Godwin’s Law

March 31st 2005 at 9:26 am

Beatrice.com links to a bit of an online spat between a reviewer and a small press publisher.

Here’s the rundown: online reviewer reviews book by small Christian press (after saying that they review small press books very critically). Very honest response follows. Publisher gets pissed. Demands the reviewer ‘act professionally’ by taking down critical review. Reviewer refuses, publisher compares reviewer to Nazis.

Godwin’s law states that whenever an online argument devolves to someone comparing someone else to a Nazi the argument is essentially over (it may continue flaming, but it’s essentially noise).

Snips:

Opening paragraph of the review:

Steph says:As a reviewer, I’m becoming something of a connoisseur of badness. There are many ways in which a book can be bad, you see: it can be poorly written, with clunky prose and bad pacing; it can be dragged down by uninteresting or badly rendered characters; it can be heavy-handed proselytizing dressed up as fiction. Sometimes, it can be all of these, and more. That’s when you get a book like Leah’s Way.

Closing paragraph:

Perhaps the most creative effort associated with Leah’s Way comes from Windstream’s marketing department. My review copy has a sticker on it that proclaims the book to be a “Blether Fiction Award Winner.” Curious about this, I did some research and traced it back to Blether.com, a book review site that accepts reviews from the general public. Under their rating system, a rating of 9 or higher (out of 10) is known as a “Blether Fiction Award,” which the site itself cheerfully acknowledges as “completely worthless.” In summary, a Blether Fiction Award simply means that an amateur reviewer judged the book to be a 9/10 – meaning, to quote Blether’s website, it’s “a book which exemplifies a genre.”

Windstream Publishing:

Even though you trashed Leah’s Way, we still appreciate the time you spent on reading and critiquing the book. But to call the blether reviewer, Harriet Klausner, an amateur, is a cheap shot. She’s infinitely more qualified than you. So are the other 30 or so positive reviews we have seen posted on the internet and Amazon. Same with Barnes and Noble. But everyone is entitled to their opinion, and there is no such thing as bad publicity. So thanks again. And, unbeknownst to you, it helps us when “politically correct, hate anything Christian” liberals choose sides as you have done in the culture wars. By the way, we’re winning.

Part of Steph’s response:

Dear Sue, You asked for me to review the book. That’s what I did. I’m sorry to hear that you didn’t like my opinion of the book, but for you to insult me and my work is neither appropriate nor professional. Nor do you know anything about my politics or religious beliefs, and to assume that you do - and that my beliefs trump my ability to objectively judge the merits of a book - only shows, again, your lack of professionalism.

Windstream again:

Okay, enough insults. But if you claim to be as professional as you are, you would at least volunteer to remove the negative review of Leah’s Way from your website. and with this Do you know how hard it is for a small press to make it? It seems horribly unfair that we should be so harshly reviewed when the sole motivation of our publishing venture is because we love books and believe that society can benefit from more reading choices.

Poor small press. No one understands their art. And damn you for choosing books based on what you think of their quality!



Steph:

Sue, Once again: you asked me to review your book, knowing I did not guarantee a positive review. How would it be “professional” of me to remove my review, just because you don’t agree with what I said?

And here’s the cream filling, the gracious response you would expect of the head of a ‘christian small press,’ someone who is trying to spread the word and love of Christ:

Hi, Did it ever occur to you that the other 100 or so positive reviews of Leah’s Way are right and that you might be wrong? Or are you the typical Gen-X whiner who is completely self-absorbed and sees herself as always picked on, a perpetual victim? Look at yourself. You pride yourself on being a critical bitch, pampered, on a college scholarship that obviously led to nowheresville, you’re a failure in life, you judge books not on their merit but on your own prejudicial beliefs, and like a typical liberal you are only tolerant of people who think like you do. Liberals are the most intolerant people on the planet, all the while “preaching” tolerance. Huh? You picked on Leah’s Way solely because your biases predispose you to hate it. That’s not a critic, that’s a propaganda machine like Goebbels was under Hitler. The only good news is that people like you, and you specifically, don’t matter. You’re so inconsequential that it is like you simply don’t exist. Don’t bother responding. I won’t bother reading your response, and you’ll have your attention hoping nature’s worst nightmare come true–you’ll be ignored. Enjoy the rest of your miserable life. You should; you’re the only one who cares about it or who will notice.

But wait, we’re not done with Windstream publishing yet! The head of Windstream is now emailing Beatrice, starting the first email with:

“Einstein, Just out of curiosity, who do you believe is a more credible reviewer–Library Journal or Stephanie Perry?”

Wow.

By the way, if you google Windstream Publishing you find a sub page of Dr. Tim Waters, a music professor at Oral Roberts University, who currently doesn’t have any info up until spring. (this guy doesn’t seem to have anything to do with our current culprit.)

Well, that was a heap of car wreck action fun.

But wait, it gets better! Beatrice has this to add:

UPDATE: Well, maybe just a little more. I did a little digging into “Windstream Publishing,” Sue Eccleston’s imprint, and discovered just why she’s so intent on defending the publication of Leah’s Way. It seems that Windstream only publishes the one book, and does it from Danville, California…which just happens to be where the book’s author, Richard Botelho, lives. In fact, Botelho’s also the contact person listed for Windstream in the PMA directory. Looks like the book’s self-published–and while the full extent of Eccleston’s connection to Botelho is not clear to me**, her unprofessional conduct in “support” of the book is nevertheless a little less mind-boggling.

Filed in Journal. You can subscribe to the RSS feed for this entry to keep track of comments. You can also use to trackback.