Monday, February 14, 2011

In Conclusion

I want to restate that this is not someone being mean. I noticed that the original lj account had been taken off, so I posted archives of the original blog.

I am not doing this in order to be malicious. This is purely for archival purposes as well as to show new authors what they shouldn't do when faced with negative criticism.

Candace Sams: The Other Review



The Candace Sams Affair: The archived version (OUTTAKE),

While most of the attention went to L.B. Taylor's review, the other 1 star review at the time by PBB went largely ignored by Sams  and others. While you can still see the remarks on there, I'm archiving this just in case it gets deleted in the future

5 of 6 people found the following review helpful
Uninteresting and mean spirited. BAD
October 31, 2009
I bought this book because I thought it would be fun and have a unique twist. It wasn't and didn't. The plot was very predictable and the characters routine and the contest a Mr. Universe type with talent added. The only unique thing about the guy was he was 7 foot tall and light green who turned dark green when he got upset - which supposedly he never did because he was so controlled. Ha! He kept turning green every 50 pages it seemed. That was it. That was the big alien difference. And the book was mean spirited. During the pageant one contestant was very thin, but although for his planet he was “considered at the height of fashion.” His posing thong fell down in the pose-off (and why didn't Sams explain how this stuff works for her readers who don't know the world of this type of contest?) and then he tripped trying to get off stage and had to half crawl off.  “What was visible before he disappeared wasn't worth mentioning; the Pleidian's package wasn't nothing to write home about.”  Everyone laughed. The next contestant was heavy and again, the end result was the being's humiliation and laughter. So in this book we laugh at fat guys and thin guys. Sheesh. And, if the contest was really about ‘Mr. Interstellar,’  then why wasn't there anything out of the ordinary for the contestants to do? But the worst of this book was the villain. He cuts out one of his testicles with a dirty knife and it becomes septic. Does this make you gag? It did me and then he goes around ill and psychotic for most of the book. This is a galaxy civilization and they don't know about antibiotics and sterile procedures? Right. Nothing in this book was fun, light hearted or a scientific fantasy. Bad, bad, bad. I will not be reading any more of Sams.

Initial post: Nov 29, 2009 4:43 PM
Niteflyr One  says:
This, apparently, is another 'hit-and-run' brand new reviewer who likes to take the power offered by Amazon and trash titles they cannot write themselves. As only one 'other' reviewer offering opinions about this book, they wanted the title to read 'their' way and when it didn't they made the comments they did. It might behoove them to understand that all romances will not read they way they think they should; romances should 'not' be cookie-cutters of one another. This has been the biggest complaint about romance on the whole - that they all sound alike. Apparently 'some' reviewers 'want' them to sound alike. When they don't, they aren't able to handle the material.
0 of 4 people think this post adds to the discussion.

In reply to an earlier post  on Dec 13, 2009 8:05 PM PST
Ridley  says:
Candace Sams Can't Handle Criticism. Take 2.


In reply to an earlier post on Dec 13, 2009 8:38 PM
Niteflyr One says:
If it makes you feel better to think that, sweetheart, then you think whatever you need to.

Candace Sams Archive #11 (Ending)


The Candace Sams Affair: The Archived Version (Part 11) THE FINALE!!!
For all whom are curious, this is a word for word posting of everything that was said during the Candace Sams affair on amazon. I altered none of what was said. The only things I changed were some html that had been attatched to the word document that had come from the amazon page. (And I took that out because it was bloody hard to post here on lj.)

I bear no ill will towards the author. This was not posted in order to either boost or lower her sales. This is here to educate writers, both new & veteran on how not to respond to a negative review.

And this is it folks. The last entry where Sams supposedly posts or stops viewing the board. After this, her posts would slowly begin to be deleted off of the boards.

Posted on Dec 15, 2009 11:47 AM PST
  Alma Alexander says:
First Rule of Authorship: once you've written a book and it's out there... IT IS NO LONGER YOUR SOLE PROPERTY. People are entitled to like it or loathe it, as it pleases them. If they like it you may (at your discretion) say thank you. If they do not like it... let's put it this way. There is very little you can do to FORCE them to like it. And rising in defensive fury against somebody's negative opinion is seldom a useful tactic for an author to employ because it can - and usually does - backfire so spectacularly.

Oh, and as another author with some experience in the industry, one of the author's early comments:

""Those conversations were, on the whole, fraught with sophomoric comments blaming authors for all kinds of editorial decisions over which they have no or very little control (kissing scenes, cover content, love scenes, language, etc., etc., etc).""

Cover content, yes, I'll give you that. But in what universe does the author not have control over the LANGUAGE of a book?! Or over a kissing scene? (You may get an editorial opinion on that when you submit your MS - but a kissing scene is NOT something that is in the editor's. as opposed to the author's, control. Trust me on this.)

18 of 18 people think this post adds to the discussion.
________________________________________________________________________
In reply to an earlier post on Dec 15, 2009 12:09 PM PST
Last edited by the author 8 hours ago
  Ann T says:
Oh, man, I'm just wondering if you should be downloading all these pages. What will Amazon and the ""FBI"" say when they see the attacks and comments (cursing) you've made? The lights are on but nobody is home.

________________________________________________________________________
  Heather says:
Niteflyr,
I have never read this book (your book) but from your posts, I never will. I'm sure I would be a terrible author, doubt I'm a good reviewer either, but everyone, even two year olds are entitled to an opinion. L.B.'s opinion is your book blows. You can chalk it up to one or two bad reviews and accept that it's part of the business, or you can attack people who bothered to waste their time and money to read your book and come of looking like an arse, your choice.
Also, I wonder how your editor would feel about you blaming your book on them? They may have altered your material, but as you gave them the source material, they can hardly be blamed for your lack of skills

9 of 10 people think this post adds to the discussion.
________________________________________________________________________
Posted on Dec 15, 2009 1:31 PM PST
Last edited by the author 6 hours ago
  T says:
I don't even read romances, but this discussion has become a HUGE internet joke. The author has definitely caused an irreparable damage to her reputation.

6 of 7 people think this post adds to the discussion.
________________________________________________________________________

Posted on Dec 15, 2009 1:56 PM PST
  bgn says:
Niteflyr hasn't posted for awhile. I wonder if ""the FBI"" ordered her to stand down, or if her publishers (who don't know her number) contacted her editor (who hasn't been heard from for months) who then had the office staff (who at first told her to keep doing whatever she was doing) tell her that sales haven't spiked that much and the backlash has begun so it would be a good idea to end the madness.

Maybe she thought that as a published author she would be able to easily quash the 1 star review with her professional wordsmithing and when it didn't work she spiraled out of control. Sad.

10 of 11 people think this post adds to the discussion. ________________________________________________________________________
Posted on Dec 15, 2009 2:13 PM PST
  C. Daniels says:
At first, this was amusing. Then, it was sad. Every time one of us writes something here, it just provokes Sams to be her own weird breed of internet troll. I realize I'm provoking her more just by writing this, but I wouldn't be surprised if this was also a publicity stunt of some sort. There's no such thing bad press, right?

5 of 5 people think this post adds to the discussion.
________________________________________________________________________
Posted on Dec 15, 2009 3:17 PM PST
Last edited by the author 4 hours ago
  N. Brett says:
Niteflyr,

I would just like to apologise for also jumping in here to enjoy you making a fool of yourself over an honest review. Please don't report me to the FBI, I'm not from the US. Try Interpol, or maybe MI5.

Nick

10 of 10 people think this post adds to the discussion.
________________________________________________________________________
In reply to an earlier post on Dec 15, 2009 3:18 PM PST
  swarovski says:
To J. Myrna: You sound like kind of a jerk, actually. ""When I met an author whose work I disliked, I told her to her face.....that's what she gets for writing the garbage she writes."" Nice. And you seemed very happy and excited that you find this situation here--like a Junior High girl who rushes over to a fight because someone's getting beat up--you don't care who's getting hurt you just love it anyway.

Not sticking up for Niteflyer, but people like you make me depressed.

8 of 10 people think this post adds to the discussion.
________________________________________________________________________
In reply to an earlier post on Dec 15, 2009 3:55 PM PST
  J. Myrna says:
Swarovski,

There's no ""kind of"" about it -- I *am* a jerk. But just as I can live (happily) with the fact that I'm a bit of a sadist and a bit of a masochist, I can definitely live with being a jerk.

The particular author that I confronted writes bigoted, homophobic, and sexist novels that are published under the guise of ""romance."" If more people stood up to her about it, perhaps she wouldn't write it; or at least, her publishers might reconsider putting it out there for public consumption. I was quite proud to have stood up for what I believe to be right. Jerk I may be, but I do have some values that I hold dear.

As for enjoying this, make no mistake about it: I am, and wholeheartedly. The ""author"" was right when she mentioned ""trainwreck"" being inappropriate. It's not the best adjective. Supernova is more like it. Explosive, stunning, and a rare occurance. I've had a rough week, and watching morons can be fun. The only person actually getting hurt is ""Candace"" and she's doing it to herself. Everyone else is here to read it, to see what she's going to do/say next. Some of us just aren't ashamed to say that they're here to enjoy themselves.

People who are ashamed of their own natures, of what they really think and feel, just because it's not what they think they SHOULD think and feel, are what depress me. Cancer and chronic illnesses depress me. Children who are too poor to have presents depress me. Abuse depresses me. Those are things worthy of depression. One must keep their priorities straight -- or, rather, *I* must keep my priorities straight. I've seen enough truly horrible and depressing stuff in my life that I can take full enjoyment in the virtual.

Nick: *waving hi!* loves ya, baby.

C. Daniels: Let her dig her own hole. Life sucks; get your entertainment where you can.

7 of 9 people think this post adds to the discussion.
________________________________________________________________________
In reply to an earlier post on Dec 15, 2009 3:59 PM PST
  Tweedy says:
Swarovski,
That is a bit harsh. Let's rewind. Someone buys a book and posts a review, the author tries to defend the book and attack the critic from behind another name until she is outed. She then carries on digging her hole deeper and deeper, and these forums are in the public domain, so if somebody says ""you should look at this, an author is making herself more and more stupid with every comment"" then why shouldn't people visit? LB Taylor's 114/119 helpful vote suggests that people do not like it when an author goes on the attack when being told their book is a stinker.....

J Myrna has a view and she made it. Nothing depressing about that. If you want to really be depressed, you should probably read the book.....
Tweedy

7 of 7 people think this post adds to the discussion.
________________________________________________________________________
In reply to an earlier post on Dec 15, 2009 4:14 PM PST
Last edited by the author 4 hours ago
  K. Foreman says:
""And you seemed very happy and excited that you find this situation here--like a Junior High girl who rushes over to a fight because someone's getting beat up--you don't care who's getting hurt you just love it anyway.""

This is nothing like watching someone get beat up, this is more like watching someone beating themselves up. I feel bad for her if she's really having a nervous breakdown but I think it's more likely that she's incredibly full of herself and has no idea how she rude she is to those around her. I enjoy watching people like that eventually choke on their own bile.

 5 of 5 people think this post adds to the discussion. ________________________________________________________________________
In reply to an earlier post on Dec 15, 2009 4:30 PM PST
Last edited by the author 3 hours ago
 swarovski says:
To J. Myrna: I read your post and I really do apologize. The writer whose books you didn't like--I didn't know the background context.
And I apologize anyway. I really can't tell what you're like from two posts and what I said was a little stupid. You have a kind of blunt style but it's easy to read far too much into that.

And I agree with you--about ""priorities"" :)

________________________________________________________________________

 PolarisDiB says:
Ms. Klausner also, clearly, does not actually read the books she reviews.

--DiB

4 of 4 people think this post adds to the discussion. ________________________________________________________________________
In reply to an earlier post on Dec 15, 2009 4:36 PM PST
Last edited by the author 3 hours ago
 J. Myrna says:
Swarovski,

You rock! :D

Seriously, you think this is bad? When I wrote a negative review for her book, her friends and family eventually managed to get it removed, even though it didn't violate any terms. I had to re-write the review, and be a little... nicer... about how awful it was. I've read some bad books, but never such blatant propogation of negative stereotypes. *shiver*

Edited to add: by bad I meant what the author was trying to do -- the behavior of this author is MUCH worse than anything that happened with the book I reviewed. THIS author hasn't figured out how to manipulate the system yet; or she doesn't have many friends and family willing to go to bat for her. *evil grin*

4 of 4 people think this post adds to the discussion. ________________________________________________________________________
In reply to an earlier post on Dec 15, 2009 4:39 PM PST
 J. Myrna says:
PolarisDiB,

Please tell me that you're an Invader Zim fan?
________________________________________________________________________

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 15, 2009 4:41 PM PST
 Anne Marie says:
""I didn't ask any of you over here.""

Amazon.com isn't your living room. You don't get to invite people or control the guests.
10 of 10 people think this post adds to the discussion. ________________________________________________________________________

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 15, 2009 5:21 PM PST
 Michael Z. Williamson says:
Dude (or dudette), Harriet ""reviews"" 60 books a day. Do you think she actually reads any of them?

I actually prefer when she doesn't review mine. I prefer useful criticism rather than a summary of the blurb and a freebie 5 stars.

2 of 2 people think this post adds to the discussion. ________________________________________________________________________
In reply to an earlier post on Dec 15, 2009 5:26 PM PST
 Michael Z. Williamson says:
Niteflyr: No one in this business gives a damn what Amazon reviewers think, or any reviewers. Sales are what matters to a publisher, nothing more. They're well aware that Amazon reviewers are rank amateurs, often have an ax to grind, and have many other issues. Some offer useful input--I found the OP review useful. Some merely rant.

3 of 3 people think this post adds to the discussion.
________________________________________________________________________
In reply to an earlier post on Dec 15, 2009 5:27 PM PST
 Michael Z. Williamson says:
Speaking of people who can dish it out but not take it...this is getting entertaining:)

1 of 1 people think this post adds to the discussion. ________________________________________________________________________

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 15, 2009 5:34 PM PST
 Michael Z. Williamson says:
Ms Sams said: ""For some time now, I've been getting messages from more equitable reviewers, agents and editors that this person (Taylor) was 'known' in the industry for having some very angry, almost hateful opinions""

Hah. If this were true, then you'd have nothing to worry about, because a ""known"" bad reviewer wouldn't hurt you. Contrast this with your previous claim that bad reviews convince a publisher not to renew contracts. So which is it? The publishing industry has nothing better to do than log into Amazon and see how readers react to books? And then tell the author what to write, or else drop them? I'm wondering which publishing universe this is, because it's not the one I've earned a living in the last decade.

I need some popcorn. This gets more amusing the more I read.

3 of 3 people think this post adds to the discussion. ________________________________________________________________________
In reply to an earlier post on Dec 15, 2009 6:25 PM PST
 Michael Z. Williamson says:
30 novels? Amazon shows 6. 8 if you count Kindle editions. By comparison (as of today), I have 6 with Baen through Simon and Schuster, 3 with HarperCollins, 3 more contracted, stories in several anthologies, regular articles in magazines with readership over a million. If you count HC, PB, electronic, foreign, book club and limited editions separately, I believe I have 35 editions of my work. So I hope I meet the standards by which you will consider me a professional.

I'm also curious as to your Kung Fu titles, as a practitioner myself. I haven't heard of them and Google gives nothing on either title. I'm passingly familiar with the US Kung Fu Team, which is a franchise of schools. Regarding your background in law enforcement, you might consider using those experiences and write books along those themes. There's a decent market for them--I make my living from that market. If you like, I have friends in the TX LE community who read that market, and can offer feedback. You might know some of them.

I don't mind 1 star reviews myself, if they offer useful criticism. Even if I disagree with the criticism, if I see repeated complaints, it means I need to adjust my writing to fit my readership--the best book in the world is no good if it has no audience. As to drive by 1 stars--I get them. Sometimes they're one sentence and it's obvious the poster didn't read the book at all, nor even the cover blurb. There's not a lot to be done about that, except to ignore them.

This thread, however, is becoming epic.

1 of 1 people think this post adds to the discussion. ________________________________________________________________________
In reply to an earlier post on Dec 15, 2009 6:32 PM PST
 Michael Z. Williamson says:
Swarovski: Harriet's been clocked at 60 reviews A DAY. You can buy entire crates of the ARCs she's ""reviewed"" online. She does exist, and she does post the reviews. But I'd be amazed if she actually reads one book in a hundred.
________________________________________________________________________
John Green says:
Klausner's record is 90 reviews in one day.

Hey- wasn't this supposed to be about Candace Sams...? Where'd she go?

2 of 2 people think this post adds to the discussion. ________________________________________________________________________
In reply to an earlier post on Dec 15, 2009 6:58 PM PST
 Michael Z. Williamson says:
You know, if she actually has ""minions,"" maybe it would be best not to antagonize her.

You've seen those movies where someone has minions, right?

Hopefully she doesn't have ""henchmen"" or ""ninjas.""

2 of 2 people think this post adds to the discussion. ________________________________________________________________________
In reply to an earlier post on Dec 15, 2009 7:06 PM PST
 J. Myrna says:
John,

That can't be right. I'm sure 've seen over 100 reviews appear in one day. Tweedy and Nick would know. I'm fairly sure it was well over 100, too.

3 of 3 people think this post adds to the discussion. ________________________________________________________________________
In reply to an earlier post on Dec 15, 2009 7:09 PM PST
 John Green says:
Yikes! Well, that just adds fuel to the fire that she's farming this stuff out. Hm- wonder if she's hiring...?

2 of 2 people think this post adds to the discussion.
________________________________________________________________________
In reply to an earlier post on Dec 15, 2009 7:26 PM PST
 Michael Z. Williamson says:
Eon: Want to take bets on if she was actually a cop?

She doesn't seem to know much about investigation procedures, proper documentation and evidentiary rules, or even ""don't tell the perp you're surveilling him and calling for backup.""

Maybe she delivered coffee to a police station once.

Yeah, I'm being mean. I'm also compensating because I can't compete with the brilliance of this meme. I may go start an article on Encyclopedia Dramatica, though.
________________________________________________________________________

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 15, 2009 7:26 PM PST
 J. Myrna says:
John,

Where's Ghost when you need him? Oh, that's right -- Amazon banned him again. *sigh* I'm thinking it was somewhere around 109 or 110 or something. I think she has several different staff, since the style of the ""reviews"" consistently changes.

1 of 1 people think this post adds to the discussion.
________________________________________________________________________
In reply to an earlier post on Dec 15, 2009 7:33 PM PST
 Michael Z. Williamson says:
At least 100? Or over 9000?

Hey, I think we're seeing the birth of a new internet meme here.:)



Candace Sams Archive #10


The Candace Sams Affair: The Archived Version (Part 10),
For all whom are curious, this is a word for word posting of everything that was said during the Candace Sams affair on amazon. I altered none of what was said. The only things I changed were some html that had been attatched to the word document that had come from the amazon page. (And I took that out because it was bloody hard to post here on lj.)

I bear no ill will towards the author. This was not posted in order to either boost or lower her sales. This is here to educate writers, both new & veteran on how not to respond to a negative review.

 E. Ambrose says:
After reading all 16 pages of this public thread I find that I have a few things to say.

First, to L.B. Taylor: I think that your review would be improved a bit if you could be a little more specific about how the lead characters were dull and boring to you (if you can do so without giving all the plot away). Other than that small detail, I cannot think of anything that begs for a response. I also applaud your decision to not participate in an unproductive debate.

To Niteflyr One: I would like to thank you for providing me with several pages of amusement, free of charge. In these difficult economic times, I cannot help but appreciate those who save me money and entertain me at the same time. I suspect that this will be a gift that keeps on giving for some time as you seem rather prone to circular logic and ranting. Perhaps you will consider turning your vitriolic pen to a more profitable venture at some point. Until then, I thank you for the free entertainment.

To Niteflyr's editor (should they ever read this): You deserve a raise. Editing is a tough, thankless job at times. :)

17 of 17 people think this post adds to the discussion.
________________________________________________________________________
In reply to an earlier post on Dec 15, 2009 7:11 AM PST
 nightsmusic says:
I have, unfortunately for me, read every word you've written here. Throughout the entire debacle you've caused. As I said, YOU are the one who brought this on, no one else. This is a PUBLIC forum which you can't seem to understand as you've pointed out time and again, ""it's yours"" when in fact, it is not ""yours"", it's Amazon's. Public. Anyone can post.

Public.

And again, had you handled your complaint about the review, with the reviewer, via email, none of this would have happened. Evidently, you feel terrible press is better than none at all. If you'd been smart, you'd have not responded regarding the review at all...

I rest my case.

16 of 16 people think this post adds to the discussion.
________________________________________________________________________

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 15, 2009 7:38 AM PST
Last edited by the author 12 hours ago
 Niteflyr One says:

Okay guys...I've just downloaded all the comments made on this site as per the FBI's instructions...I don't care if you believe it or not. The threat wasn't made on this site...please read what I wrote...it was sent elsewhere. And I don't care if you believe that, either.
5 of 30 people think this post adds to the discussion.
________________________________________________________________________

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 15, 2009 7:42 AM PST
 T. Whitsett says:
Actually, if the editor IS to blame for a book's low review, then maybe you need a new editor? I'm sure there are plenty out there.

12 of 12 people think this post adds to the discussion.
________________________________________________________________________

Posted on Dec 15, 2009 8:21 AM PST
 E. White says:
I know the good people at Amazon are having good laugh at the author's expense, whose main argument seems to be ""I know you are but what am I"" insults.

9 of 10 people think this post adds to the discussion.
________________________________________________________________________

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 15, 2009 8:34 AM PST
  T. Whitsett says:
The original review was published on 11/8/09. Ms. Sams' response was on 11/29/09 - that's 3 weeks. The OP came back on 12/7/09, bringing it to just about one full month. And in the 8 days since, Ms. Sams has repeatedly maligned the OP and everyone else who has posted since then by name-calling, ridicule, and just plain meanness.

The first few responses by Ms. Sams suggests that reviewers post ""professional"" reviews. I have seen many reviews for a lot of different products, especially books. I am an amateur at best when it comes to writing reviews. However, in reading a review, regardless of who wrote or posted it, I look for a few key points: a synopsis of the product (in this case, a book), whether the author of the review liked it or not, and reasons for their opinion. The OP had all of those. I suspect those are probably the same criteria that ""professional"" reviewers go by when writing their reviews.

Ms. Sams- I am sorry that you feel you were attacked by an OP who had ""something against the author"" of the book in question. Truly, I am.

But why would you continue to call people names (referring to us as ""minions"", calling us cowards, etc.) after complaining that a review wasn't ""professional""?

For the record, I have no idea who LB Taylor is, or who any of the other posters on this thread are (although I do recognize some names), nor do I have anything to gain by posting. I *DO* recognize the name Candace Sams, and I think I might have read something by you in an anthology, but I'm not certain. I can assure you that I will be keeping an eye out for your name again, and will post whatever review I feel is appropriate for anything I read by you.

20 of 20 people think this post adds to the discussion. ________________________________________________________________________

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 15, 2009 8:58 AM PST
  bgn says:
""It was not an outside matter for masses who then invited someone over who could not control herself. As I've said...someone else took their emotions to extreme and a very unfortunate message was sent to someone not even involved with any of this posting.""

""Okay guys...I've just downloaded all the comments made on this site as per the FBI's instructions...I don't care if you believe it or not. The threat wasn't made on this site...please read what I wrote...it was sent elsewhere. And I don't care if you believe that, either.""

No, I don't believe it. If a threat really was made, that is wrong. But I'm skeptical, and I don't understand why comments from this site are relevant if the post was elsewhere. Vague and confusing and sounds like a scare tactic so you can get out of the mess you made. All you have to do is stop posting.

16 of 16 people think this post adds to the discussion.
________________________________________________________________________

Posted on Dec 15, 2009 9:47 AM PST
  S. McGee says:
Just to get the full disclosure out of the way first, I do not know who LBTaylor is. A friend directed me to this discussion.
Why am I here? That's a question that Ms. Sams has on her mind a lot about anyone choosing to engage in this debate. I'm a professional writer (journalist for 25 years) with one book out and another book due out in June. I'm an active Amazon reviewer. Ergo, I'm curious about any kind of superheated debate between writer and reviewer, regardless of the nature of the book in question.

Thanks to the Internet, everything all of us write -- books, articles, comments, reviews -- is now open for scrutiny and comment. And that's as it should be -- what is the point of writing without an audience to read it? It's a two-way dialogue. Yeah, that's sometimes painful. Someone recently commented on a story I'd written, saying that it was the worst they had ever read on the subject. I would have loved to follow up their comment with one of my own showing that they had misunderstood the points I had made. Instead I went for a walk and then to a movie with a friend. Am I upset? Sure; it's not fun. But part of writing, especially these days, is criticism/feedback. Sometimes it's more constructive than others, which is great. When it's not, about the only dignified thing to do is walk away and trust to the good judgment of others who read a review. I do actively seek out negative reviews when I'm contemplating a book purchase, because sometimes they'll alert me to small things in the writing or plot that I know I won't like in the book itself. But I often end up buying or reading the book anyway. It's hard to imagine a single bad review killing a career, as you suggest in your earlier posts. (Where you were pointing out that poor Amazon reviews can kill sales.) In fact, some poor reviews of controversial books can draw attention to the book and generate more sales.

Ms. Sams, you mention that this is ""about a lot of folks not wanting anyone having a contrary opinion"". Not at all. I think it's fair for an author to point out if a reviewer has misunderstood the book, made inaccurate statements or otherwise to call someone to account on a substantive issue. The author has the right of reply, and the reviewer in turn has the right to debate substantive issues arising from the review. One of the joys of Amazon is the many disparate views and opinions on almost any topic I can think of. What I think many of us do object to (well, except as kind horrifying and hypnotic entertainment) is a tirade of abuse directed at anyone who dares to question an author or be less than laudatory about their book. What is the purpose of a review feature? Presumably, it's to share an honest opinion of the book. How are any of us serving Amazon readers, as reviewers, if we only say warm, fuzzy and supportive things? That's like letting your best friend buy a really unflattering suit to wear to a crucial job interview.

But it's possible to take a debate over a substantive issue waaaay too far, and this is one example. Particularly odd is the fact that it's a fight between you, Ms. Sams, and -- no one. Since LBTaylor, presumably, has better things to do with her time than engage in a slanging match, you've chosen to lambaste even those well-intentioned souls suggesting that you take some time out and blow off steam somewhere where it won't damage your career far more than a single one-star review would ever be capable of doing. Threats about turning us in en masse to the FBI? Wow. I'm sorry that you've received any private threatening e-mails -- and that would obviously be waaay out of bounds -- but I think most of those posting here have remained civil. If anything posted here would concern law enforcement, I would wonder whether it might not be your hyper-aggressive attitude to someone who had the temerity to criticize your book. If I were the reviewer, and cared enough to follow this thread, the last thing I would want to do is give you access to my e-mail address or any other identifying information. Because in this debate -- I can't speak to what is happening in the blogosphere, as I don't track many of those blogs -- there has been one person who has advanced an opinion in a reasonable (if not detailed enough for my taste) fashion, and defended it with an admirable degree of grace, and another who has ranted and raved indiscriminately at anyone choosing to weigh in on the debate she started. If, Ms. Sams, you wanted to keep this between you and the reviewer, this wasn't the way to do it.

Re book editing: you may have drawn a dud as an editor, of course. But as a few people on this site have mentioned, there are alternatives to this kind of public slander of that editor's efforts. You can work with them to make the book better; if you don't like a suggested change, the writer has the veto power. (Hey, you could even withdraw the book, repay the advance and move it to another publisher!) My editor on my current project didn't like my title idea; I didn't like his; we negotiated and found one that we could both live with (with the help of my agent.) While I don't know the romance publishing industry, I'm a bit stunned that any publisher would force changes on their writers to the extent that you suggest. Which begs the question of why you are still working with that publishing firm and editor?

Re Harriet Klausner. I'm pretty sure she's a real person. I'm sure she can speed read. But to call her reviews 'professional' is, simply, laughable. As others have mentioned, her plot synopses are so off-base as to be bizarre; she reveals spoilers too often for it to be accidental. Her writing is at best pedestrian, at worst full of spelling and grammatical errors and horrible syntax. She wouldn't last a week reviewing 'professionally', quite aside from the fact that she never met a book she didn't love. I know several authors who would probably pay her NOT to review their work, for those reasons. When I first encountered her reviews, I was puzzled that they were so badly written and yet she was so highly ranked. After I while, I realized that it was volume that propelled her to that ranking, and since I became an active reviewer about 18 months ago, I've realized that there's a whole ""Harriet controversy"" out there. I couldn't care less about that; I do care that you would hold up reviews that any 'professional' writer would never have authored as an exemplar of good reviewing. I can only assume that you define good and professional as positive and upbeat.

Nope, I'm not going to follow your suggestion and burn a copy of your book. It doesn't matter that much. And besides, in order to burn it, I'd have to buy it...

31 of 31 people think this post adds to the discussion.
________________________________________________________________________
In reply to an earlier post on Dec 15, 2009 10:22 AM PST
Last edited by the author 9 hours ago
  Niteflyr One says:

IC3 Complaint: I0912151247104142 has been issued from the Federal Govt.

If you're posting,your names are on a Federal report leading up to a threat that was made against me. The Feds wanted to know who everyone was...IC3 stands for Internet Crime. And I don't care, once again, if you believe a single word I say...no skin off my back...that's just how crazy I really am.

2 of 23 people think this post adds to the discussion.
________________________________________________________________________

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 15, 2009 10:27 AM PST
Last edited by the author 9 hours ago
  John Green says:
@S. McGee- your points are cogent and well thought-out. Unfortunately, you haven't said anything that hasn't already been stated here... and that's the problem.

We're all abetting Ms. Sams as she chooses to perpetuate this exercise in insanity for whatever her reason(s)- and I mean just that; the classic definition of insanity is repeating the same actions and expecting different results. To wit: Sams spews her diatribe at everyone who disagrees with or challenges her while we- in our train-wreck vicariousness (thank you, TOOL)- keep trying to bring it back to something resembling an actual discussion. As my grandmother told me: ""Argue with a fool, and soon no one can tell who's who.""

That said, I am withdrawing from this thing. I am ashamed to admit I wasted a good portion of my Monday tracking this mess; I miss my life and I'm going to reclaim it. I strongly urge everyone- including Ms. Sams- to do the same. Or at least do something a little more constructive, like downloading porn.
________________________________________________________________________

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 15, 2009 10:35 AM PST
  Eon says:
Good luck with that. Odds are that they'll laugh you off the face of the planet. One threat and some people pointing out your ridiculous behavior do NOT make a case for the FBI, as you'll find out soon enough. I've seen just what it takes to prove an internet crime and this? This isn't going to do it. They won't thank you for wasting their time.

I think you should listen to what S. McGee said above. Though I doubt you will.

9 of 9 people think this post adds to the discussion.
________________________________________________________________________

Posted on Dec 15, 2009 10:39 AM PST
  John Green says:
Dammit!!!- I knew this was gonna happen!

Niteflyr1: IC3 Complaint: I0912151247104142 has been issued with the Federal Govt.

This is allegedly in response to the threat she claimed was made against her. A quick look at the IC3 webpage reveals the following mission statement:
Since its inception, the IC3 has received complaints crossing the spectrum of cyber-crime matters, to include online fraud in its many forms including Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) matters, Computer Intrusions (hacking), Economic Espionage (Theft of Trade Secrets), Online Extortion, International Money Laundering, Identity Theft, and a growing list of Internet facilitated crimes.

While there's a smidge of wiggle room in there, it basically means that unless someone hacked her bank account, she either contacted the wrong agency (at the behest of the FBI?) or this is more crap. Yeah, I already said it, but I am really done with this mess!

16 of 16 people think this post adds to the discussion.
________________________________________________________________________

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 15, 2009 10:40 AM PST
  S. McGee says:
@ John Green, I'm right behind you at the exit; after a while, train wrecks just seem tragic. (I'm not even setting up the tracking feature on this one...) Besides, I've got some real paid writing to be getting on with or I'll miss deadlines. But having that dual perspective as a reviewer (dealer out of criticism) and writer (recipient of criticism) actually helped make me more irritated with the OP. Ergo, my 0.02...

11 of 11 people think this post adds to the discussion. ________________________________________________________________________
In reply to an earlier post on Dec 15, 2009 10:41 AM PST
  Niteflyr One says:

Oh...since I'm a cop...I doubt it...but whatever helps you get through the day.

2 of 20 people think this post adds to the discussion.
________________________________________________________________________

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 15, 2009 10:54 AM PST
  S. McGee says:
I don't think any comments I've made rise to the level of libel, much less anything that the FBI defines as Internet crime. So, not terribly concerned. Hmm, maybe this threat is a new form of 'libel chill'?

9 of 9 people think this post adds to the discussion.
________________________________________________________________________
In reply to an earlier post on Dec 15, 2009 11:01 AM PST
  Eon says:
Are? Or was? Your profile says ""former"".

So, what, you're going to abuse what power you have to get the FBI to do something about a ""crime"" like this one? I'm so impressed now.

11 of 11 people think this post adds to the discussion. ________________________________________________________________________
In reply to an earlier post on Dec 15, 2009 11:04 AM PST
  J. Myrna says:
Niteflyr,

Your original response to me would have been fine until you edited it. *tsk tsk* My ""threat"" as you choose to call it, is exactly what you claim that you've done in response to a ""threat"" from someone else. While it's deplorable that you've bothered the *snicker* FBI with your erroneous claims, I rest easy knowing that filing a complaint is as easy as entering some information onto a website. Hopefully they will see this foolishness for what it is.

As many people have said as well, I have no connection whatsoever to the reviewer (never heard of her until this). I haven't read about this on any blog. A friend directed me here because of the Harriet Klausner connection (which I'm not going to address because it distracts from the true artistry of this thread). I am not an author, nor am I an aspiring author. I do, however, have a blog that rags on bad romance covers and bad romance quotes -- self promotion here, please visit, it's a lot of fun and you can get the links through my profile or rottenromance. We have a lot of fun doing it, and we've become quite popular. :) Plus, I'm more than happy to carry on any discourse there, plus there's no risk of having your posts deleted!

It's terribly sad that you've taken a negative review so personally. It's clear from the 110+ reviews that L.B. Taylor has written, that she is NOT a ""hit and run"" reviewer. She HAS written negative reviews, just as I have. I doubt she's gone to the same levels that I have, quite frankly. When I met an author whose work I disliked, I told her *to her face* that I disliked her books, and why. I'm sure I hurt her feelings, but that's what she gets for writing the garbage that she writes. Heck, I correspond with one of my very favorite authors and I've made clear to her that I *despise* one of her books. I'll give both of them (especially the author I of the books I abhor) credit for carrying themselves with dignity and grace in the face of negativity. YOU had an opportunity to do that, and instead chose to attack a woman whose only crime was to dislike your book. Disproportionate, no?

You claim not to care what people think of you or your work, but your behavior is that of someone who cares *greatly.* The best way to show that you are disinterested is to *be* disinterested. That's not the case here. I would love to take this to my site, to give everyone free voice without the risk of censorship, but this is still a fine way to do it, at least until amazon steps in to delete things randomly.

I'd love to continue this more right now, but I have to go pick the kids UP from school. *sigh* Why does life have to interfere with the drama I'm trying to insinuate myself into??

18 of 20 people think this post adds to the discussion.
________________________________________________________________________
Posted on Dec 15, 2009 11:06 AM PST
  KindleVixenStarr says:
Wow, just wow. Good thing you couldn't care less if anyone buys your books...don't think you'll need to worry about that one. Get over yourself, you aren't Tolstoy. I don't believe much of what you said (the editor made me do it, etc) but I DO sincerely believe you don't give a sshtt about your readers. That is, at least, one point you managed to make quite effectively.

Although no one condones threatening behavior, certainly not me, I must say that if the FBI has the time and resources to devote to tracking down an errant author's Amazon critics/detractors, all the while reading through her - let us say 'less than amiable' rants/postings/name calling (illiterate? seriously?) etc., (over a book with the word 'Feller' in the title no less!)....than this Country is in much worse shape than even I imagined.

14 of 15 people think this post adds to the discussion.