Harriet Haters

Lani Diane Rich alerted me to an anti- Harriet Klausner movement taking root on Amazon. According to Rich:

Basically, a group of very vocal people with apparently no lack of spare time are viciously ripping apart her reviews on Amazon in the review comments section. It’s highly bizarre, and not a little bit disturbing.

Not that they don’t have a point. She’s been known to post upwards of 40 reviews in a single day. I don’t care how much your soul is worth to Satan, no one reads that fast. So the contention that Harriet has a Dickensian house full of orphans chained to desks, feverishly penning poorly-worded reviews (I swear, I saw something of that nature posted up there, wish I could remember where) is an argument with some heft. If you take out the orphans. As the frequent victim of drive-by Harriet reviews, I know she’s inaccurate to the point of my sometimes wondering if she’s perhaps confused my book with someone else’s. But here’s where I’m coming from:

People are upset that she’s the all-powerful #1 reviewer on Amazon. I contend that no one really takes her seriously, anyway. Plus, the last time I checked, all online purveyors (not just Amazon) represented something like 4% of the book-buying market; she doesn’t have that much power. Really.

People are upset that she’s lying, and I understand that. No one reads that fast.

Also, she’s in her fifties. I heard she had a stroke. She used to be a librarian. I don’t care what she does, unless she ran over your dog, then backed up to run over him again, people really should just leave her alone. There’s a very special hell for people who beat up librarians. And it involves Celine Dion albums. People should be more careful with that shit.

40 reviews a day? Damn, if being a Smart Bitch was a full time job and my entire day was reading and reviewing romance novels? I still don’t think I could swing 40 per day.

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. 

Comments are Closed

  1. Kat says:

    Harriet irks me, but, on the whole, I don’t really care. I do notice, though, when her reviews are quoted in book promos or blurbs. Then I lose just a little bit of respect for that book.

  2. Lani says:

    Oooohhhh. First to comment. I love fresh snow.

    A couple of clarifications…

    It occurred to me after I wrote to you that while she’s been known to post 40+ reviews in a day, I don’t think she writes 40 in a day. She just posts them. Still, even if she posts 40+ reviews once a week, we’re still talking major freakazoid territory here. My theory is that she doesn’t read the book; she reads the back cover copy, skims the first and last chapters, and then wings it from there.

    Which is wrpng. I agree. I just don’t think it warrants the vitriol it’s inspiring.

    Second, I was mostly kidding about not picking on librarians. I don’t think people should leave her alone because she’s a librarian. I just think there’s no call to be that vicious to a woman who didn’t kill anyone’s dog. I used to be really bugged by her, too, but then I heard that she’d had a stroke, and I felt mean and petty getting riled up about it. She’s just a lady out there trying to do something with her time. Who cares if she’s cheating her way to the #1 Amazon Reviewer spot? What is taking her down in such a public and vicious manner going to do for anyone? There are battles worth fighting, and there are times when grace is the better part of valor. If her big moment in the sun is being the #1 Amazon Reviewer, hell, let her have it. She’s not hurting anyone, least of all the authors she reviews. I highly doubt I’ve gained or lost a sale because Harriet Klausner got my hero’s name wrong.

    Sometimes, you look the other way, not because you’re not right, but because kindness matters more. I won’t argue that she’s not full of crap, I just don’t think it’s becoming to body tackle the librarian. And I stand by that.

  3. Lani says:

    I wrote: “Which is wrpng.”

    Of course, that was supposed to be, “Which is wrong.” My apologies. Continue on.

  4. Madd says:

    I can read 20 books in a week max, that’s not counting weekends because I rarely get any reading done on weekends, and I couldn’t even imagine that many reviews.

  5. Amy E says:

    I’m a freaky-fast speed reader, too.  I typically read a book every night between my kids’ bedtime at 9pm and mine at 11.  That being said, there’s no way I could write reviews of that many books a week.  Yeah, she’s more fullashit than the only outhouse in Backwater County, and I dread the day she hits my vampire books on Amazon.  (Damn that Time article for telling me that her ambition is to read all the vampire books ever written!)

  6. Natalie says:

    Klausner’s been at it for years—she used to post multiple reviews a day on a number of different listservs; I recall a giant flamewar on DOROTHY-L about 9 years ago over whether or not she was one person or a conglomerate—the argument that she’s not just one person isn’t new.  The overseas outsourcing is, however, a new twist.

    It’s disrespectful to both the writers and readers of the books in question to turn out such a shoddy product for what seem to be such self-serving goals. She claims to love books and sharing her love of books with other people.  If she really does, why can’t she be bothered to actually read the books in question?  Why the 10+ year emphasis on quantity over quality?

  7. Mrs. Belle says:

    I can read fast as well, but there is no way that I can work, read, raise a family, and write a review.

    Also, you almost always catch more flies with honey.  Some need to be slapped and reminded that they want the damn honey, but once they get it, they forget why they were ornery.

    Wait, what was I talking about…

  8. Lesley says:

    I haven’t taken part in any Harriet bashing on the forums, but when I see one of her reviews I mark them as unhelpful – because they’re unhelpful.

    I’ve never seen a review of hers that was less than 4 stars, and quite often (if you’re familiar with the authors work) you can tell that she hasn’t read the book.

    When I read Amazon reviews I’m looking for a balanced review of the book – this is what worked, this is what didn’t, this is one for the fans – etc. If she’s going to give a book a great review, regardless of whether the book is worth reading then her reviews aren’t helpful.

  9. Ciara says:

    I first started reading romance books about 2 years ago. Alas I knew nothing about Harriet Klausner and bought quite a few books on her recommendation. Needless to say quite a lot of her 5 stars reads were rubbish.

    Have since learned to avoid her reviews (like the plague), however what about other novices to the romance genre.

    I don’t know if it’s fair to say that the reviews are lies, but her reviews are more an advertisement for a book rather than a fair and honest critique.

  10. Nora Roberts says:

    I stopped reading Harriet’s reviews of my books (and others) a long time ago because banging my head on the desk causes a weird ringing in my ears.

    Her inaccuracies and spoilers irritate and frustrate, and while I wish—oh, I wish—she’d stop, this gang-banging on her gives me the icks. It feels like a mob kicking an over-eager puppy.

    And damn it, I don’t WANT to feel sorry for Harriet. I LIKE being irritated by her. So now I wish the mob would stop.

    On another note, why—I always wonder—does anyone want to catch flies?

  11. Charlene says:

    On another note, why—I always wonder—does anyone want to catch flies?

    Ask Willie Mays.

  12. SB Sarah says:

    I think part of what has this group riled up – and this is after a reading of their comments on her most recent reviews – is the appearance of Something Fishy between Klausner, Amazon, and the Publishing Powers that Be. Her reviews are almost always five stars and are posted the day of a book’s release – though other reviews that are offered to Amazon don’t go live for a few days after “editorial review.”

    Moreover, her reviews are never called into question or removed by Amazon unless they are egregiously and blatantly wrong and awful – her review of Picoult’s newest novel for example – and it takes a major amount of negative comments and reporting to have her reviews addressed by Amazon.

    I think that the people attacking her believe firmly that they’re not attacking a “real person” but an invented person who is actually a team of writers of varying abilities. Kind of like bashing V.C. Andrews. It’s not “really” a person. It’s a committee. Hence the free-flowing vitriol.

    Personally, I put my hand on the screen and try to avoid her reviews when I’m book shopping because she gives away the ending and I hate hate hate that.

  13. Lani says:

    Nora wrote:
    Her inaccuracies and spoilers irritate and frustrate, and while I wish—oh, I wish—she’d stop, this gang-banging on her gives me the icks. It feels like a mob kicking an over-eager puppy.

    Exactly. The more I thought about what I’ve said about it, the more I realized that none of my reasons were really the reason it bothered me. She’s in her fifties – who cares? I know women in their sixties and seventies who could take on the Harriet mob and leave them huddled and weeping in their wake. She’s a librarian – well, librarians can be stupid, too, and have as much a right to a solid ass-kicking as anyone else. I just have a soft spot for librarians. She had a stroke – well, that may be rumor. She writes like she had a stroke; I can easily see someone jumping to a conclusion and me receiving false information.

    But what Nora said is exactly it – it just gives me the icks. And I don’t think the punishment is fitting the crime. By all means, mark her reviews as unhelpful. They are, oh, they are. But the vicious attacks? It’s just mean-spirited.

  14. I just wonder who are these people that they have this kind of nastiness and time?  And yes, I think we’d all much prefer that she doesn’t review our books.  Maybe we should ask our publishers not send them.  But as authors we don’t have any control over who reviews the books, and these trolls are making it look like it’s some sort of Harriet-author conspiracy.  Trust me, that is SO not the case.

  15. SB Sarah says:

    I don’t think that there’s any supposition of an author/Klausner conspiracy. The allegations I’ve read have been Klausner/Amazon, or Klausner/publishing marketing depts.

  16. Well, that’s even funnier.  The publisher marketing departments aren’t NEARLY organized enough to be involved in a conspiracy.  lol.

  17. Kalen Hughes says:

    I must admit that I’ve never really read an HK review before. And I’ll be damned if I don’t totally get the rabid anti-HK pack’s point. I don’t care enough to get involved, but my brain hurts after reading just two reviews. Urgh.

    This is what I have to look forward to. *le sigh*

  18. Larissa Ione says:

    Yes, Harriet’s reviews are so full of errors that they are laughable…which should be proof that there is no Harriet/publisher/author conspiracy. Who in the world would want the novel’s details to be mangled for a four or five star review?

  19. Jeanette says:

    Even in The Netherlands we know Harriet and we don’t care about her reviews.
    Me, I have a list of authors that are autobuys (love you Nora) and I would buy books from those authors even is they just re-write the telephonebook.
    I don’t even take the reviews from Romantic Times Book Reviews serious.
    Most books are a hit because you know what you buy and sometimes you buy a stinker. Hé, thats life !

    And Lani and the others who share her opinion. I think your great.
    And I have great respect for the things you say and the way you say it.
    Chapeau ladies !

  20. This is so weird. So I read this post yesterday and though, “You know, I’m not going to chime in. I don’t want to trash Harriet because well, you know, she’s old and has had a stroke, and trashing is only fun when you do it with your sister over martinis and youre talking about old boyfriends.”

    And then…I’m on the phone this fine spring morn with my crit partner and she says, “Have you seen that great review by Harriet on Amazon?”

    “What review?” I ask.

    “Your book, stupid!” My cp is mean, but in a good way. “MOON SHADOW!”

    So I flip on the computer and there is a HK review of MOON SHADOW, my most recent release, and it’s great!

    So I’ve found religion. Or karma. Or something. See, I thought about trashing the old gal, and I didn’t, and what do I get for my great effort? A very nice review!

    (Of course I didn’t check the spelling of the review, but at least she got the names of my characters right—that’s nto always the case with her!)

    SWAK,
    Lucinda

  21. JoAnn Ross says:

    Wow, I had no idea this controversy had even started up again until Alesia mentioned it!

    I’m with Nora.  There’s just an icky, mean girl mob aspect to beating up on someone who, despite all those inaccuracies and migraine-causing spoilers, in the great scheme of all that’s happening in the world, is pretty harmless.

    Kat, authors very seldom get to choose what goes on our books or in the advertising copy. In a perfect world, all my covers would have Oprah instructing her legions to BUY THIS BOOK!!!  NOW!!!  lol

    And the idea of a marketing conspiracy cracks me up.  Either the people suggesting that have never worked with a publisher’s marketing department, or they also believe Harriet was the second gunman on that grassy knoll.  And is single-handedly responsible for global warming.

  22. Nora Roberts says:

    Believe me, I can’t see any publisher or their marketing and publicity departments boxing up arcs with the cry: Get these to HK, men! We need those mangled, spoiler-filled, inaccurate five-star reviews, stat!!

    I’d say she’s on the reviewer list—and it’s as simple (and perhaps unfortunate) as that.

    I took a few minutes and went over and read some of the comments on some of her reviews. (Still protecting my eyes and nervous system from the reviews themselves.) Jeez! Yeah, definitely mean, however accurate some of them might be. But they also struck me as over the top in many cases. And written by some who enjoyed trashing genre books along with HK. People, it was claimed, should be reading Dickens and GWTW, etc, not romance and vampire books.

    So it’s baby, bathwater and the whole tub getting tossed out.

    Anyway.

    Hi, JoAnn, long time no see!

  23. Harriet’s reviews are often misspelled, odd to the point of head-scratching, but I’d rather have her review up than some of the trash-talkers who delight in ripping books to shreds just because of something they disagreed with. 

    However, for some self-appointed Reviewer Posse to go around stalking her on Amazon, acting like they’re the gods’ gift to critics, is beyond the pale.  Their comments are so nasty it leads me to wonder just how screwed up their lives are, to make them so angry. 

    It’s just a shopping site, folks!  It’s online, not your local bookstore.  It’s one person writing reviews—who gives a damn?  Unless, of course, somebody’s miffed they don’t have the #1 reviewer label, which is rather pathetic to think about.

    And I don’t notice them going after the really NASTY inaccurate reviewers. 

    Harriet’s misspelled my character names, left words out of sentences, and missed the point on some of the reviews she’s given my books, yes.  But I’ve never seen ehr belittle anyone the way her stalker posse has, and that’s rather telling of character.

    Yasmine

  24. Flo says:

    I’m of the mind, when I see her reviews, that the book isn’t as good as I was hoping it would be.  If HK is reading it and smacking a review up then it just might not interest me.

    I know, I know, I shouldn’t let reviewers influence me but it’s true.  I see blurbs like “Like Anita Blake: Vampire Hunter!” and I steer clear.  I read reviews by Klausner and suddenly the book is less appealing.

    And that could hurt the author.

    I guess people just want some honesty instead of feeling like they are being fed bullshit by a person.  Which is understandable.

  25. “I guess people just want some honesty instead of feeling like they are being fed bullshit by a person.  Which is understandable.”

    I think we all feel that way, Flo, about news, about movies, about anything.  Trouble is, all reviews are subjective—all reviews are based on the reviewer’s bias and therefore, none can be truly objective and clear.  One person’s masterpiece is another person’s trash.

  26. JoAnn Ross says:

    Hey Nora, it has been a while. . . BAM in Birmingham last spring, I think. 

    As for the HK stalker reviewer posse —and wow, I just checked, and you’re right, some of them are vicious!— perhaps they need to get a life.  Or better yet, curl up with a nice genre book.

  27. Vivi Anna says:

    Why is it such a big deal?  Are we not all allowed our opinions?  And as far as I know you can post an opinion on Amazon about a book.  It seems everyone is wasting a ton of energy on something that is clearly insignificant.

  28. LesleyW says:

    “Trouble is, all reviews are subjective—all reviews are based on the reviewer’s bias and therefore, none can be truly objective and clear.  One person’s masterpiece is another person’s trash.”

    I think the trick is to try and find a reviewer whose views mesh with your own.

  29. LesleyW says:

    “Why is it such a big deal?  Are we not all allowed our opinions?  And as far as I know you can post an opinion on Amazon about a book.”

    I don’t think it’s a big deal, more an annoyance, like the splinter in your finger you just can’t seem to get out, or the dripping tap you can’t turn off no matter HOW tightly you turn it. For some people the annoyance gets so much that they just crack – hence the backlash.

    The only problem I have is that people may be buying based on her reviews, and as someone has pointed out, they are more (sometimes inaccurate) summaries with spoilers.

  30. Jeanette says:

    I write reviews on RN in The Netherlands. I never write a review about a book I did not read. Of course not ! But I also never write about a book I don’t like.
    I think a reviewer has to realise what the impact of a bad review can be.
    The problem is that I am the only one in The Netherlands and Belgium with a Dutch review website on English Romance Novels. Weird but true. And people believe what I write and that gives a person some power and you have to be very carefull with power. But they also read between the lines. I am a big fan of Nora and my Dutch websites has a lot of information about her books and even about Dutch translations. So if I do not write about one of her new books (as I did not do about the Circle Trilogy) they just know that I did not like it.
    But I refuse to trash it. Who am I to do that? Show some respect for an author!
    I think its my duty as a reviewer of romance novels to get people to read and love the genre. Not to chase them away.

    I hope Harriet stays. I don’t care what she writes. I just hope she doesn’t hurt people and that people stop hurting her.

  31. Robin says:

    However, for some self-appointed Reviewer Posse to go around stalking her on Amazon, acting like they’re the gods’ gift to critics, is beyond the pale.  Their comments are so nasty it leads me to wonder just how screwed up their lives are, to make them so angry.

    I wonder that about a lot of what goes on these days in Internet interactions.  Seriously.  Because the Klausner-killers are so concentrated and their target so seemingly benign, it’s easier to identify, but I think there’s a lot of road-rage type stuff that goes on in exchanges that similarly don’t seem to warrant it. 

    In my experience, when people are honestly offended by something they view as important, they express that outrage or offense differently than what comes across in those Klausner-comments.  I can see many reasons to be offended at what Klausner represents of genre fiction “reviewing”—sloppy craftsmanship, absence of critical evaluation, obliviousness to accuracy—but if you really care about all that stuff, are those the comments you’re going to make?  Like those folks are making genre fiction look *better* via those bilious streams?

  32. Yasmine says:

    ” think there’s a lot of road-rage type stuff that goes on in exchanges that similarly don’t seem to warrant it…”

    Robin, I totally agree.  I’ve noticed I’m getting so weary of dealing with things on the net because of the rudeness I see.  I’ve met a lot of wonderful people—readers, friends, other authors—on the net and I’m very grateful for those opportunities, but I’ve also seen so much anger and crudeness.  I’ve been cyberstalked in the past, my work’s been trashed on blogs (and I’m not just talking a balanced review—I mean trashed)…I’ve seen other authors torn apart. 

    And it goes beyond the writing community—it’s net-wide.  Even on fun forums, I’ve seen a lot of carnage.

    People can by anonymous on the net, they can act out their aggression without getting called on it—without ramifications.  And some do.

    It makes me want to retreat sometimes.  I have no problem with speaking my mind, but I DO have a problem with vicious attacks and flamewars.  I don’t know if anything can be done about it, but the whole issue’s disillusioned me a lot about how thin the veneer of civility actually can be with some folks.

    Yasmine

  33. Help! I’ve been Klausnered!

    So Harriet just posted a great review on Amazon about my latest release, MOON SHADOW (which has been getting great reviews everywhere, including RT—so don’t avoid it just because she liked it!) ((See my earlier post for now-regretted smugness…)

    Now people are slamming her review by slamming my book! Wait! My book is collateral damage! I don’t think the gal reviewing the review (???) even READ my book!

    Just in case you can’t hear it, I am laughing. I’m laughing so hard that tears are running down my face. Theyre going to jam my keyboard. Maybe soon I’ll be abke to write a review of the review of the review!

    SWAK,
    Lucinda

  34. Robin says:

    I’ve been cyberstalked in the past, my work’s been trashed on blogs (and I’m not just talking a balanced review—I mean trashed)…I’ve seen other authors torn apart.

    It happens between readers, too, Yasmine.  I’m sure anonymity has *something* to do with it, but you don’t see every angry or frustrated person letting loose on the Internet (and seriously, would most of it seem more palatable delivered face to face?).  I don’t know what’s up with all the boil-overs, but a lot of it looks to me like plain old-fashioned bullying, especially when it’s persistent. I’ve seen a number of people say that they’re hesitant about commenting on blogs, etc. because they don’t want to subject themselves to ridicule and mean comments.  And that’s really too bad, IMO, because I’d love to see more reader involvement in these venues.  I don’t even see it as a honey/vinegar dilemma, because we all have a slightly different palate, and lots of people have a taste for good, strong vinegar.  For me, at least, it’s the side of hostility that creates the sour note.

  35. Candy says:

    I’ve been pondering this issue for a little bit, and I was trying to discern the difference between what the United Pedants Against Harriet Klausner (UPAHK) do and what Sarah and I do here, because really, their core message is the same: DUDE, YOUR WRITING SSSSUCKS. And near as I can tell, the primary difference is the focus. Sarah is a much kinder reviewer than I am, just because I’m snarlier in general, but when we want to rip something apart, we attempt to focus on the writing, and avoid personalizing the review by saying things like “Darling, THIS is what you’re doing wrong, and every time we see you jam together three sentences without clarifying ANY of the antecedents, Baby Ganesh weeps tiny tears of sorrow into his wee trunk.” The target of the vitriol is shifted, but the vitriol is still there, and the core message is the same. So it’s hard for me to piss all over the UPAHK.

    Plus, y’know, they’re right. They’re incredibly unkind, but I agree with their message, even if their methods make me wince a little.

    Ultimately, this has all the makings of a tempest in a teapot. I agree: who cares about what HK does? But if HK doesn’t matter, then why should we give a shit about what UPAHK does? Let God sort ‘em out, sez I.

    Now, on to addressing some specific comments:

    And I don’t notice them going after the really NASTY inaccurate reviewers.

    Is there a reviewer who posts mostly negative reviews who’s a) as unrelentingly awful in their writing, b) as consistently wrong, and c) as ubiquitous and prolific? I can’t think of any, off the top of my head.

    I think its my duty as a reviewer of romance novels to get people to read and love the genre. Not to chase them away.

    Interesting. I really, really disagree, not because I don’t think it’s important to show people why we love what we do, but because your mission statement covers only half of what I want to do. As a reviewer I think it’s my duty to share my honest opinion of the books I read, and that includes talking about the shitty books as well as the gems. There’s not anything wrong with your approach, as long as you’re up-front about your stated intent (and it sounds like you are), but Sarah and I chose the method we did for a few reasons, and chief among them is this: it’s every bit as important to warn people away from the terrible books as it is to point people to the classics of the genre. If nothing else, it helps save ‘em some money.

    But beyond that, there’s another issue, one that gets brought up every time this argument rears its head from the briny depths of the Internet Tubes: If we do nothing but talk up how awesome the genre is and review only the books we like, odds are high that people will look at the preponderance of positivity, read the book, find that they disagree with it and assume that we’re uncritical boobs who enjoy drek. A multiplicity of opinion is a good thing, as is unflinching critical examination, whatever form that critical examination may take.

  36. Candy says:

    Also, I forgot to answer this question:

    On another note, why—I always wonder—does anyone want to catch flies?

    So we can kill ‘em, of course. Honey, besides being sweet, has the added advantage of stickiness, therefore slowing the flies down.

    But screw honey and vinegar—nothing gets flies like a rotting corpse.

    (Internet interactions make SO MUCH SENSE when you view things through that lens.)

  37. Robin says:

    Candy:  there’s another difference, IMO, which has to do with *intent*.  When someone gets authentically pissed off about something that matters to them, and they can discern the difference between what they’re pissed off about and everything else that might pop up before their eyes, it creates a whole different ranting vibe. 

    This is a particularly interesting conversation along side today’s RTB post, in which Barbara Samuel wonders aloud why more readers don’t take the RITA seriously.  Comparisons between the RITA and the Oscars and the Pulitzer are being forwarded.  At least no one’s proposed the Nobel prize in literature yet, else my head might explode right there online.

  38. Candy says:

    Robin: You have a point. UPAHK’s method of dismantling the book being reviewed alongside Harriet’s reviews is counter-productive and completely beside the point.

    And people are comparing the RITA to the Pulitzer. Seriously? What. The. Fuck.

    Though comparisons to the Oscars might be apropos—overwrought drek is nominated and wins all the time. Witness Titanic and Forrest Gump.

    I don’t take the RITAs seriously because by and large, it doesn’t award excellence in writing, it awards popularity. And it’s not that I’m equating “What Candy Likes” as some sort of measure of excellence, because I’m capable of distinguishing what I like vs. what I think is good. The Stone Diaries deserved the Pulitzer, even though I loathe it with a measured passion. Most of the books that win at the RITAs, though? I enjoyed Worth Any Price much more than I did The Stone Diaries, but it didn’t deserve to win anything, because it was a slapdash piece of work.

  39. Robin says:

    I don’t take the RITAs seriously because by and large, it doesn’t award excellence in writing, it awards popularity.

    I’m waiting to be flayed over at RTB for making the long version of this point.

    IMO, until the Romance community welcomes critique of craftsmanship as one of its cultural values, “excellence” won’t have much meaning when it comes to evaluating outstanding contributions to the genre.  And unfortunately, Samuel made the Pulitzer comparison.  That readers don’t take the RITA seriously isn’t, IMO, the worst thing in the world, even if it doesn’t reflect a universal desire for better written books.

  40. Candy says:

    Robin, I’m actually working on a post about this. I’m pondering why I take the Booker, the Pulitzer, the Hugo and the Nebula seriously, but not the RITA. All these prizes have been awarded to some mediocre works and some outright clunkers, but none as consistently as the RITA, where the motto for the vast majority of the winners seems to be “Hi, we’re mostly competent. Mostly.”

Comments are closed.

By posting a comment, you consent to have your personally identifiable information collected and used in accordance with our privacy policy.

↑ Back to Top