This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1StormRaven
After the events surrounding my review of PureHeart, I decided to pull everything together into one post so as to ensure that there was a clear record of what appears to me to be the duplicitous and obnoxious behavior of Bronwen Publishing (which effectively is Rita Hsu Syers) and Clark Isaacs.
The whole sorry affair began when I requested PureHeart via the LibraryThing member giveaway program. I read the brief description of a dog with supernatural powers who saves the world. I figured it would be something like Charlotte’s Web mixed with The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe plus a little bit of Paradise Lost thrown in on the side. Bronwen Publishing sent me a copy of the book, along with a letter. The letter said:
“Congratulations on winning an advanced reading copy of PureHeart from Library Thing!
We sincerely hope that you enjoy the book, and a review from you would be appreciated. Please understand that it does not have to be an in-depth review – even something short would be important to this book, since it hasn’t even been released yet.
You can post your review on Library Thing, and it would be appreciated if you could also email the review directly to us at: bronwenpublishing1@verizon.net.
Aaron, we sincerely hope you will consent to do a review. On a debut novel like this, reviews from our Readers can mean a great deal.”
First, I will note that I don’t think I am violating anyone’s privacy by including Bronwen Publishing’s e-mail address as it appeared in their letter to me, as it is freely available from their website: http://www.bronwenpublishing.com/contact.html.
As they gave me a copy of the book, I felt obligated to provide them with a review in return. I read it. Every page. It turns out that the book was really awful. I gave the book a very negative review, and illustrated in detail why the book deserved this assessment. I posted the review to LibraryThing. It (and my other reviews) can be found here: http://www.librarything.com/profile_reviews.php?view=StormRaven
As the letter requested, even though I knew the review would not be received well by the publisher, I sent them a copy via e-mail. After all, they asked me to do a review and requested I send it directly to them. I prefaced my e-mail by saying that it was not a kind review, but that I thought that it was fair to the book. In reality, I was too kind – I had to cut my review short as to list all of the bizarre and awful things contained in its pages would probably take 30,000-40,000 words at least.
At this point, things get weird. Clark Isaacs, whose “review” appears on the back jacket of PureHeart, sent an e-mail titled “Your left wing comments have no foundation!” to my personal e-mail account. The text of his e-mail is as follows:
“Isn't it interesting that you would write a review and slam a work which you would not have the courage or imagination to pen yourself.
Yes, I am an uneducated oaf with only three degrees which you did not bother to ask about or check out.
If you would have bothered to ask, I did not get paid for the review which was published on the cover of the book and will be published in several newspapers.
Poor old Ezra Pound would turn over in his grave if he knew that distant kin of his was pounding sand!
How many books have you written? Do you know what it takes to put your heart and soul into a story?
Because you are spewing such loggerhead and incomprehensible diatribe only shows your truly not a man of God. Turn the other cheek!
Have a nice day!
--
Clark Isaacs
Visit Clark's Eye on Books
http://clarkisaacs.ning.com”
I have already responded to the bulk of the contents of his e-mail in an addendum to my review. If you want to see my reaction, you can look there.
Now the interesting thing here is that my personal e-mail address is not included on my LibraryThing profile. The only way that he could have gotten my personal e-mail address is for Bronwen Publishing to have given it to him. I contacted Tim about this disturbing activity, and he asked Abby to investigate. Abby contacted Bronwen Publishing, and they claimed that he got the e-mail address off of my review posted to Amazon.com, which supposedly included my e-mail address. They also claim that they had Amazon.com remove my review for “inappropriateness”. Bronwen Publishing’s story in this regard is pure bullshit. I did not post my review on Amazon, nor did I post my e-mail address there. Just as Isaacs has exposed himself as a shill for hire (see the addenda to my review), Bronwen Publishing has exposed themselves as a sleazy outfit that is willing to make bald-faced lies to try to cover their tracks.
Isaacs is just as sleazy.
I posted my response to Mr. Isaacs on his LibraryThing profile – I did not want to go behind his back with my response. He responded with his own comment. It took him over a day to figure out he could simply delete the posts on his profile, but I preserved the bulk of his response to me. It was as follows:
"When you espouse yourself to be the literary giant, first proof read what you write. Misspelling a person's name is a grave error and shows a lack of consideration. Remember reading Marbury vs. Madison? Can you off the top of your head give a recitation on the facts and rule of law?
The reference to the writing of a book which I made, had nothing to do with the writing of a review. What it was about was that to insult an author about their work is not the gentlemanly thing to do. We should treat ladies with respect, if you have not liked the book, then say nothing or that it should be something that you would pass upon.
With respect to the review that I wrote, it was only intended to provide some comments that were to be incorporated into the cover of the book. The publisher wanted some short snappy lines to incorporate for the cover. Not a literary masterpiece.
I reviewed your so called library and note that you have a collection of old science fiction which I have long since discarded.
I have a following of 675,000 readers in various newspapers and magazines. The reviews which I write that are negative are 0! I choose not to write a bad review of a book, if I do not like the book I will know that in the first two or three chapters. I give all the books to charity when I am finished with them. Those which are gross, get tossed."
First off, my grave error consisted of misspelling his name as Issacs. Think about that. He can't even use commas properly, but a reversal of two letters is a "lack of consideration". He then launches into a complete non-sequitur about Marbury v. Madison (which is the most basic Constitutional law case out there). I still don't understand why it is relevant whether or not I remember the facts and holding of the case (I do). I also note that I have never claimed to be a literary giant, merely someone who can write sentences using proper grammar and punctuation, which is apparently beyond his skills.
According to him, writing a negative review is ungentlemanly, apparently because the author in question was a woman. I wonder what most women will think about the idea of giving their work a pass (regardless of quality) simply based upon their gender.
He then follows this up by essentially admitting his review is a fraud. It isn't a review: it is ad copy. The publisher asked him for "short snappy lines" to put on the cover. So, now we know that not only did Bronwen Publishing solicit the "review", we know that Isaacs agreed to write something positive about it for them without considering the actual quality of the book.
Then he gives us a clue as to why Bronwen Publishing would choose him for this job. He writes no negative reviews. He's proud of his lack of discrimination. He touts his readership - but one wonders how many of the readers of the newspapers in which his work appears actually read his rather lackluster column, and how many know he basically prostitutes himself for publishers. He also apparently doesn't toss all the "gross" books, as he appears to have kept PureHeart after all.
I am amused at his attack on the fact that I have science fiction in my library. Given that PureHeart is best defined as fantasy (if one were to give it any definition other than "crap"), one wonders who this sort of book would be aimed at if it isn't readers with my tastes in fiction. Given that I have over 4,000 books in my library, one might also note that I have a lot of things other than "old science fiction" (although I have a lot of that). I'm guessing he didn't give my library any more careful an evaluation than he appears to give to the books he pretends to review. I'll also note that regardless of what kinds of books are in it, my library is actually a library. I guess Mr. Isaacs doesn't actually understand what the phrase "so called" means.
On his profile page, Mr. Isaacs asserts that he is a retired attorney. Based on little more than a hunch, I did a Google search on his name and came up with this: http://www.courts.state.mn.us/csb/csbpai.... Unless there are two Clark Isaacs who are former attorneys that run a headhunting service for other attorneys, he is not retired, he is disbarred. Which, if true, would mean that he is not unfamiliar with unethical conduct.
Further, another poster did a little examination of his website: Clark's Eye on books. Once there, they found this little tidbit:
“As per the standard in the industry, columns are billed based upon the insertion in media. However, to introduce your publication to the acceptance of Clark's Eye on Books, the first column is sent free of charge or obligation.”
It is difficult to suss out, but this certainly makes it appear like he does reviews for hire. Of course, it is difficult to figure out exactly what he is saying here, since, as usual, his use of language is almost impenetrable. Based upon his admission to me that his review wasn't a review to begin with, but rather ad copy, and this evidence that he simply writes reviews for hire, I flagged his LibraryThing review of PureHeart as (1) not a review, and (2) a violation of the LibraryThing terms of service. Based upon the language from his website, I have also flagged his other reviews as a violation of the LibraryThing terms of service. I encourage others to do the same.
That's the sorry tale. I caution any LibraryThinger who deals with Bronwen Publishing to reconsider their involvement with this company, and suggest anyone who lives in an area served by one of the newspapers Clark Isaacs apparently does reviews for to contact the editors of those papers.
The whole sorry affair began when I requested PureHeart via the LibraryThing member giveaway program. I read the brief description of a dog with supernatural powers who saves the world. I figured it would be something like Charlotte’s Web mixed with The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe plus a little bit of Paradise Lost thrown in on the side. Bronwen Publishing sent me a copy of the book, along with a letter. The letter said:
“Congratulations on winning an advanced reading copy of PureHeart from Library Thing!
We sincerely hope that you enjoy the book, and a review from you would be appreciated. Please understand that it does not have to be an in-depth review – even something short would be important to this book, since it hasn’t even been released yet.
You can post your review on Library Thing, and it would be appreciated if you could also email the review directly to us at: bronwenpublishing1@verizon.net.
Aaron, we sincerely hope you will consent to do a review. On a debut novel like this, reviews from our Readers can mean a great deal.”
First, I will note that I don’t think I am violating anyone’s privacy by including Bronwen Publishing’s e-mail address as it appeared in their letter to me, as it is freely available from their website: http://www.bronwenpublishing.com/contact.html.
As they gave me a copy of the book, I felt obligated to provide them with a review in return. I read it. Every page. It turns out that the book was really awful. I gave the book a very negative review, and illustrated in detail why the book deserved this assessment. I posted the review to LibraryThing. It (and my other reviews) can be found here: http://www.librarything.com/profile_reviews.php?view=StormRaven
As the letter requested, even though I knew the review would not be received well by the publisher, I sent them a copy via e-mail. After all, they asked me to do a review and requested I send it directly to them. I prefaced my e-mail by saying that it was not a kind review, but that I thought that it was fair to the book. In reality, I was too kind – I had to cut my review short as to list all of the bizarre and awful things contained in its pages would probably take 30,000-40,000 words at least.
At this point, things get weird. Clark Isaacs, whose “review” appears on the back jacket of PureHeart, sent an e-mail titled “Your left wing comments have no foundation!” to my personal e-mail account. The text of his e-mail is as follows:
“Isn't it interesting that you would write a review and slam a work which you would not have the courage or imagination to pen yourself.
Yes, I am an uneducated oaf with only three degrees which you did not bother to ask about or check out.
If you would have bothered to ask, I did not get paid for the review which was published on the cover of the book and will be published in several newspapers.
Poor old Ezra Pound would turn over in his grave if he knew that distant kin of his was pounding sand!
How many books have you written? Do you know what it takes to put your heart and soul into a story?
Because you are spewing such loggerhead and incomprehensible diatribe only shows your truly not a man of God. Turn the other cheek!
Have a nice day!
--
Clark Isaacs
Visit Clark's Eye on Books
http://clarkisaacs.ning.com”
I have already responded to the bulk of the contents of his e-mail in an addendum to my review. If you want to see my reaction, you can look there.
Now the interesting thing here is that my personal e-mail address is not included on my LibraryThing profile. The only way that he could have gotten my personal e-mail address is for Bronwen Publishing to have given it to him. I contacted Tim about this disturbing activity, and he asked Abby to investigate. Abby contacted Bronwen Publishing, and they claimed that he got the e-mail address off of my review posted to Amazon.com, which supposedly included my e-mail address. They also claim that they had Amazon.com remove my review for “inappropriateness”. Bronwen Publishing’s story in this regard is pure bullshit. I did not post my review on Amazon, nor did I post my e-mail address there. Just as Isaacs has exposed himself as a shill for hire (see the addenda to my review), Bronwen Publishing has exposed themselves as a sleazy outfit that is willing to make bald-faced lies to try to cover their tracks.
Isaacs is just as sleazy.
I posted my response to Mr. Isaacs on his LibraryThing profile – I did not want to go behind his back with my response. He responded with his own comment. It took him over a day to figure out he could simply delete the posts on his profile, but I preserved the bulk of his response to me. It was as follows:
"When you espouse yourself to be the literary giant, first proof read what you write. Misspelling a person's name is a grave error and shows a lack of consideration. Remember reading Marbury vs. Madison? Can you off the top of your head give a recitation on the facts and rule of law?
The reference to the writing of a book which I made, had nothing to do with the writing of a review. What it was about was that to insult an author about their work is not the gentlemanly thing to do. We should treat ladies with respect, if you have not liked the book, then say nothing or that it should be something that you would pass upon.
With respect to the review that I wrote, it was only intended to provide some comments that were to be incorporated into the cover of the book. The publisher wanted some short snappy lines to incorporate for the cover. Not a literary masterpiece.
I reviewed your so called library and note that you have a collection of old science fiction which I have long since discarded.
I have a following of 675,000 readers in various newspapers and magazines. The reviews which I write that are negative are 0! I choose not to write a bad review of a book, if I do not like the book I will know that in the first two or three chapters. I give all the books to charity when I am finished with them. Those which are gross, get tossed."
First off, my grave error consisted of misspelling his name as Issacs. Think about that. He can't even use commas properly, but a reversal of two letters is a "lack of consideration". He then launches into a complete non-sequitur about Marbury v. Madison (which is the most basic Constitutional law case out there). I still don't understand why it is relevant whether or not I remember the facts and holding of the case (I do). I also note that I have never claimed to be a literary giant, merely someone who can write sentences using proper grammar and punctuation, which is apparently beyond his skills.
According to him, writing a negative review is ungentlemanly, apparently because the author in question was a woman. I wonder what most women will think about the idea of giving their work a pass (regardless of quality) simply based upon their gender.
He then follows this up by essentially admitting his review is a fraud. It isn't a review: it is ad copy. The publisher asked him for "short snappy lines" to put on the cover. So, now we know that not only did Bronwen Publishing solicit the "review", we know that Isaacs agreed to write something positive about it for them without considering the actual quality of the book.
Then he gives us a clue as to why Bronwen Publishing would choose him for this job. He writes no negative reviews. He's proud of his lack of discrimination. He touts his readership - but one wonders how many of the readers of the newspapers in which his work appears actually read his rather lackluster column, and how many know he basically prostitutes himself for publishers. He also apparently doesn't toss all the "gross" books, as he appears to have kept PureHeart after all.
I am amused at his attack on the fact that I have science fiction in my library. Given that PureHeart is best defined as fantasy (if one were to give it any definition other than "crap"), one wonders who this sort of book would be aimed at if it isn't readers with my tastes in fiction. Given that I have over 4,000 books in my library, one might also note that I have a lot of things other than "old science fiction" (although I have a lot of that). I'm guessing he didn't give my library any more careful an evaluation than he appears to give to the books he pretends to review. I'll also note that regardless of what kinds of books are in it, my library is actually a library. I guess Mr. Isaacs doesn't actually understand what the phrase "so called" means.
On his profile page, Mr. Isaacs asserts that he is a retired attorney. Based on little more than a hunch, I did a Google search on his name and came up with this: http://www.courts.state.mn.us/csb/csbpai.... Unless there are two Clark Isaacs who are former attorneys that run a headhunting service for other attorneys, he is not retired, he is disbarred. Which, if true, would mean that he is not unfamiliar with unethical conduct.
Further, another poster did a little examination of his website: Clark's Eye on books. Once there, they found this little tidbit:
“As per the standard in the industry, columns are billed based upon the insertion in media. However, to introduce your publication to the acceptance of Clark's Eye on Books, the first column is sent free of charge or obligation.”
It is difficult to suss out, but this certainly makes it appear like he does reviews for hire. Of course, it is difficult to figure out exactly what he is saying here, since, as usual, his use of language is almost impenetrable. Based upon his admission to me that his review wasn't a review to begin with, but rather ad copy, and this evidence that he simply writes reviews for hire, I flagged his LibraryThing review of PureHeart as (1) not a review, and (2) a violation of the LibraryThing terms of service. Based upon the language from his website, I have also flagged his other reviews as a violation of the LibraryThing terms of service. I encourage others to do the same.
That's the sorry tale. I caution any LibraryThinger who deals with Bronwen Publishing to reconsider their involvement with this company, and suggest anyone who lives in an area served by one of the newspapers Clark Isaacs apparently does reviews for to contact the editors of those papers.
2whitewavedarling
Nicely put together, StormRaven. And personally, as a female published author in case Isaacs happens to read this, I'd rather get all honest negative reviews than get positive reviews just because that's the "gentlemanly thing to do".
3mollishka
Wow. That's Awesome. In a really horrible way, of course, but you just made me glad I logged on to LibraryThing tonight :)
4CKmtl
Both of them should be kicked to the curb, as far as I'm concerned.
Now, a question of people more in-the-know than I...
“As per the standard in the industry, columns are billed based upon the insertion in media."
I'm leery of the phrase "standard in the industry", especially when it's directed to inexperienced people, so: is billing the subjects of reviews, based on your circulation, legit S.O.P. for freelance reviewers?
Now, a question of people more in-the-know than I...
“As per the standard in the industry, columns are billed based upon the insertion in media."
I'm leery of the phrase "standard in the industry", especially when it's directed to inexperienced people, so: is billing the subjects of reviews, based on your circulation, legit S.O.P. for freelance reviewers?
5retropelocin
I believe this particular phrase:
“As per the standard in the industry, columns are billed based upon the insertion in media."
has to do with billing of the periodical that carries the review, not the publisher or author of the book reviewed.
Although, I don't know...it's just how I read it.
“As per the standard in the industry, columns are billed based upon the insertion in media."
has to do with billing of the periodical that carries the review, not the publisher or author of the book reviewed.
Although, I don't know...it's just how I read it.
6Pandababy
Thank you for throwing light on the whole Pureheart debacle. I consider extended and detailed descriptions of gore to be a form of obscenity. I was nearly deceived into requesting it!
Thanks to you and the rest of the LTERs who wrote extensive and revealing reviews. If I had only read the very general reviews by some who praised the book, I would not have understood what it was about at all.
Thanks to you and the rest of the LTERs who wrote extensive and revealing reviews. If I had only read the very general reviews by some who praised the book, I would not have understood what it was about at all.
7StormRaven
5: That is certainly the most charitable possible reading of that sentence. However, given his statements concerning his writing of the "review" for PureHeart and the other things he's written, I don't think that is the correct interpretation.
One unrelated note: I think it is telling that at no point has the substance of my review been criticized as incorrect. Despite the fact that Isaacs apparently thinks that one should not post a negative review if the writer poured their "heart and soul" into a book, or if the writer is a delicate flower of a woman who will faint if not given undeserved praise, he hasn't had anything to say about my actual assessment of the book, or his contribution to the back cover (aside from his indignant, and now very suspect claim that he was not compensated for it).
The reason my review is so extensive is that I wanted to make sure the basis for my review was made plain. Thus far, despite their assertion that they had the review removed from Amazon for "inappropriateness" (despite the fact that it was never posted there), neither Bronwen Publishing nor Isaacs have not contested the factual accuracy of the review.
One unrelated note: I think it is telling that at no point has the substance of my review been criticized as incorrect. Despite the fact that Isaacs apparently thinks that one should not post a negative review if the writer poured their "heart and soul" into a book, or if the writer is a delicate flower of a woman who will faint if not given undeserved praise, he hasn't had anything to say about my actual assessment of the book, or his contribution to the back cover (aside from his indignant, and now very suspect claim that he was not compensated for it).
The reason my review is so extensive is that I wanted to make sure the basis for my review was made plain. Thus far, despite their assertion that they had the review removed from Amazon for "inappropriateness" (despite the fact that it was never posted there), neither Bronwen Publishing nor Isaacs have not contested the factual accuracy of the review.
8aethercowboy
Dude!
I posted my review to Amazon.com (the exact same one I had on my LT), and I checked the other day, and IT WAS GONE.
So, I reposted it, as I did not violate any of Amazon's TOS (unless honest reviews somehow got sneaked in there).
If Bronwen is having Amazon.com remove any unfavorable review, I would imagine that THAT is a TOS violation, or at least a very shady thing on their part.
My e-mail address is visible from my Amazon.com account (and my LT account, and just about every other account in the world, and I thank the maker every day for spam filters so I can do this), but I got no such claims of my being a liberal, conservative, or even bipartisan individual. Once again: ENVY.
But, it does solve the Mystery of the Disappearing Review (Chloe Wendleton Mysteries). Thanks!
And it makes me even madder at Bronwen for flagging an HONEST review as inappropriate, but having her and her cronies thumbs up ETUSA's review.
Dude, if Bronwen wants to throw down a gauntlet, I'm happy to do everything in my power to show the world the bad name they've given themselves.
Have you considered sending this info to sites like BoingBoing? I may very well do that if you don't, if they flag my review again.
I posted my review to Amazon.com (the exact same one I had on my LT), and I checked the other day, and IT WAS GONE.
So, I reposted it, as I did not violate any of Amazon's TOS (unless honest reviews somehow got sneaked in there).
If Bronwen is having Amazon.com remove any unfavorable review, I would imagine that THAT is a TOS violation, or at least a very shady thing on their part.
My e-mail address is visible from my Amazon.com account (and my LT account, and just about every other account in the world, and I thank the maker every day for spam filters so I can do this), but I got no such claims of my being a liberal, conservative, or even bipartisan individual. Once again: ENVY.
But, it does solve the Mystery of the Disappearing Review (Chloe Wendleton Mysteries). Thanks!
And it makes me even madder at Bronwen for flagging an HONEST review as inappropriate, but having her and her cronies thumbs up ETUSA's review.
Dude, if Bronwen wants to throw down a gauntlet, I'm happy to do everything in my power to show the world the bad name they've given themselves.
Have you considered sending this info to sites like BoingBoing? I may very well do that if you don't, if they flag my review again.
9gwendolyndawson
Stormraven,
This is very shady behavior indeed. Thank you for taking the time to tell a coherent story so we all can avoid Bronwen Publishing. As someone who's received hate mail on my personal e-mail account for bad reviews, I understand your feelings of violation.
Gwen
This is very shady behavior indeed. Thank you for taking the time to tell a coherent story so we all can avoid Bronwen Publishing. As someone who's received hate mail on my personal e-mail account for bad reviews, I understand your feelings of violation.
Gwen
10elbakerone
Thanks for putting this all in one thread. I think it's a more concise explanation of the whole problem and frees up the Stars and Stinkers thread.
I think there are a lot of issues compiled here that this group has debated in the past (responses to negative reviews; Amazon's treatment of unfavorable reviews; paid-for-review schemes; review integrity; etc. etc. etc.) so it's interesting to see them all collide over this awful novel.
I wrote a mild but negative review of Pureheart also and I may post it to Amazon just to see if it sticks around. (And in case anyone's not yet sold on how terrible the book is, I'll also point out that it's quite offensive to people with disabilities. That's another can-of-worms that I won't open, but it's a valid point that wasn't brought up in other reviews.)
ETA: As of this morning, aethercowboy your review is still on Amazon - I gave you a "helpful" vote to keep it there too. ;)
I think there are a lot of issues compiled here that this group has debated in the past (responses to negative reviews; Amazon's treatment of unfavorable reviews; paid-for-review schemes; review integrity; etc. etc. etc.) so it's interesting to see them all collide over this awful novel.
I wrote a mild but negative review of Pureheart also and I may post it to Amazon just to see if it sticks around. (And in case anyone's not yet sold on how terrible the book is, I'll also point out that it's quite offensive to people with disabilities. That's another can-of-worms that I won't open, but it's a valid point that wasn't brought up in other reviews.)
ETA: As of this morning, aethercowboy your review is still on Amazon - I gave you a "helpful" vote to keep it there too. ;)
11CKmtl
5> Ah, yeah. That makes sense, since the quoted website seems to be geared toward newspaper/magazine editors, not authors.
12aethercowboy
elbakerone:
Thanks for checking, and for the thumbs up. I hope I don't have to re-repost it.
I mentioned it on another thread, but when I first rated the book in Amazon.com (1 star. Pity Amazon doesn't have fractional stars like LT), I added the tag "horrible", 'cause the book didn't have any other tags, and that was the one word I would use to describe the book. When I posted my review, however, I noticed that a new tag had been added to the book: "wonderful." ...
And I've said this before, but I seriously wonder if maybe there were two copies of the book sent out, and people like us just got the lousy one. 'Cause seriously, the five-star reviews describe it as a book that actually sounds like it may be interesting (though the five-stars don't delve too deeply into the plot, other than rephrasing the first paragraph of the book). If that were the case, Bronwen Publishing would go from zero to hero for such an awesome practical joke.
StormRaven: congrats, by the way, on having the top PureHeart review. {tearful and emotional torch passing ceremony here complete with orchestral accompaniment}
Thanks for checking, and for the thumbs up. I hope I don't have to re-repost it.
I mentioned it on another thread, but when I first rated the book in Amazon.com (1 star. Pity Amazon doesn't have fractional stars like LT), I added the tag "horrible", 'cause the book didn't have any other tags, and that was the one word I would use to describe the book. When I posted my review, however, I noticed that a new tag had been added to the book: "wonderful." ...
And I've said this before, but I seriously wonder if maybe there were two copies of the book sent out, and people like us just got the lousy one. 'Cause seriously, the five-star reviews describe it as a book that actually sounds like it may be interesting (though the five-stars don't delve too deeply into the plot, other than rephrasing the first paragraph of the book). If that were the case, Bronwen Publishing would go from zero to hero for such an awesome practical joke.
StormRaven: congrats, by the way, on having the top PureHeart review. {tearful and emotional torch passing ceremony here complete with orchestral accompaniment}
13StormRaven
8: I think the place to start is to flag Isaacs non-review as such and as a violation of the LT TOS. I also went through his review catalog and flagged the rest as TOS violations based upon the various statements he has made that make me think he is a hired gun reviewer.
I've never been to BoingBoing, but I might go see it now.
I've never been to BoingBoing, but I might go see it now.
14NovelBookworm
aethercowboy, I think its the same book..sorry, it wouldn't appear that you were the unlucky one that got the bad version. ;o)
I've noticed that the "yay!! best book ever written" reviews are mostly from people who recently joined LT, leading one to believe that its the author, or her mom, or some such nonsense. But in her defense...if my kid writes an abysmal book, I'll probably secretly hate it, but cheerlead like crazy, because it'd be my kid!
Frankly, after receiving a book from a perfectly lovely young lady earlier this year, and really wanting to like it, I had a hell of a time writing a review. I don't know if you're familiar with old Harry Chapin songs, if not, google the lyrics to Mr. Tanner. That damn song started on my iPod just as I started writing a scathing review. I couldn't bring myself to write it and I had to tone it down, and mention the author had great ideas, and shaky execution. But really...it was just sort of dumb.....On the other hand, the author I'm talking about really does have potential and I hope she keeps at it. Doesn't sound like the case with Pureheart. (How does really bad stuff get published? I mean, I know...different strokes for different folks and all that, but really?????)
I've noticed that the "yay!! best book ever written" reviews are mostly from people who recently joined LT, leading one to believe that its the author, or her mom, or some such nonsense. But in her defense...if my kid writes an abysmal book, I'll probably secretly hate it, but cheerlead like crazy, because it'd be my kid!
Frankly, after receiving a book from a perfectly lovely young lady earlier this year, and really wanting to like it, I had a hell of a time writing a review. I don't know if you're familiar with old Harry Chapin songs, if not, google the lyrics to Mr. Tanner. That damn song started on my iPod just as I started writing a scathing review. I couldn't bring myself to write it and I had to tone it down, and mention the author had great ideas, and shaky execution. But really...it was just sort of dumb.....On the other hand, the author I'm talking about really does have potential and I hope she keeps at it. Doesn't sound like the case with Pureheart. (How does really bad stuff get published? I mean, I know...different strokes for different folks and all that, but really?????)
15StormRaven
14: How did Syers get published? Simple: she owns Bronwen Publishing. She is also their only author.
I too have gotten books that had serious weaknesses but were written by a writer who showed promise. Jenine Wilson's The Shadow Within (sorry about the screwed up touchstone for the book) has a lot of problems, but Wilson shows promise as a writer if she can ramp up her world-building skills and give some more background. I wrote a review that said just that.
I too have gotten books that had serious weaknesses but were written by a writer who showed promise. Jenine Wilson's The Shadow Within (sorry about the screwed up touchstone for the book) has a lot of problems, but Wilson shows promise as a writer if she can ramp up her world-building skills and give some more background. I wrote a review that said just that.
16lilithcat
> 12
when I first rated the book in Amazon.com (1 star. Pity Amazon doesn't have fractional stars like LT
I reviewed a book yesterday on Amazon that I would have loved to have rated "no stars" or, at most 1/2 star. But you have to give at least one star on Amazon. I agree, that's annoying.
when I first rated the book in Amazon.com (1 star. Pity Amazon doesn't have fractional stars like LT
I reviewed a book yesterday on Amazon that I would have loved to have rated "no stars" or, at most 1/2 star. But you have to give at least one star on Amazon. I agree, that's annoying.
17aethercowboy
Raven: BoingBoing (if you haven't yet visited it) is a blog in which the team of bloggers point out relevant bits of interesting things, such as zombie-related political parties, or people behaving stupidly and then getting the comeuppance they deserve when it backlashes on them. Another site that may be interested in such a happenstance as we have experienced may be TechDirt (deals mostly with Intellectual Property/technology issues, but occasionally addresses "The Streisand Effect" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_Effect).
If you noticed a flag on Isaacs' review before yours, uh, that was me. After I saw Isaacs' response to you, claiming that his review was effectively advertising fluff, I reviewed the LT TOS and determined that such a review was not a review at all. I did not, however, do the same to all his other reviews, partly because I saw no empirical evidence that the same was true for the rest of them, and partly because I just don't care enough about Isaacs to do it (if, though, he sent me a scathing e-mail, that feeling may fluctuate).
Bookworm: I know what you mean. That's why I stopped having my mom review my stuff. She'd never tell me what was wrong with it. I also know what you mean about toning it down. Believe it or not, but my review of PureHeart was very much so toned down. I was keeping a running tally of every single flaw the book had, but my wife was like "Seriously, it's not like she killed your family or anything" (paraphrase), so I just limited it to the big, enormous, glaring errors, and the fact that the book was very badly written.
You could call me biased by the fact that I gave my cousin's book The Concertmaster a not-so-negative negative review, but when reading the two books, I think I can say without letting family ties get in the way, Dougherty is leaps and bounds above Syers.
Additionally, I read a passage of The Mystery of the Crying Ghost on Google books. It was the same kind of mind-numbing, hit you over the head with a hammer kind of writing that PureHeart was (which doesn't surprise me, as it was written prior to PH).
After I had finished PureHeart, a day or so later, I got the rejection message from LT: "Sorry, you didn't get Crying Ghost." I literally cheered.
If you noticed a flag on Isaacs' review before yours, uh, that was me. After I saw Isaacs' response to you, claiming that his review was effectively advertising fluff, I reviewed the LT TOS and determined that such a review was not a review at all. I did not, however, do the same to all his other reviews, partly because I saw no empirical evidence that the same was true for the rest of them, and partly because I just don't care enough about Isaacs to do it (if, though, he sent me a scathing e-mail, that feeling may fluctuate).
Bookworm: I know what you mean. That's why I stopped having my mom review my stuff. She'd never tell me what was wrong with it. I also know what you mean about toning it down. Believe it or not, but my review of PureHeart was very much so toned down. I was keeping a running tally of every single flaw the book had, but my wife was like "Seriously, it's not like she killed your family or anything" (paraphrase), so I just limited it to the big, enormous, glaring errors, and the fact that the book was very badly written.
You could call me biased by the fact that I gave my cousin's book The Concertmaster a not-so-negative negative review, but when reading the two books, I think I can say without letting family ties get in the way, Dougherty is leaps and bounds above Syers.
Additionally, I read a passage of The Mystery of the Crying Ghost on Google books. It was the same kind of mind-numbing, hit you over the head with a hammer kind of writing that PureHeart was (which doesn't surprise me, as it was written prior to PH).
After I had finished PureHeart, a day or so later, I got the rejection message from LT: "Sorry, you didn't get Crying Ghost." I literally cheered.
18aethercowboy
>16 lilithcat:.
If I ever make a book rating site, I'll include "stars" and "black holes." They can be negative stars.
If I ever make a book rating site, I'll include "stars" and "black holes." They can be negative stars.
19elbakerone
#15 - How did Syers get published? Simple: she owns Bronwen Publishing. She is also their only author. Which is doubly awful because there really are some good indie authors out there but writers like Syers tend to turn people against taking a risk on a self-published newbie.
I like the dual book theory, too. ;) More likely though I think the critics that gave it 4 or 5 stars were just trying to be nice. Despite what Abby, Tim & Co. have said multiple times, I think many reviewers hold to the falsity that a negative review hurts their chances of getting more books.
But also, I think it's perfectly possible to be negative without being nasty. (Although the nastier reviews are sometimes the more fun ones to read....) I tried to highlight the *few* positive parts of the book out of courtesy.
Maybe we could get the people that actually liked the book - or at least rated it well - in on this discussion. Taste is subjective and maybe we can figure out what people enjoyed about it.
I like the dual book theory, too. ;) More likely though I think the critics that gave it 4 or 5 stars were just trying to be nice. Despite what Abby, Tim & Co. have said multiple times, I think many reviewers hold to the falsity that a negative review hurts their chances of getting more books.
But also, I think it's perfectly possible to be negative without being nasty. (Although the nastier reviews are sometimes the more fun ones to read....) I tried to highlight the *few* positive parts of the book out of courtesy.
Maybe we could get the people that actually liked the book - or at least rated it well - in on this discussion. Taste is subjective and maybe we can figure out what people enjoyed about it.
20NovelBookworm
#17--Your comment about your wife made me chuckle!! I like her philosophy, I'm gonna have to remember that to help me keep my perspective about things!!
21NovelBookworm
#18--Negative stars=author needs to reimburse reader for time and $$ spent!
22NovelBookworm
I think its possible to have some fun with a negative review as well. Years ago, I had fun reviewing Matthew Reilly's 7 Deadly Wonders, which had more italics and exclamation points than a story written by a pre-teen girl! I also had a lot of fun reviewing a Fern Michaels book, Payback, which is just about as much silliness as a woman can stand! If I can find something funny about an otherwise awful book, I guess I don't feel like such an idiot for reading the blasted thing!
23aethercowboy
I checked my review on Amazon.com today. It appears to be bowdlerized (I didn't write it with the \...\'s in it. I contacted Amazon RE this, and am awaiting a response as to why.
24StormRaven
I noticed that my review has 41 thumbs up! Thank you to everyone who has thrown their support my way.
I also noticed that someone (I can guess who) has flagged my review as "abuse". If anyone wants to burn their unflag card for the review, feel free.
I also noticed that someone (I can guess who) has flagged my review as "abuse". If anyone wants to burn their unflag card for the review, feel free.
25aethercowboy
Thank you for writing to Amazon.com.
I have read your recent review of Pureheart. Your review was found to violate our Review Guidelines. Our review forum is not intended for comments directed at, or about product typos and manufacturing defects. In the future, if you'd like to tell us about a specific problem, please e-mail us.
Some of your comments focused on manufacturing defects.
I have edited the language that has caused your review to be removed. The ... are the changes by Amazon.com. however, if you would prefer to have your review removed rather than edited you may do so online.
Please take a look at our Review Guidelines for information about acceptable review content:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=14279631
I would also like to recommend the Customer Discussions feature to comment on items and discuss them with other customers.
Thank you for your participation in the Amazon.com community.
I have read your recent review of Pureheart. Your review was found to violate our Review Guidelines. Our review forum is not intended for comments directed at, or about product typos and manufacturing defects. In the future, if you'd like to tell us about a specific problem, please e-mail us.
Some of your comments focused on manufacturing defects.
I have edited the language that has caused your review to be removed. The ... are the changes by Amazon.com. however, if you would prefer to have your review removed rather than edited you may do so online.
Please take a look at our Review Guidelines for information about acceptable review content:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=14279631
I would also like to recommend the Customer Discussions feature to comment on items and discuss them with other customers.
Thank you for your participation in the Amazon.com community.
26jbd1
So if a book is poorly edited, and you say so in an Amazon review, they'll take out the language? Wow. Yet another reason to stick with posting reviews at LT (and/or a personal blog).
27theprezz
#25: Maybe I'm just blind today, but I don't see anything in the Review Guidelines in the link from Amazon that even mentions typos and defects. It is a rather strange decision on their part.
28StormRaven
25: So, if I understand correctly, if you post a review at Amazon and say that it was badly written and contained numerous grammatical error, it will be taken down? That seems to me to make their reviews pretty much useless.
It makes me glad I didn't bother to post my review to Amazon.
It makes me glad I didn't bother to post my review to Amazon.
29lilithcat
> 26, 27, 28
So if a book is poorly edited, and you say so in an Amazon review, they'll take out the language?
No. I think the difficulty is that when you are using an ARC as the basis of your review, you should not address editing issues, as it is not in final format. That is why most ARCs will say not to quote from them without checking the published edition.
So if a book is poorly edited, and you say so in an Amazon review, they'll take out the language?
No. I think the difficulty is that when you are using an ARC as the basis of your review, you should not address editing issues, as it is not in final format. That is why most ARCs will say not to quote from them without checking the published edition.
31cyderry
As anyone thought to ask Abby not to accept any books from Bronwen Publishing in the future? or a boycott of books from Bronwen Publishing by just not requesting them at ER?
32ThePam
Having had a few battles with the Amazon bureacracy let me advise you to click "no, this response was not helpful" and ask to talk to someone higher up.
This reply you got is an automated one and ought not to be taken seriously.
The other approach to take is to just re-edit/correct what's been done to your review.
====
As for Bronwen, they don't appear to be taking the high road, do they.
I don't think they should banned from offering books for ER. I do however think that every offering should be tagged with a wicked little note that points out that they don't respond well, or professionally, to negative reviews.
This reply you got is an automated one and ought not to be taken seriously.
The other approach to take is to just re-edit/correct what's been done to your review.
====
As for Bronwen, they don't appear to be taking the high road, do they.
I don't think they should banned from offering books for ER. I do however think that every offering should be tagged with a wicked little note that points out that they don't respond well, or professionally, to negative reviews.
33CKmtl
>29 lilithcat:
That'd be the case if the copies were indeed non-final ARCs. If these are final version PODish review copies, then the quality of the proofreading is fair game.
That'd be the case if the copies were indeed non-final ARCs. If these are final version PODish review copies, then the quality of the proofreading is fair game.
34whitewavedarling
Was Pureheart an ARC? I only ask because a lot of the ER books I've gotten have been the final copy instead. Just curious...
35aethercowboy
It had a red stamp in the front that said something along the lines of it being for advanced review.
36StormRaven
I had to check, but on the inside front page mine had that too. However, the inadvertent punctuation errors and grammatical mistakes were a fairly minor part of the problem with the book. (Plus, the book is listed with not one, but two editors!)
The problems stem from the indended things like the nonstAndard CapitaLizaTion, and the terrible paragraph structure, and the Gruesome Scenes of DisMemberMent.
And the Awful Story.
You should get the idea.
The problems stem from the indended things like the nonstAndard CapitaLizaTion, and the terrible paragraph structure, and the Gruesome Scenes of DisMemberMent.
And the Awful Story.
You should get the idea.
37StormRaven
Bronwen Publishing has finally officially weighed in. Of course, they continue to lie their behind off. Here is the message they posted to my profile, once again violating the terms of the giveaway program, as you can see:
YOUR REVIEW WAS ABSOLUTELY POSTED ON AMAZON.COM, YOUR REAL NAME IS AARON *****, AND YOU PUT YOUR ENTIRE EMAIL ADDRESS ON THERE. SEVERAL PEOPLE NOW HAVE IT. YOUR REVIEW WAS SO BAD AMAZON TOOK IT OFF, AND THEY USUALLY NEVER DO THAT. SO THERE'S NO USE TRYING TO LIE AND SAY YOU NEVER PUT YOUR REVIEW ON THERE. WE HAVE A COPY OF IT, SIGNED BY YOU WITH YOUR AOL.COM EMAIL ADDRESS. NOW HOW DID WE GET THAT, DO YOU THINK? LIBRARY THING HAS FLAGGED IT, TOO. GOOD FOR THEM. NO MORE LIES AND SILLY, JUVENILE REVIEWS. IF YOU DON'T LIKE A BOOK, YOU DON'T LIKE IT. NO PROFESSIONAL REVIEWER WOULD DO WHAT YOU DID, ONLY AN AMATEUR REVIEWER. GROW UP!
First off, note that they can't seem to figure out how to not shout online, and apparently have some trouble with the proper use of the shift key. Second, note that they once again decided to hand out my actual name, though they aren't supposed to (I redacted my last name to post this here). They wonder how they got my aol e-mail address, but since I e-mailed the review directly to them at their request that should be obvious to anyone with two firing neurons. If, as they say, "several people now have" my review and e-mail address, they handed it to them.
I never put my review on Amazon. I have, in fact, never posted a review on Amazon. That much is fact. If anyone put it on Amazon, it had to be LibraryThing, which I seriouslly doubt, or Bronwen Publishing themselves, which seems silly. The persistence they have shown in keeping up with this transparent lie is pretty amazing. I also note that Bronwen Publishing doesn't seem to understand how the flagging system on LibraryThing works.
They didn't actually challenge the accuracy of my review - and the simple reason for that is that they cannot. Everything I said about the book is true. They resort to a vague and baseless claim that I have somehow lied and assert that my review of the awful garbage that they have printed is "juvenile". I leave it to the reader to evaluate who is actually "juvenile" here.
YOUR REVIEW WAS ABSOLUTELY POSTED ON AMAZON.COM, YOUR REAL NAME IS AARON *****, AND YOU PUT YOUR ENTIRE EMAIL ADDRESS ON THERE. SEVERAL PEOPLE NOW HAVE IT. YOUR REVIEW WAS SO BAD AMAZON TOOK IT OFF, AND THEY USUALLY NEVER DO THAT. SO THERE'S NO USE TRYING TO LIE AND SAY YOU NEVER PUT YOUR REVIEW ON THERE. WE HAVE A COPY OF IT, SIGNED BY YOU WITH YOUR AOL.COM EMAIL ADDRESS. NOW HOW DID WE GET THAT, DO YOU THINK? LIBRARY THING HAS FLAGGED IT, TOO. GOOD FOR THEM. NO MORE LIES AND SILLY, JUVENILE REVIEWS. IF YOU DON'T LIKE A BOOK, YOU DON'T LIKE IT. NO PROFESSIONAL REVIEWER WOULD DO WHAT YOU DID, ONLY AN AMATEUR REVIEWER. GROW UP!
First off, note that they can't seem to figure out how to not shout online, and apparently have some trouble with the proper use of the shift key. Second, note that they once again decided to hand out my actual name, though they aren't supposed to (I redacted my last name to post this here). They wonder how they got my aol e-mail address, but since I e-mailed the review directly to them at their request that should be obvious to anyone with two firing neurons. If, as they say, "several people now have" my review and e-mail address, they handed it to them.
I never put my review on Amazon. I have, in fact, never posted a review on Amazon. That much is fact. If anyone put it on Amazon, it had to be LibraryThing, which I seriouslly doubt, or Bronwen Publishing themselves, which seems silly. The persistence they have shown in keeping up with this transparent lie is pretty amazing. I also note that Bronwen Publishing doesn't seem to understand how the flagging system on LibraryThing works.
They didn't actually challenge the accuracy of my review - and the simple reason for that is that they cannot. Everything I said about the book is true. They resort to a vague and baseless claim that I have somehow lied and assert that my review of the awful garbage that they have printed is "juvenile". I leave it to the reader to evaluate who is actually "juvenile" here.
38keristars
Wow, that is just amazing. Was there anything that prompted the response other than, perhaps, the talk threads and the response to Isaacs on your profile and in the review?
Is it possible to inquire with Amazon if your review was ever posted there? I doubt that Bronwen Publishing would have done so, since it wasn't at all complimentary to the book (though it was a fun review to read), but if you could show where Amazon replied to you saying that the review was never there, Bronwen Publishing would have to admit that it broke the rules by disbursing your personal information. Though more likely, they would try to come up with another place it could have been posted publicly.
Is it possible to inquire with Amazon if your review was ever posted there? I doubt that Bronwen Publishing would have done so, since it wasn't at all complimentary to the book (though it was a fun review to read), but if you could show where Amazon replied to you saying that the review was never there, Bronwen Publishing would have to admit that it broke the rules by disbursing your personal information. Though more likely, they would try to come up with another place it could have been posted publicly.
39StormRaven
38: Good Idea. I've sent an e-mail to Amazon's customer service asking exactly that. Of course, Bronwen will never admit wrongdoing here, but their sleazy lies will be exposed for all to see.
40andyl
NO PROFESSIONAL REVIEWER WOULD DO WHAT YOU DID, ONLY AN AMATEUR REVIEWER. GROW UP!
So what! As far as I know StormRaven isn't a professional reviewer, nor am I, nor are most people who review here. If Bronwen Publishing only want their book reviewed by 'professional reviewers' then the answer is clear - only give the book to people they have paid off.
Incidentally I have read professionally published reviews that have totally trashed books (and plays, and food) before, and included material not directly included in the book or play, but related to the people involved, so I guess even that statement by Bronwen Publishing is false.
So what! As far as I know StormRaven isn't a professional reviewer, nor am I, nor are most people who review here. If Bronwen Publishing only want their book reviewed by 'professional reviewers' then the answer is clear - only give the book to people they have paid off.
Incidentally I have read professionally published reviews that have totally trashed books (and plays, and food) before, and included material not directly included in the book or play, but related to the people involved, so I guess even that statement by Bronwen Publishing is false.
41karen_o
WOW! Their (her) most recent message to you is utterly amazing in it's utter... childishness! This sounds like a teenager whose feeling have been hurt and she is just lashing out.
What unbelievably unprofessional behavior! I'm sort of stunned here...
What is this unflag power that I apparently have but don't know about? Someone tell me and I'll use it. (Don't mind wasting it since I didn't even know I had it.)
Oh, btw Storm, you now have 80 thumbs up.
What unbelievably unprofessional behavior! I'm sort of stunned here...
What is this unflag power that I apparently have but don't know about? Someone tell me and I'll use it. (Don't mind wasting it since I didn't even know I had it.)
Oh, btw Storm, you now have 80 thumbs up.
42aethercowboy
A note about Amazon.com reviews: You can control both your display name and whether or not other members have access to your e-mail. So, I'm assuming that if you DID use Amazon.com to post reviews, you would be smart enough to make yourself as anonymous as you do other places.
43bluesalamanders
And someone professional would end an e-mail with "grow up!", clearly.
44StormRaven
41: You can click on the flag button of a review that's been flagged and hit a "hey, this flag is totally unfair!" button and (if I remember correctly) that eliminates a flag. I can't remember if you can only do that with your own reviews, or any review. You can only do it once per review as far as I know.
45CKmtl
I wish we were able to view past MG listings... if she listed it with an explicit request for reviews, then all of this caterwauling from her and Isaacs about "if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything!!!eleventy1" is exponentially more stupid.
46EricCGibson
I remember their listing clearly. It was right above mine for awhile. They did request reviews.
47StormRaven
45, 46: Plus, there is the letter they included with the book they sent to me - which I quoted.
48lilithcat
> 46
I thought that that was pretty much the point of a publisher/author listing their books in the Member Giveaway section!
I thought that that was pretty much the point of a publisher/author listing their books in the Member Giveaway section!
49EricCGibson
>48 lilithcat: Exactly. Nowhere does it state that the reviews must be positive.
:-)
Writers need to learn how to use critiques and improve their style. I thought that was the whole point?
:-)
Writers need to learn how to use critiques and improve their style. I thought that was the whole point?
50cmbohn
Just jumping in to say that I have been following this thread just because I read the review and thought it was extremely funny. What impresses me, StormRaven, is that most people would have given up and quietly steamed about what happened. By making the whole process public and open, the rest of us are learning what to do if we face this kind of abuse. So thanks, both for the laughs and for the honesty.
51StormRaven
I decided to ask Amazon to confirm that my review was never posted to their site. I sent this inquiry to Amazon customer service:
A publishing company has been distributing my personal information. When contacted, they said they got my personal information from a review they allege I posted on Amazon (and that they allege was subsequently removed from the site). The only trouble is, I have never posted any reviews of any kind on Amazon. Is there any way to check and see if there is any record of a review posted for the book Pureheart published by Bronwen Publishing under my name? I know I didn't post a review for that book here, but I would like confirmation from your office in order to combat their claims that I did.
I got this response (links removed for convenience):
Thank you for contacting Amazon.com.
I apologize for the inconvenience. I did search our reviews and I do not find any reviews submitted by this account.
Should you need any further assistance from us, please use this link to write back to us:
(Link removed)
I hope this helps.
Please let us know if this e-mail resolved your question:
(Links removed)
Please note: this e-mail was sent from an address that cannot accept incoming e-mail.
To contact us about an unrelated issue, please visit the Help section of our web site.
Best regards,
Patric
Amazon.com
We're Building Earth's Most Customer-Centric Company
So now they have been caught by their lies. It seems pretty obvious that they have been caught handing out my personal information, and then making up a transparent lie. I have sent this information to Tim and Abby. We'll see what develops.
A publishing company has been distributing my personal information. When contacted, they said they got my personal information from a review they allege I posted on Amazon (and that they allege was subsequently removed from the site). The only trouble is, I have never posted any reviews of any kind on Amazon. Is there any way to check and see if there is any record of a review posted for the book Pureheart published by Bronwen Publishing under my name? I know I didn't post a review for that book here, but I would like confirmation from your office in order to combat their claims that I did.
I got this response (links removed for convenience):
Thank you for contacting Amazon.com.
I apologize for the inconvenience. I did search our reviews and I do not find any reviews submitted by this account.
Should you need any further assistance from us, please use this link to write back to us:
(Link removed)
I hope this helps.
Please let us know if this e-mail resolved your question:
(Links removed)
Please note: this e-mail was sent from an address that cannot accept incoming e-mail.
To contact us about an unrelated issue, please visit the Help section of our web site.
Best regards,
Patric
Amazon.com
We're Building Earth's Most Customer-Centric Company
So now they have been caught by their lies. It seems pretty obvious that they have been caught handing out my personal information, and then making up a transparent lie. I have sent this information to Tim and Abby. We'll see what develops.
52readingrebecca
Like cmbohn, just here to thank you for posting all this. I too have been following this thread, mostly with my mouth hanging open in amazement at the actions of those involved with Bronwen Publishing, but also have quite enjoyed the humor of your interview. I'm glad to see someone take positive action against such obvious abuse.
53riverwillow
Just wanted to add my thanks as I too have been following this thread with interest and a great deal of amusement at the extraordinary behaviour of those associated with this book.
54FicusFan
I tried to unflag your review, but it didn't work for me. I think because I already gave your review a thumbs up. Maybe only one entry per user ?
55StormRaven
I don't know. I rarely use the flag system one way or the other. I usually just give reviews a thumbs up if I like them. Most reviews that I have seen aren't violations of the TOS, so there's no reason to flag them.
56aethercowboy
Thank You Google Cache:
http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:TDfuWQNIhJwJ:covers.librarything.com/er/give...
(in response to past MG listings, that is)
http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:TDfuWQNIhJwJ:covers.librarything.com/er/give...
(in response to past MG listings, that is)
57NovelBookworm
I think that only the person who flagged it can "unflag" it. When I was really new here, I inadvertently flagged a post on a board, I even emailed Abby about how bad I felt that and could she remove it, and then...dumb me....I realized I could unflag it myself.
I'm just guessing that the Bronwen folks aren't interested in the least at unflagging your review. I suspect that you're pretty close to the "anti-christ" in their book!
I'm just guessing that the Bronwen folks aren't interested in the least at unflagging your review. I suspect that you're pretty close to the "anti-christ" in their book!
58StormRaven
57: I don't know if that's the way it works, you could be right. I do seem to remember "unflagging" a review before, but I might be mistaken.
59StormRaven
41: For the record, Rita Hsu is listed as being 60 years old, which makes the childish response from her (if you check their website, you can see that Bronwen Publishing and Rita Hsu are effectively the same entity) that much more amazing.
60mydomino1978
Perhaps she has entered a second childhood, at this time she may be sticking out her tongue and saying "nanny nanny boo boo".
I rarely give a great review, because there are a lot more bad books being published than great ones.
It is just an opinion, and unless all the opinions are the same, why should it matter to the author/publisher?
Speaking of bad books, have you noticed how many are SO predictable, poorly edited, poorly written.
When I do find a really good book I treasure my copy for life.
I rarely give a great review, because there are a lot more bad books being published than great ones.
It is just an opinion, and unless all the opinions are the same, why should it matter to the author/publisher?
Speaking of bad books, have you noticed how many are SO predictable, poorly edited, poorly written.
When I do find a really good book I treasure my copy for life.
61FicusFan
#57, No I have unflagged reviews that I haven't written before. But I also hadn't given the reviews a thumbs up.
62StormRaven
More bizarre stuff related to this whole affair:
A couple days ago, another member backtracked the identity of one of the people who gave PureHeart a glowing review, namely EnglishTeacherUSA. He determined that the review was attributable to an individual named "Stephen Lorio from PA", and that Lorio was not merely an English Teacher, but also had a small web hosting service, and Bronwen Publishing was one of his clients. His review was flagged on the basis of shilling for his client.
Today, his review has been rewritten (and the rating of the book dropped from five to three), and his profile changed. Now his name is listed as "Chris Harper", and he has added more books and a handful of capsule style reviews. He says his previous review he just copied from someone else. He says (in his current review):
"Now that i have time, I can write a review on this book. I got yelled at by the members here for not writing a review of my own. Sorry y'all. I was running out of time and copied that review from the amazon feature you have built in here on Library Thing.com . I figured another teacher's review would suffice until I got some time. It is "Finals" month here at the University, so there is much work to be done"
I'm not sure why he was "running out of time", or what the Amazon feature is that he is referring to. (Is there one? I have never gone looking for something like that, so I don't know). Why did he feel the need to post someone else's review as his own? I just don't understand this at all.
I note he still has some books tagged as "warm", which I really can't figure out.
A couple days ago, another member backtracked the identity of one of the people who gave PureHeart a glowing review, namely EnglishTeacherUSA. He determined that the review was attributable to an individual named "Stephen Lorio from PA", and that Lorio was not merely an English Teacher, but also had a small web hosting service, and Bronwen Publishing was one of his clients. His review was flagged on the basis of shilling for his client.
Today, his review has been rewritten (and the rating of the book dropped from five to three), and his profile changed. Now his name is listed as "Chris Harper", and he has added more books and a handful of capsule style reviews. He says his previous review he just copied from someone else. He says (in his current review):
"Now that i have time, I can write a review on this book. I got yelled at by the members here for not writing a review of my own. Sorry y'all. I was running out of time and copied that review from the amazon feature you have built in here on Library Thing.com . I figured another teacher's review would suffice until I got some time. It is "Finals" month here at the University, so there is much work to be done"
I'm not sure why he was "running out of time", or what the Amazon feature is that he is referring to. (Is there one? I have never gone looking for something like that, so I don't know). Why did he feel the need to post someone else's review as his own? I just don't understand this at all.
I note he still has some books tagged as "warm", which I really can't figure out.
63keristars
Perhaps by "amazon feature" he means the link at the top right on a work page to the Amazon page for the book?
I'm not familiar with other book sites, but do any of those have a feature that could be anything like what he described?
It's all very weird. I wonder what caused ETUSA to decide to change the review & info, what Bronwen Publishing is trying to get out of all this, other than the obvious (removal of bad publicity + book sales). They just seem so desperate to get rid of the bad reviews when the best course of action would probably have been to accept that the book was bad, learn from the reviews how to improve for next time, and move on with life.
I'm not familiar with other book sites, but do any of those have a feature that could be anything like what he described?
It's all very weird. I wonder what caused ETUSA to decide to change the review & info, what Bronwen Publishing is trying to get out of all this, other than the obvious (removal of bad publicity + book sales). They just seem so desperate to get rid of the bad reviews when the best course of action would probably have been to accept that the book was bad, learn from the reviews how to improve for next time, and move on with life.
64ejj1955
I went to take a look at Bronwen Publishing's website. I thought it was pretty funny that under the tab for "Books" there are three listed, two already published and one forthcoming, all by Rita Hsu Syers; under the "Authors" tab, there is one author listed--guess who?; under "What's New," five upcoming books are listed, but no authors are identified. Could they all be by--gasp, gasp, Rita herself?
Unlike most (dare I say, legitimate) publishing companies, there is no information on the website about how to submit books to them for publication.
Unlike most (dare I say, legitimate) publishing companies, there is no information on the website about how to submit books to them for publication.
65aethercowboy
>62 StormRaven:.
S. Lorio's review was the only one on Amazon.com for a while until I reposted mine (for the record, mine was first, then taken down, then reposted, then bowdlerized {by amazon}, and then edited {by me} to fit within their mysterious TOS).
I haven't checked, but if you look at ALL the reviews, mine is side by side with his (Best Praise and Most Critical, irrespectively). And mine had 16/19 thumbs up.
S. Lorio's review was the only one on Amazon.com for a while until I reposted mine (for the record, mine was first, then taken down, then reposted, then bowdlerized {by amazon}, and then edited {by me} to fit within their mysterious TOS).
I haven't checked, but if you look at ALL the reviews, mine is side by side with his (Best Praise and Most Critical, irrespectively). And mine had 16/19 thumbs up.
66aethercowboy
Also, for your enjoyment...
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dpqhrrb_126d5k9dqdz
I present to you PurrHeart, a work in progress.
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dpqhrrb_126d5k9dqdz
I present to you PurrHeart, a work in progress.
67ejj1955
>66 aethercowboy: Thanks; that was so much better than trying to read the original.
70aethercowboy
>69 gwernin:. I'll get to it!
I was thinking of having an entire chapter devoted to it...
but I've said Too Much!
I was thinking of opening it up to co-authors. Is anybody interested?
I was thinking of having an entire chapter devoted to it...
but I've said Too Much!
I was thinking of opening it up to co-authors. Is anybody interested?
71elbakerone
#66 - Too funny and I only read the first few sentences! I'll come back when I have more time...
For now though, can everyone pop over and check out the 4 star review on Amazon? I quote:
"We have all read books on good versus evil, Angels vs. demons but Rita Hsu Syers puts a spin on the age old story of good vs. evil. In PureHeart it is not the humans fighting the evil demons it is a dog. yes you read correctly a dog named Jake. Rita Hsu Syers pulls you into the story from the very begining with the tail of how Jack's mother came to live in the little New York town and the powers Jack poseses. Jack's owner knows that he and his sister are special because they are born of a dog who was spaded. How can a dog who was spaded give birth to two dogs? Brownen (Jack's mother) shares with Jack that she was told by a voice that her pups were special one would be a healer the other a warrior and the fate of the world would placed on one of them. Jack knows it is him.
PureHeart is a must read for anyone who enjoys the age old battle of Good vs. Evil. PureHeart shows you that not only humans can save the world. "
But here's the best part.... Under comments:
"Thank you for your great review, B. Gale! Rita Hsu Syers "
You're kidding me!!! THAT was a great review????? I bit my tongue about the content of the post, but here's my two cents that I had to post under the comments as well:
"I'm curious why Ms. Syers considers this a "great review".
To quote: "In PureHeart it is not the humans fighting the evil demons it is a dog. yes you read correctly a dog named Jake." We have a lack of capitalization and an incorrect name of the main character. Then there's the "tail of Jack's mother" (I think the writer meant "tale" unless that's a clever pun) and the repeated use of "spaded" instead of "spayed".
Maybe I'm too picky but I think the review could use some work."
This just keeps getting better and better.
For now though, can everyone pop over and check out the 4 star review on Amazon? I quote:
"We have all read books on good versus evil, Angels vs. demons but Rita Hsu Syers puts a spin on the age old story of good vs. evil. In PureHeart it is not the humans fighting the evil demons it is a dog. yes you read correctly a dog named Jake. Rita Hsu Syers pulls you into the story from the very begining with the tail of how Jack's mother came to live in the little New York town and the powers Jack poseses. Jack's owner knows that he and his sister are special because they are born of a dog who was spaded. How can a dog who was spaded give birth to two dogs? Brownen (Jack's mother) shares with Jack that she was told by a voice that her pups were special one would be a healer the other a warrior and the fate of the world would placed on one of them. Jack knows it is him.
PureHeart is a must read for anyone who enjoys the age old battle of Good vs. Evil. PureHeart shows you that not only humans can save the world. "
But here's the best part.... Under comments:
"Thank you for your great review, B. Gale! Rita Hsu Syers "
You're kidding me!!! THAT was a great review????? I bit my tongue about the content of the post, but here's my two cents that I had to post under the comments as well:
"I'm curious why Ms. Syers considers this a "great review".
To quote: "In PureHeart it is not the humans fighting the evil demons it is a dog. yes you read correctly a dog named Jake." We have a lack of capitalization and an incorrect name of the main character. Then there's the "tail of Jack's mother" (I think the writer meant "tale" unless that's a clever pun) and the repeated use of "spaded" instead of "spayed".
Maybe I'm too picky but I think the review could use some work."
This just keeps getting better and better.
72christiguc
Is there any hint that B. Gale is a proxy for the publisher or author? If not, I think it might be a bit unkind to single out an innocent reviewer (irrespective of the reviewer's grammar or spelling or literary discernment) and bring them into the issue just because the author praised their review.
75ulfhjorr
>62 StormRaven:
I love it. Not only does this "English Teacher" love what is almost universally panned, but he finds plagiarism during finals an acceptable habit!
I love it. Not only does this "English Teacher" love what is almost universally panned, but he finds plagiarism during finals an acceptable habit!
