Monday, February 14, 2011

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.:)



No comments:

Post a Comment