and asking for help but a more experienced resident would have laughed, gotten the anoscope or GI consult and moved on.
Felice wrote:
***Candy, I’m with you on the threats. They say now that it’s just ‘advice’ but to me that’s a crock. Like someone said in an earlier discussion, say it, but own it.**
It just seems to be that the so-called threats are people asking the reviewer to “own it” as well. The authors have made it clear who they are, and where they’ll be—the only one who operated under a cloak of supposed anonymity was the reviewer.
J.Wallace can hate whatever and speak her mind, and I would fight for her right to do so, but in doing people do get to have a reaction. Either she wanted to be anonymous and screwed the pooch by leaving an easily followed trail, or she wasn’t trying to hide who she was, but either way she needs to now take a certain ownership of her opinion.
(And I just realized that J.Wallace probably hates the expression, “screwed the pooch.” )
I would have more respect for her if she walked up to the table, collected her $6.00, and held her head high. That takes a level of sass that can’t be watched under a (false) cloak of anonymity on Amazon.
I’m not in her head, and don’t know her motives. Speaking for myself, and as someone who takes my writing seriously, has strong opinions, and wants people to be clear where I stand, I wouldn’t leave room for doubt of my motives on Amazon or anywhere else. I’m saying up front I write in the same genre, I’m not hiding who I am (professionally,) and I’m not bashing another writer while my own words look like ass.
Why are blogs different? Because you have a whole lot of history on the blogger. You can see where they’re coming from—are they writer or reader? Are they predisposed to like or hate a certain kind of book?
Anyhow, J.Wallace has the right to the opinion, and the writer and various others have a right to a response, and a curiousity as to her idenitity.
Thanks Nicolette for saying what I was thinking! The right to say what you want doesn’t exempt others from responding. If you’re going to say it, own it. If you’re going to give your opinion on the WORLD WIDE WEB and leave a trail, don’t be surprised if someone follows that trail and responds back…and brings their friends too. It’s no different that us readers telling authors that if they are going to put their words out there, be prepared for critics.
The authors have made it clear who they are, and where they’ll be—the only one who operated under a cloak of supposed anonymity was the reviewer.
If you check the Amazon page, it clearly states that the review is by “J. Wallace” with the “real name” label underneath. Where’s the “cloak of anonymity”? To date this has been an entirely one-sided “conversation” with Wallace’s review, because she DID leave it in a perfectly appropriate place, from whence it was somehow picked up and then picked apart by folks who apparently managed to figure out who she was and then raised all sorts of objections to what she did and how it might affect her career. Putting aside all of the legitimate questions about how she was discovered and whether she’s the J. Wallace people think she is, etc., how is putting the review out there under her own name NOT owning it?
Am I the only one who is uncomfortable with a) the idea that people are frantically Googling and digging for information on this woman because of a non-defamatory review on Amazon, and b)the idea that such a review could actually be equivalent to career suicide in Romance publishing? If people want to talk about what constitutes acceptable professional behavior, I think we could have some interesting conversations about all of that, too.
Hey, I’ve said she has a right to her view, but a first initial, a common last name, and a state is not clear ownership in the same way as putting it on a blog, or mentioning you’re a writer in the same genre as the reviewed story.
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.
I have no true issue with the writer, and if the posted blog is really the same woman, she seems like someone I could actually like, but that doesn’t mean that the people who tracked her down are in the wrong. It’s not like a lynch mob showed up at her door.
IMO, her mistake was not in hating the book, but in thinking she was more anonymous than she was (that’s speculation) and not seeing up front that her words *could* be seen as a conflict of interest.
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.
Yeah, I think there’s something wrong with people like that. Maybe they don’t have cable or they can’t get into ROCKSTAR:Supernova. I know I’m procrastinating.
>>“Am I the only one who is uncomfortable with a) the idea that people are frantically Googling and digging for information on this woman because of a non-defamatory review on Amazon, and b)the idea that such a review could actually be equivalent to career suicide in Romance publishing?”?<<
Hi Robin! 🙂 I guess there are a few Katie’s here. I’m the newbie. Anyway, I wanted to say that no, you’re definitely not alone on this. It’s not like this was a personal attack on the author. The reviewer just hated the book.
She could have easily left the review anonymous, but she did “own” it (lol, I “own” my unethical behavior having sold ARC’s and I’ll even “own” it when they get raffled off at a bookstore 😉 %-P ) and for that she might not get a book contract???? That is very messed up.
I think the author of the book in question has every right to leave a scathing review of her critic’s book, granted the woman does actually get published and the author honestly dislikes her product. However, no author should be prevented from being published because thier colleagues don’t like their opinions. Readers can vote with their dollars, but the industry shouldn’t be keeping authors out because of politics.
I have to ask, being completly ignorant on this subject, do Amazon reviews really have any influence on sales? Besides, isn’t this kind of a non-issue since the review probably enticed more people to buy the darn book than not?
By the way, I read the excerpt and I wouldn’t read the book either. It would take me right out of the story and make me think about the dead animal. :shut: It’s not funny to me, but I wouldn’t laugh about a ridiculous death of a child either.
“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.”
—Romain Rolland (from his 1915 Nobel Prizewinning novel, Jean-Christophe)