Smart Bitches Trashy Books | All of the romance, none of the bullshit.

I can’t say I entirely agree with Rich, though. I do think random smackdowns on librarians are unnecessary, and I’ve seen them now and again. But I don’t know that Klausner can hide behind her profession, or that being a librarian protects her from the consequences of her actions. Her reviews are often and largely inaccurate, they’re usually grammatical nightmares, and they frequently reveal the plot twists or surprise endings. Many an author has despaired of having the surprises revealed in a review, and I think, much like Rich, that most people even slightly in the “literary know” are aware that she has little credibility as a reviewer.

But the random person on Amazon would find avoiding Klausner’s reviews a challenge, much like dodging the wafting smell from the odoriferous person in the crowded subway. Eventually it permeates every space… and every review.

However, much as I enjoy a good bitch fight, the comments on the review I looked at for Pleasure Planet were more mean and condescending than merely answering Klausner’s flaws and fallacies with rebuttals. It begs the question - not one that a Smart Bitch often asks - do you win more flies with honey or with vinegar?

What’s the more effective way to reveal that Klausner is an inaccurate reviewer whose reviews really don’t have credibility and potentially hurt more sales than help them? To round up a posse of pissed off reviewers and nit pick her reviews for grammar mistakes, plot inaccuracies, and positive reviews for books that could have been a shit-ton of crapola? Or to point out review-by-review that she’s wrong?

The latter, more measured response would be impossible unless one read all the books she claims to have read, at least when it comes to calling her on her inaccurate reviews. And really, making a big pile of stink does attract the attention.

Librarian love aside, it’s about time someone called Klausner on her crap. The folks going after her posse-style ride just over the border of mean at times, but they do have a point. A very big, multi-review-spanning motherload of a point: Her reviews suck a big wang. And damn if these folks don’t have big cranky balls to pick them apart one by one. One comment by “A Reader” on her review for another book states that her review of Jodi Picoult’s new novel Nineteen Minutes was removed:

There was quite a discussion of that one going on in the comments. It was as meaningless as this one, and among the more glaring errors, the names of two major characters and THE AUTHOR were wrong! I know people were reporting it to Amazon. Maybe they’re finally wising up to this nonsense from the “number one reviewer” and she/they will now be held to the same standards as the rest of us mere mortals.

Most of the comments on Klausner’s recent reviews allege that she’s a “review bot” and not a real individual person but instead a team of people - who misuse idiomatic English and craft the most convoluted runon sentences known to mankind.  One critic, John Sollami, posits that, as she posted over 44 reviews on March 11, 2007, her texts are all from “overseas sources.” Amazon reviews outsourced overseas, much like tech support for Dell? Now that’s an interesting theory. I can’t see the reason why someone would want so badly to be the #1 reviewer - aside from media attention that’s a lot of trouble to go through for a measly icon on Amazon - unless someone is paying her on the side. I figure the truth is somewhere in the middle, and eventually she’ll be revealed or simply stop reviewing.

That said, someone is going to have a field day doing their dissertation on language analysis to determine if Klausner’s reviews are the work of a single person with a loose grasp of English grammar, or the output of a team of remedial writers working in tandem to achieve that elusive “#1 Reviewer” button on Amazon.com.