TidBITS, a site which bills itself as presenting the highlights of coverage of Apple products including their iBooks, hosts a mildly amusing and, actually, not particularly negative review of what seems to be a self-published mystery novel called Venice Under Glass, by one Stephan J Harper.

The review includes some comments on the author's use (or lack thereof) of the interactive features available to iBook authors, which become relevant very shortly later.

Now you could be forgiven for thinking that there the matter would rest, but this... is... FANDOM WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANK!

*cough* Sorry, sorry, had to get that out of my system. Old meme, won't happen again.

The said Stephan J Harper shows up in the very first comment, and proceeds to go ABSOLUTELY RAVING BATSHIT.

For three-hundred and eight comments, and counting.

(He doesn't even bother to say 'First post!')

A few highlights, in no particular order:
- Possible sockpuppetry (including what I strongly suspect is the author reviewing his own work under a false name)
- Winnie the Pooh jokes
- The author comparing himself to Keats and Fitzgerald
- And accusations of plagiarism, oh my!

There's even a whole thread of haiku. This one's my favourite.

As of posting, he's still going -- oh, and did I mention?

The cast of Stephan J Harper's magnum opus, the epic masterpiece of high literature that he claims to have been working on since 1997... are cuddly teddy bears. Every single one of them.

Feel Stephan J Harper's tiny ursine fury, folks.

Feel it.




Bonus: the Wankee claims to be nearly sixty-four years old.

c/p'd from Mousie's hard work:

Emma Watson is guest editing a British magazine that comes out on Thursday.

In it, supposedly JK Rowling shares her regret for making a certain pairing canon over another one.

Nowadays she admits she got it wrong - she should have shipped Harry / Hermione.

( You can see where this is going )
The actual article is slated to come out on Thursday. Prepare yourselves for the Second Coming...

I know I'm ready for this.

Over on goodreads a reviewer, Ari Bookzilla, left a review of Shey Stahl's book For The Summer. She only got about 20% through the book before quitting because she kept finding dialog, paragraphs, passages and plot points that were alarmingly similar to the Twilight fanfic, Dusty (link goes to Pit of Voles), by YellowBella (a two author team of authors Mary Elizabeth and Sarah, with the former showing up in the comments of the goodreads review). In fact she has eight excerpts that she found and posted in her review just from that first fifth of the book.

The comments explode as a mix of people being shocked/angry at the plagiarism or defending Shey and the arguments between the two groups. On page eleven there is a twitter picture showing that Dusty was not the only Twilight fanfic plagiarized but a fanfic with the same title, For The Summer, shares more than the title with the book.

Shey denies plagiarizing anything and unfortunately any of this is already gone as she has gone on a deleting spree. Starting with all her books on Amazon, and there is a screenshot from her Facebook page as the dearauthor twitter has saved to view of her explaining that she removed them while she talked with a lawyer. She has also deleted her Twitter and her official website. Any contact with anyone on the matter has her repeatedly denying plagiarism or having even read the fanfic in question.

An old review is pulled up as in the comments there is mention that Shey was plagiarizing back when she was a Twilight fanfic author, with the pen name Jaydmommy. And it seems like she published the fanfic with the names filed off.

An editor that Shey used for her earlier works, Max, speaks up about finding one of her books, Delayed Penalty, with plagiarized material in it and having to pull out lawyers to get her name off of Shey's books when Shey refused to take out the passages. Max later brings up that after that happened she did contact Shey's next, and current, editor about Shey's borrowing of other's peoples work. The editor refutes this as after deleting a post about distancing herself from Shey she posted another to clarify things from her side of the story.

There is also an issue with Max claiming that the cover artist of Shey's books blackmailing anyone who is using her as their editor to refuse to do any work for them.

Since that initial review other sites have picked up the story and written up articles on it, such as dearauthor, who provide further examples. (There are other unrelated topics in the article so the first one is the only one that goes over the plagiarism.) Daily Dot has also written about it. The blog Snarky Cake is good to find most of the information in one spot but the sleuthing to uncover Shey's fandom history in the updates section highlights other incidents of plagiarism in her other works.

Author Jenna Bennett on her Twitter commented about the wank and gives us the "like wearing someone else's underwear" analogy about people writing fanfic. (Thank you anonmousey for pointing this out on the wank_report.)

There is also a little spill over from the latest goodreads wank about the changes in policy on the site, so any comments talking about goodreads deleting a comment or shelf is directed at that. The dearauthor article linked to has a rundown of it if you continue reading after the part about Shey if you are curious about that.

A wank that is somewhat pan-fandom - Science Fiction in general!

First piece of background: John Scalzi is an author and, at present, he was until recently (thanks, sgaana!) the president of the SFWA. In the past few months, he has been a very vocal supporter of anti-harassment policies at SFF conventions, and in general has been a supporter of having women and minorities represented in SFF. This annoys some people. (Warning: this wank, while it has not in itself veered into unfunny territory, is between two authors - and to some extent their fanbases - who stand on very different sides of the "what (if anything) should be done to ensure equality for people of different genders/sexual orientations/races/creeds." While going over facebook and twitter to research this particular kerfluffle, I encountered some of that in other posts. None of it is linked here, but it is in this general section of the blaggertubes.)

As a second piece of background, the Hugo Awards celebrate the best of Science Fiction, and are widely considered one of the most prestigious awards an SFF author can win. While highly prestigious, however, the awards are not immune from the general principle of award-giving, which is that first someone wins, and then someone else bitches about it.

All caught up? Good.

On Sunday, the winners of the 2013 Hugo Awards were announced. John Scalzi won the award for best novel with Redshirts, a comedic novel about the unusually high mortality rates of starship employees wearing crimson attire. As usual, the win touched off some debate around the quality of the various nominees. Some people enjoyed Redshirts, others did not like it so well. Fairly standard. The Guardian has covered some of the differing points of view here, most of which are centered around the merits of the books and the voting system.

John Ringo, on the other hand, posted the following:

If anyone has been wondering why Scalzi has been picking the rather stupid fights he's been picking lately:

[link to Hugo Awards announcement]

Scalzi, either directly in response to Ringo, in response to some other criticism, or just as a general response to the world in general, posts on his blog about the award, and includes the following:

* Likewise, as is also tradition whenever a new winner of a Best Novel Hugo is announced, there are people who are heralding Redshirts as evidence that the Hugo voting process is corrupt/confused/irrelevant/a sign of the impending apocalypse. I don’t take this personally because a) I am well aware that not everyone is going to like everything I write, and that this goes double for Redshirts, which seems to have the greatest range of responses to it of any book I’ve written, b) someone would complain no matter what and who won, because the Internet is vasty and noisy, and for some people, something they don’t like winning an award is clearly evidence of systematic problems and/or conspiracy, rather than simply a popular vote of a particular group of voters not reflecting their own personal preferences.

My response to this is, as always: That’s fine. And in a larger sense, a vote no one complains about correlates very highly with a vote no one cares about. I’m happy to see people care about the Hugos, even if it’s to be annoyed with my book as a winner. With that said, the fact is this year I won the award, now it’s mine, and I’m not giving it back. So they’ll just have to deal.

(Now, there are people who are angry I won because they don’t like me personally. To them I say: Ha! Ha! Ha! Sucks to be you, dude.)

This touches off a debate on twitter, including (but certainly not limited to) the following. Feel free to add to these highlights, as my twitter-fu is by no means expert. (Which is why a majority come from Scalzi himself.) Scalzi is accused of pandering, Ringo is accused of pandering, Chris Kluwe makes an appearance.

Just because John Ringo is being a total ass to me doesn't mean you might not like his books. Some to try for free: [link to free books]

@Scalzi: Reading your post that was referenced, never going to buy any of YOUR books again. You're a deluded hypocritical racist little shit.

From Scalzi: "Highlight of the day so far: Dude with Hitler Emoji Twitter icon telling me I was racist and he would never read my books. I thought: Good"

Also from Scalzi: Seriously, though. Poor spelling does not make you wrong, but consistently poor spelling does undermine rhetorical credibility. Spellcheck!

The problem is, the Internet makes it seem like you SHOULD read the comments. But then you do, and you say, "YEAH, I forgot. Dammit."

HTML has totally failed me, so here are a few good links for twitter: Scalzi, Chris Kluwe and, courtesy of </b></a>duraniedrama, John Ringo's page. (There's some potential for unfunny there.) You can find more tweets under the hashtag #womendestroySF. (Lightspeed has announced a "Women Destroying SF" special edition.)

The wank builds up, with Ringo declaring that his wife is hotter and his hair is better than Scalzi's, until at some point in this mess, Ringo posts to his facebook page again.

Scalzi was pissing me off even before getting a Hugo for a novel so remarkably unremarkable it would barely have made it to paperback in the 1970s. Nothing against it, it's a fun, simple, mindless, read from all I've gathered. But it's not exactly Stranger in a Strange Land or Nightfall.

[....]

Which is where we start to see the issues with Scalzi suddenly not so much 'coming out of the closet' but making a splash on a variety of hot-button issues that really don't sit well with his RETAIL market. The people who actually BUY the books over the counter as opposed to market, sell and even buy them for distribution. The more books you can get a bookstore to buy, the more likely you are to sell them. So being the poster child for your commercial people is a good thing.

Orson Scott Card is brought up in the comments, but less than you might suspect.

John Ringo's politics get further attention when Scalzi links us to a review of one of Ringo's books. The review can simply be referred to as OH JOHN RINGO NO, which proceeds to become a catchphrase in the ensuing twitter comments.

This wank, it must be said, is far from over, as no one has yet flounced. Twitter continues to explode, and Scalzi continues to post to twitter, and all in all, the wank has continued merrily on for the span of a few days. Enjoy!

EDIT THE FIRST: Courtesy of tunxeh (thanks!), we have Scalzi's latest blog post. It is, as noted, worth it even if all you look at is his U MAD BRO? macro. Since I can't seem to embed, here: http://whatever.scalzi.com/2013/09/06/some-final-hugo-related-thoughts/

Can thank a mousey at wank_report for this as well. And because I am lazy the write up is copy-pasted with links inserted.

So Untherius has a reputation as being someone you don't want to get fic from at Yuletide--background as to what he does here.

("Shout out to Untherius for the lowest of the low. At least the Gay Dragon fic was recognizably set in Pern.")

("I honestly don't think anyone deserves Untherius as a writer, unless you've maybe committed genocide or something.")

This year, he writes another Howl's Moving Castle fic for abluestocking...one that includes a crossover with two fandoms that the recipient is unfamiliar with, as well as graphic violence (blood drinking, consumption of raw organs).

This after abluestocking politely indicated that she would prefer not to receive a crossover.

People on fail_fandomanon collectively go "oh my God", and it's posted to yuletide_coal as well.

Then, someone who appears to be the recip, based off of their comment, comes forward:

So I got a primary fic that I...can't read?

That sounds funny. It's not in another language or anything. It's just that the author 1) did a crossover with a fandom I have absolutely no familiarity with, 2) wrote my requested character as an OC, and, most importantly, 3) wrote the entire thing around something that is a complete squick for me (and probably a lot of people).

A little further downthread, we have someone defending Untherius, calling other Yuletide writers/recips "entitled". The same anon appears again, and the end result is that someone posts a critique to the work on AO3 and the defender!anon flounces from Yuletide.

And all of this happens before reveals.

Author Christopher Priest (perhaps best known for The Prestige) is not happy with the Arthur C. Clarke Award shortlist. He is not happy at all. In a single blog post, he declares that:

( You wait nervously for the unattractive exhaustion which will lead to a piss-soaked carpet )

ETA: John Scalzi weighs in ("So for connoisseurs of the form, this is top-shelf stuff, much better than the usual entitled bleating of the tendentiously aggrieved"); Charles "Internet Puppy" Stross is making t-shirts.

WHAT I WANT TO SEE MORE OF: @notveryalice: um so i made a #ChristopherPriest gif.

ETA: I GUESS I HAVE TO DO EVERYTHING MYSELF AROUND HERE

Getting caught leaving a positive review under a sockpuppet, of course!

Author Dennis R. Upkin Jr. reviews his own book under a sock account and is outed by Amazon.com's credit card verification system. ETA: Review's been removed, but here's a screencap from the sf_drama post.

Copy and pasted text of the four star review, left by "Roz Torres":

I heard about this novel on an online podcast and after constantly forgetting to pick up the book, I finally got a copy and read it.

The story is intense. It's got a lot going on. With the paranormal elements and the real world commentary. Upkins pulls no punches tackling racism and homophobia, but really surprised me was the interesting cast of women. I loved Ruby and Cassidy and it was nice to see women of color be shown in a light you rarely see. But my favorite character hands down was Neely. I wish there were more characters like her in the media. And I say this as a fellow bisexual woman. The little representation we have, most of it isn't good. Good story. And I'll definitely re-read again to see what I missed the first time.

ETA 2: Dennis R. Upkins, Jr. is also known as neo_prodigy on livejournal, and is known for wankiness already. (Link goes to unfunny_fandom.)

ETA 3: Someone on fail_fandomanon has pointed out that it is possible to get an Amazon-verified account with a phony name, although a "Rosalyn Torres" also left a positive rating on goodreads earlier this month (thanks for the link, sakanagi). Also, while the Amazon review is gone, but the account that posted it is still up, so you can see the real name verification for yourself.

But I had lost the information.

15 years ago I worked as a proofreader for a legal publisher. During that time, I came across a 1994 appellate case involving Anne Rice. I printed it out and saved it for years, because I was and am a fan of her novels, but I thought that it had gotten thrown away during one of my moves. Which was a shame, because I wished I could share it on f_w.

Yesterday I was going through a box of old stuff and found out I still had the opening page. I put the info into Google and found the case!



That is, her long-standing habit of writing angry letters to people gave them an excuse to drag her back into court.

There's a tiny bit more info about it here. Also, it seems that in '97, James Cameron was trying to make a movie of The Mummy.

And that is all I could find about this case. I hope no one minds my sharing a wank this outdated; I thought those who follow Anne Rice wanks would be interested, and so far as I can tell this has only ever been reported in lawyer publications.

Well, all right, maybe not high speed car chases. So, the background: last year, Neil Gaiman, author of such lovely things as Neverwhere and the Sandman series etc., was contacted to speak at a library in Minnesota for a hefty speaking fee, which was paid for by a fund which (a) stated any leftover money would be lost if not used, and (b) was also not available for books, salaries, or other useful things. Neil Gaiman did so, and subsequently donated the speaking fee to charities.

All's well that ends well, right? Well, except that Matt Dean, the House Majority Leader, decided it was time to let his long-simmering grudge be aired to the world: 'Dean said that Gaiman, "who I hate," was a "pencil-necked little weasel who stole $45,000 from the state of Minnesota."'

Neil is... well, he's not well pleased. Nor is his Twitter. ( Cut for length )

Sex scenes can be really funny. Badly-written sex scenes can be absolutely hilarious. Since there are a lot of badly-written sex scenes in the world, the denizens of LJ's weepingcock take it upon themselves to select the best of the worst and laugh uproariously at it. Or cringe. Or possibly laugh uproariously in a cringing fashion. It depends on the excerpt.

Anyhow, pirsquar posts this amazing excerpt, for the enjoyment of the entire community.

( My ovaries are incandescing at the thought of this quote. )

The reaction is a standard mix of 'lol', 'wtf', and 'OW'...

...at least, until Loyal Defender Of The Literary Mighty deborahkla charges in to express her displeasure with the mere posting of this blurb.

Why?

Because it was written by Henry Miller.

Apparently, if you are a Noted Figure Of Literature, you are incapable of writing bad porn, regardless of what our eyes might be telling us. She makes sure to inform us of this. She even did it twice, in the exact same wording.

( Her learnings, let her show us them. )

Despite the condescending tone, the weepingcock natives are actually quite reasonable in pointing out that funny sex is not discriminating, and 'great authors' are not immune to mockery if they write and publish something weepingcock-worthy. For deborahkla, however, 'reasonable disagreement' translates into 'OMFG EVERYONE'S ATTACKING ME'. So she attacks back...despite not being attacked in the first place. (She has mastered the use of the c&p comment, for sure -- there are several in there that she copies verbatim into multiple threads.)

She also flounces out of the community.

The only problem there is that she keeps right on posting answers to comments, actively telling people that 'she's out of the community now'. Her logic flaw is pointed out to her numerous times.

She reacts, naturally, by doing the most reasonable, mature thing possible.

She messages the mods.

( Mods, they're being meeeeeeean to meeeee! )

I don't know about all of you, but I definitely feel my ovaries incandescing right now.

The first volume of William H. Patterson's biography of Robert Heinlein is released today, but the scuffle over it is already a week old.

This is approximately the millionth Heinlein biography to hit the shelves, so perhaps it is a bit difficult to see why it matters, but this underestimates the devotion of Heinlein nerds. Jo Walton, (papersky) published a review on Tor.com, in which although she says some nice things, she concludes:

Patterson’s biography is also riddled with tiny insignificant errors of the kind that make me lose trust. [...] If I can’t trust Patterson on details that I know backwards and forwards and inside out, how can I trust him on matters that are new to me?

A reasonable doubt!

( OR IS IT? )

Pop Quiz:

You are R. Malone, a new author who has a book out that is predominately getting reviews in the four to five star range when someone gives your book a review a one or two star. Do you. . .

A) Post an attack on the review (NEW WITH SCREEN CAPS!)
B) Post an article attacking the reviewer on authorsden.com ETA: DELETED NOW WITH SCREENCAP!
C) Send nasty comments and later delete them off of Goodreads (see second edit at the end of this post)
D) Openly declare war on anyone who rates your book poorly
E) Do all of the above until readers are afraid to post reviews DELORTED TOO! ALAS, SCREENCAPS: REBECCA, WE WEILL PROTECT YOU!!

BONUS WANKERY IN SCREENCAP FORM!!!


Credit given when credit is due: Copypasta directly from sf_drama

( THE OTHER 7,256/SCREENCAPS/NAME-CALLING/ACCUSATIONS EDITS BEHIND THE CUT NOW )


EDIT, YET AGAIN:
And what's a wank without sock-puppetry? God I love this woman. Keep up the crazy, please. The lols are great. Where we're been mentioned.