












by SB Sarah • Saturday, May 24, 2008 at 01:45 AM
A friendly person from an online book group emailed me with some ire, though not directed at us (always nice!). Seems she’s teed off because earlier last week, the fourteenth installment of the Stephanie Plum series, which hits stores 17 June, had a three-star ranking on BN.com, with a large portion of the 29 individuals who read an advance copy discussing how disappointed they are in the latest Plum installment.
But as of Friday, there are 11 ratings, all of them four to five stars, with more than a few from people who slapped that puppy with a fiver merely to indicate how excited they are that the book is coming out, omg, wow!!!11! According to the person who contacted me, there were 30 reviews up on Tuesday 20 May. Wednesday 21 May there were 9. 2 more glowing reviews have been added since. 1 negative review was posted on Thursday 22 May and removed on Friday 23 May. Scroll through the reviews posted and look at the dates. They’re a jumbled mess, in no order whatsoever. Never seen that before.
BN.com is one of the few places where you can review a book online prior to its release date. Amazon.com’s listing for the book indicates a five-star rating as well, but there are no reviews of the book listed on the book’s page on Amazon. (Where are those stars coming from anyway?)
However, there is a customer discussion that is less than impressed with the book, which echoes discussions on Shelfari and on Powell’s.
Can I just say I am so absurdly amused by the “How can you hate this book you are a moronnnnnn!” shreiking that comes along like a sidecar of idiocy in threads like those? It’s like the creature opposite of the squeeing fangirl: the shrieking fangirl. How dare you dislike her favorite author! Fangirl powers, activate - form SHREIKING HARPY BANSHEE!
Which is why my eyebrow is raised at the email from the bookclub miss. On Monday, there were 29 comments. Today: only 11, all of them five stars, or four.
Google Cache powers, activate!
If I Google “Fearless fourteen boring” there are several results, including one that quotes Evanovich’s “Meet the Author” page, and one that references the following phrase: “Like many fans, I was willing to overlook that boring, poorly written book...”
Take a look. (note: popup window! Oh noes!)
If I Google that specific phrase, which appears to be a review quote for Fearless Fourteen, an identical excerpt shows up in the Google info but is nowhere to be found on the BN.com page.
Additional Google-fu provided by Jane revealed a negative review from “Tired” in the Google cache, but the active link for that page does not show the review.
There are several review texts that appear in the cache but not in the current BN page.
The hardcover isn’t the only page with disappearing reviews, either. The CD version also has a then/now version discrepancy revealed courtesy of The Cache of Google. Here’s the cache version showing 12 reviews, and here’s the current version of the page , which shows 11. Note the top review on the cached page - it’s no longer on the site, though I don’t see any options to remove your own reviews once they’ve been posted.
Obviously, it’s in BN’s best interest to have higher ranking books for sales purposes, but who gets to say which books have the negative and low-starred reviews removed prior to a book’s release? Who has that kind of power? The publisher? The author? BN.com? Based on what criteria are bad reviews removed from people who appear to have actually read the book, while reviews from people who are merely slapping the fiver out of anticipation are left active? And why is it some authors have negatives removed while other authors with not quite the same sales powers have to fight and beg to have spoiler reviews removed? What, in short, is up with that?










by SB Sarah • Monday, May 26, 2008 at 05:46 AM
What I find fascinating about the entire concept of disappearing negative reviews is that some, if not most, of the negative reviews, as I understand it, were written by members of a book club, an online group that exists and was founded based on a complete and utter adoration of all things Evanovich and Plum. According to one of the group’s founders, they are by invitation only, and they read all kinds of books, but a special amount of anticipation and attention is paid to the Plum series. They discuss the books before they come out, and if they get an ARC they pass it around to each member so they can all read and enjoy it. They love the series, they love the characters, and they love reading.
I can relate to that. I also got into a nice healthy “Nuh UH” debate with one of them about Morelli vs. Ranger. I can attest from my own interaction - these fans are some hard core lovers of this series.
So it’s all the more disappointing for them, not only that they didn’t like Fearless Fourteen but that their reviews which stated their opinions were removed from BN.com without explanation. It’s not like these are drive-by reviewers who flipped open the cover, maybe read the dust jacket, put it back and wrote a review, or even people who haven’t read the series who feel the need to trash the genre. Sure, that happens, but these folks, these are fans. Big fans. Huge fans. I bet the potential thread of Morelli v. Ranger goes on for hundreds and hundreds of comments.
So who better to discuss why and how they were disappointed? And whose opinions, for that matter, might carry a bit more weight than, “Omg I am SO ExCITeD?!!?11”? And thus, whose opinions are going to be deleted if, as they allege, their comments dropped the sales figures of the book for a time, only to have that elusive sales rank restored to a higher number once the negatives were removed?
Laurie Likes Books wrote back in 1997 her description of how a disappointing book makes her feel, and in her description quotes Jo Beverly. It’s marvelously apt, and a feeling I’ve totally had:
Sometimes I get frustrated when a book turns out to be a dud, and other times I feel morose. When the author is new to me, the feeling is usually frustration. When the author is a favorite, I either experience anger if I felt she wrote the book in her sleep, or sadness if she veered off in a direction I couldn’t follow. I’ve felt the anger with recent releases by Johanna Lindsey and Arnette Lamb. I’ve felt the sadness with Kimberley Cates. Some of you who wrote me experienced similar feelings. Author Jo Beverley wrote that my comments struck a chord with her.
“As a reader, I find really wonderful books rare, particularly since I became an author. We just get picky. So the ones that do work are particularly precious.
“When I have no high expectation of a book, or when one starts out okay and continues that way, I’m fine. I have a pleasant read (or not, and put it aside) and don’t suffer. But when it’s a book by a favorite author, and it just doesn’t work for me, or when it starts brilliantly and then peters out, I grieve. I grieve for the book that might have been, the one I almost had in my grasp, and the incredible reading pleasure I was looking forward to. It’s a loss of something almost real.
“I know the author has done her best, and no one can be brilliant all the time, but it hurts.”
Oh, that is so true. I have taken it very personally when a book series I’ve adored steered directly down the express lane to What The FucksVille. I imagine Anita Blake and Stephanie Plum holding hands and skipping down the frontage road as trucks labeled “Vampire Romance” and “Sweet Valley High” whiz by.
So here’s the part that I just shake my head over: to whomever took down the reviews, and to whomever decided to ask that they be removed: what the crap were you thinking? Do you honestly think that removing the opinions of fans who love the series and were seriously let down by the quality of the latest installment is going to get you anywhere in the long run? Lemme introduce you to the internet. There’s a lot of us out here, and we have opinions. We like to share them. And we will keep doing so.
The decision to remove negative reviews strikes me as so very, very shortsighted. For one thing, Evanovich is going to sell no matter what the reviews are, in my opinion, simply because there are enough auto-buys that will ignore the reviews or not even consider reading them and instead head directly to the bookstore. The series is popular enough that in the big, big picture, I honestly don’t think the reviews would have made much of a dent in the total sales. If anything, it might help. Consider it a corollary to the “Ben’s Wildflower Trainwreck Principle.” Some folks will buy it because they really, really wanna read it, and don’t care what the general consensus is. And some folks will buy it because they heard it was awful and wanna see for themselves. Hell, by the time #15 comes out, those same people will head to the bookstore, some because they hope for writing that restores what they consider the quality of the series, and some because they wouldn’t think of missing one, no matter how bad #14 was.
But nothing makes a fan more pissed than bad quality + rapid decline and shitsvilling of a series + being told her opinion doesn’t count or would be better kept to herself. It makes people want to start hot pink weblogs about romance, you know?













by SB Sarah • Tuesday, May 27, 2008 at 06:32 AM
I’m sure some of you are going to roll your eyes and be like, “Dude, Bitch, take a Xanax and let it go already.” Me? Like a terrier! A terrier with screen caps!
Behold, the reviews that were taken down, should you be interested in reviews of Fearless Fourteen that did, but now don’t, appear on your local BN.com. While some of the reviews delve into an area that makes me feel squidgy in which the writer presumes Evanovich’s motivation in writing Fearless Fourteen, most of them make perfectly adequate points as to why the reader/reviewer didn’t like the book. There are thirteen reviews in all below the fold, all in pop-up images.



by SB Sarah • Wednesday, July 23, 2008 at 05:40 AM
My grandmother, who passed away when I was 18, used to watch The Golden Girls with me all the time. I loved Estelle Getty like damn and whoa. I think I have a weakness for anyone who used to be a Catskills comedian, because I also rock a total crush on Fyvush Finkel like you have no idea.
Anyway, I can’t tell you how bummed I am that Getty passed away yesterday at 82. I used to picture Getty when I read the early Stephanie Plum novels as a sort of model for Grandma Mazur. For that reason, if you say the words “pesto” or “gumpy” to me, I will giggle like a fool.
ETA: Note to self - set the DVR for Friday, as Lifetime (which is normally “Television that Makes Sarah Screech") will air a Golden Girls marathon with the best of Sofia. I hope the pesto sauce makes it into the lineup.
Page 1 of 1 pages