stop smoking crack
| Or pass it around so I can see things too! Share people! hee sorry... anywho the great and powerful fi posted about this so I had to go read the shit. And I have to agree with fi, which is odd cuz I tend to agree with Alison Kent's posts. Oh Look Amazon... again The review is dumb. But it is an AMAZON review, which are more often than NOT dumb. So whatever. Does it trash a book, author or publisher? I don't see it. If an editor would take that as a dig or trash of said editor, I would say editor needs a thicker skin and new job. Maybe I am not reading enough into the review but I think the line in question is: "Some may rush out and buy it, and any author who can convince her publisher to run with this deserves the income." ok AND? Sounds more like an author getting her knickers in a twist over a writer (psuedowriterwannabe) doing a bad amazon review because I can't for the life of me figure out why it deserved attention. Uh so here is more attention... I do have to say I agree with alison in theory but this review doesn't trash any editor or publisher. And really the comments just make authors look silly, cliquish and petty. Could just be me... |
posted by sybil
at
2:10:00 PM
Nope, it's not just you. It's every other reader who is not an aspring writer. I thought Alison Kent's post was accurate and LeBrecque's response was funny but it is the comments by the authors that are killing me. Remember the comments made in support of MJD and Monica . . . I can't remember her last name . . .post. It seems to me that authors are going to support other authors right to speak out against readers, bloggers and reviewers but not the right of authors to speak out against others within their own genre.
By
Anonymous, at 7/18/2006 12:57:00 PM
Well, I don't know about you but I would like a little more traffic on my blog so I'm going to go write some flaming reviews on Amazon then kick my feet back and wait for the uprising...
By
Kerri Wall, at 7/18/2006 01:09:00 PM
Sounds more like an author getting her knickers in a twist over a writer (psuedowriterwannabe) doing a bad amazon review because I can't for the life of me figure out why it deserved attention.
I dunno, I dont think the author made a big deal out of it. She posted it and poked fun at the reader. Nothing wrong with that. It was all the damn fangirls in the comments that was annoying. Yet, again, the reason I dont hang out at author blogs.
By
Anonymous, at 7/18/2006 03:34:00 PM
No, it's not just you. I agree with your view, but then again I'm a Sybil fangirl.
By
Devon, at 7/18/2006 03:56:00 PM
Not sure what the twist is but I thought Jennifer had a great attitude about it--very tongue in cheek (and dare I say, classy?)
By
Amie Stuart, at 7/18/2006 04:33:00 PM
A Sybil fangirl I am! Squeeeeeeeeeeee!
By
Kerri Wall, at 7/18/2006 05:16:00 PM
Ugh. It's enough to make me switch genres, I swear. LaBrecque's response was wonderful and classy. It should have ended there. Enough with the babyish whining and jostling for position for the "most supportive of other writers" award.
(Praying George Lucas doesn't show up at my door. I've said some pretty nasty things about him over the last few years. Oh wait, right...he's a grownup with better things to do than whine about somebody not respecting his efforts and blah blah blah.)
Everybody's tastes are different, and some books deserve to get savaged. Trust me. I've read them.
By
Stacia, at 7/18/2006 06:48:00 PM
I agree that the authors post wasn't bad and she has right to post about anything she wants.
And she did seem to have a good view on it but I still question posting it. Why? To put the reviewer in her place? To show she isn't the type of author to get pissed off about a bad review?
I don't know the whole thing just seems weird but like jay that is a big reason I don't go to many author blogs.
Even so I didn't see the post itself as bad but the comments are, at least some of them.
And the whole if you have nothing nice to say don't say it thing makes my head want to explode.
By
sybil, at 7/18/2006 07:52:00 PM
I'm amazed by the whole if you don't have anything nice to say comments, as their very own comments aren't all that nice.
Practice what you preach. Since the original review wasn't "nice" it opens it up to a feeding frenzy. Not quite taking their own advice
If you find yourself googling a reviewer for dirt it's time to take a step back and a deep breath as you're officially a rabid fangirl.
I'm starting to think authors really do see readers as the enemy.
By
Tara Marie, at 7/19/2006 01:28:00 PM
My take on it: the fuss was astonishment that the reviewer was foolish enough to use her real name, as she currently has a manuscript being reviewed by LaBrecque's editor and publishing house. Publically insulting the people you are trying to get to publish you isn't the brightest idea.
By
Anonymous, at 7/19/2006 06:18:00 PM
Tara, I promise you we all don't think that way. Not by a long shot.
By
Stacia, at 7/19/2006 06:31:00 PM
Wrong, Laura. The reviewer used an initial, last name & her state. That she used her real name is a myth put out by the people who started this whole witch hunt. There's no effin' way to connect J Wallace with the person these people say it is. How many people with that initial & last name are in the Tennessee phone book for chrissakes?
Trust me, Brenda Chin doesn't sit in her office all day ferreting out bad reviewers. The only way she knows anything about the reviewer's identity is cause some asshats figured it out & told her.
Who figured it out & how? Who would know both the reviewer & the author? RWA members. Specifically people who are in MCRW and GRW. Did they do it? I don't know but they're the short list of people who would be in a position to out the reviewer.
That's effin' evil in my book.
By
Anonymous, at 7/19/2006 06:42:00 PM
According to Google Phonebook there are 441 J Wallaces in Tennessee.
Always here to help!
Fiona
By
Kerri Wall, at 7/19/2006 07:53:00 PM
Is wallace the same chick who posted on the eharl board and started a big to do aka same as this one? If so that is prolly how she was 'outted' by a google and a guess.
I forget the players in that mess and am too lazy to go look but I am pretty sure I read about it on Kent's blog.
I think the only real problem here is the public witch hunt.
I am sorry, people will google you. I google myself all the time because I want to know what can be found, more so when looking for a job. I could stop posting on the internet but other than that, every time you post you run the risk of shit.
The review wasn't trashing but yes was bad... so yes the author was gonna look into it. I can think of MAYBE two authors I know of who don't stalk their amazon pages.
If I was a writer I would. And I would have a yahoo group or something with a group of people I felt I could go cry to saying look at what some whore said about me. We could all pat my back, call her a bastard and hate her. And get on with life... the public display and then sitting back wide eyed going 'gosh look what she did to herself' is what is nasty (I think).
That she could be back balled or left out of some sewing circle because of this sucks but isn't shocking. All in all it makes the authors going tsk tsk look worse than the reviewer. And I say that thinking the review was stupid as shit, the scene not horrid, disgusting, a dig at the gay or funny and the amount of time authors spend thinking about amazon reviews amazing.
By
sybil, at 7/20/2006 02:37:00 AM
No there's nothing from Wallace on the Harlequin boards. That was a different scandal. This started from her RWA "friends".
A little crossreferencing is a beautiful thang.
Look at the list of members here.
http://www.mcrw.com/members.htm
Then here.
http://www.georgiaromancewriters.org/PubbedMembers.php
And finally here.
http://www.southernmagic.org/members.html
Then look at the names of the commenters to labreque's blog.
http://jenniferlabrecque.com/wp/280/i-swear-i-didnt-pay-her
See a few names in common?
For extra credit go to the authors web pages & look at their photos.
By
Anonymous, at 7/20/2006 11:01:00 AM
All in all it makes the authors going tsk tsk look worse than the reviewer.
And, once again they don't get it.
By
Tara Marie, at 7/20/2006 12:38:00 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home