Log In

Home
    - Create Journal
    - Update
    - Download

LiveJournal
    - News
    - Paid Accounts
    - Contributors

Customize
    - Customize Journal
    - Create Style
    - Edit Style

Find Users
    - Random!
    - By Region
    - By Interest
    - Search

Edit ...
    - Personal Info &
      Settings
    - Your Friends
    - Old Entries
    - Your Pictures
    - Your Password

Developer Area

Need Help?
    - Lost Password?
    - Freq. Asked
      Questions
    - Support Area



Cleolinda Jones ([info]cleolinda) wrote in [info]otf_wank,
@ 2012-01-09 09:55:00


Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Entry tags:authorwank

His reviews, let him show you them
Courtesy of @has_bookpushers:

On first glance, this looks very similar to the YA author anti-reviewer meltdowns of last week. However, if you keep scrolling down, it becomes so much more.  

Jane Smith reviews Mike Coe's Flight to Paradise ("On the whole then, a disappointment. The hints that I saw of the writer’s talents were outweighed by his clumsy mistakes and his apparent discomfort within this genre, and I read just four pages out of three hundred and thirty five"). Mike Coe begs to differ--and according to him, so do 40+ other five-star reviewers. Let him show you them, his reviews:

Mike says: January 1, 2012 at 3:53 pm: Harvey Stanbrough (whose work has been nominated for a National Book Award, a Pulitzer Prize, a Pushcart Prize, a Frankfurt Book Fair Award, and the Inscriptions Magazine Engraver’s Award) had this to say about “Flight to Paradise”. “I’ve told only two unpublished novelists (from well over a hundred novelists and short-story authors) their work was excellent–you are the third.”

Mike says: January 1, 2012 at 3:53 pm: “…this debut novel carries the promise that another Wiregrass native is poised to become an important part of the contemporary fiction landscape.” Wiregrass Living Magazine, January/February 2011

Mike says: January 1, 2012 at 3:54 pm: Jeffrey from GEORGIA writes: “I just finished “Flight to Paradise”!!. Amazing writing and a great twist. Took me on an emotional roller coaster for sure. Loved it. Thanks so much. Can’t wait to read “Flight into Darkness”.

Mike says: January 1, 2012 at 3:55 pm: Gail from VIRGINIA writes: “I VERY much enjoyed your book. You left a lot of food for thought. I sat in silence after finishing it. I awoke the next morning still—— chewing on “thoughts” It’s that kind of book! I believe a good author will do that to you with his writings. YOU sure HIT the nail on the head with this one! Your writing is so creative and quite exciting, too. Mike, Henry Ford, said…” THINKING is hard work…that is why most don’t do it” I love that you make me think…I look so forward to watching you grow each character in the next book! GREAT JOB!!!!”

This continues for more than forty comments. I mean, according to Jane ("So you don’t consider posting over forty comments on my blog in the space of half an hour to be harassing? Hmm"); my eyes glazed over after twelve. Jane then does a little digging and confronts Mike with the fact that 1) his book only has seven reviews on Amazon; 2) Googling does not substantiate that most of the reviews he posted even exist outside his own website (or at all); 3) two of them, by his own admission, are by his mother and father-in-law; 4) at least one of them was in exchange for a good review for another writer; 5) at least one of them, he posted himself under a pseudonym. Having finished spamming the blog with individual reviews, Mike proceeds to explain himself with deer so teal that he has to preface each paragraph in his comments with "Mike:" or "Jane:" just to clarify whether he's quoting or speaking. And there are multiple comments of epic length. A teal stampede, if you will. And while he is outwardly polite, Jane points out that he keeps projecting anger issues onto her ("Here is where I detect some of that frustration and anger"; "But to be so vindictive only shows that you have anger issues over this"). Also, he keeps insisting that she should meet him in real life:

At this point, based on the frustration and touch of anger I detect in your comment, I’m afraid it would take a face-to-face meeting to FULLY dissolve your belief that I am some sort of dishonest, rebellious malcontent.

You seem to be having trouble believing me or accepting my honesty—something I’m certain a face-to-face meeting would resolve.


Finally, people other than Mike show up:

crimeficreader says: January 8, 2012 at 4:55 pm: Hello. I just thought I’d populate the comments with another new name for some variety.

Mike has not responded to any of the new commenters. He has to sleep sometime, I guess.


(Post a new comment)


[info]meagenimage
2012-01-09 04:27 pm UTC (link)
...oh god what. Creeper readings are off the scale, here.

(Reply to this)


[info]mirhanda
2012-01-09 05:20 pm UTC (link)
That's really frightening. I wonder if she should contact the police or something.

(Reply to this)


[info]cmdr_zoom
2012-01-09 05:51 pm UTC (link)
The other reviewers support him in email.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]paladin
2012-01-10 03:36 am UTC (link)
Of course not! They submitted their reviews to him in person, the way men used to do!

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]miss_eponine
2012-01-09 06:30 pm UTC (link)
What possesses authors to respond this way to bad reviews? I just cannot conceive what type of person thinks that forty comments is a good idea.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]tehrin
2012-01-10 06:57 am UTC (link)
Unprofessionalism. That's what.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]kosaginolegion
2012-01-10 01:24 pm UTC (link)
I've a suspicion that while pre-internet wankers authors did indulge in this sort of behavior, the fact that it takes far less effort and time to post 40 comments on a blog than it used to take to write a hissy-fit letter and post copies of it to everyone they could think of, may have something to do with it.

That and, as tehrin says... unprofessionalism.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]bobgenghiskhan
2012-01-11 09:09 pm UTC (link)
It seems this guy is self-published. Commercially published authors sometimes go off the deep end like this, but they at least have *some* kind of buffer between themselves and their work, in the form of their agents, editors, and publishers. When you self-publish, there's nothing between you and your book. I can see why this happens. Doesn't make it any less sad.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]gerorin
2012-01-12 06:29 am UTC (link)
From what I've glimpsed in the link [info]cleolinda shared on the last wank, on various YA authors having separate verbal diarrhoeas over less-than-glowing reviews, I think if you really want to air butthurts on the internets, not even having agents, editors, and publishers will stop you.

But creator!wanks are my favorite, so my black shriveled heart is thankful for that fact.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]braisinhussy
2012-01-09 07:24 pm UTC (link)
forty comments.

That's as many as four tens. And that's terrible.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]spawn_of_kong
2012-01-09 08:17 pm UTC (link)
Well played.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]wankismyfandom
2012-01-10 02:07 am UTC (link)
GIP.

Also, "I’m sorry for that if the number of comments is a problem. I actually had many more but grew tired and felt there were enough to justify the point."

Well, at least he didn't GO OVERBOARD or anything. *facepalm*

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]puipui
2012-01-10 05:16 am UTC (link)
I love you. *loves*

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]lainey
2012-01-09 08:16 pm UTC (link)
He spams her with comments/fake reviews and then thinks a face-to-face meeting is the way to resolve everything? brrrrr. Run, Jane, run.

(Reply to this)


[info]southerngaelic
2012-01-09 08:17 pm UTC (link)
O-o

I am seriously creeped out like this.

Also, why are so many authors responding to negative reviews like immature fanfic writers these days?

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]rowanberries
2012-01-12 12:46 pm UTC (link)
Because the batch of fanfic writers that honed their skills on ff.net have decided en masse to try things in the real world?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]singe
2012-01-12 03:32 pm UTC (link)
Our day has come! *marches along*

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]spawn_of_kong
2012-01-09 08:18 pm UTC (link)
Nothing creepy about all this, then. Nope, nothing at all... *shudders*

(Reply to this)


[info]visp
2012-01-09 09:59 pm UTC (link)
Mike says:
As I posted my latest weekly blog this weekend, I realized that the blog was written more for me than for my fans:

Sandra Peephole says:
But aren’t you all just one person?


Heeheehee!

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]cleolinda
2012-01-09 10:05 pm UTC (link)
Again, thank you Jess. You sound like someone I would like to call my friend.

In the context of his other comments (and the fact that the Jess commenter was like, seriously, you need to sit down)... this guy seems really... something. Lonely?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]visp
2012-01-09 10:22 pm UTC (link)
I think he's faking some sort of overwrought apology because he realized that everyone thinks he's stupid, and he'd better salvage the situation fast.

And as with the previous otf_wank writer, this one writes badly enough to warn me off the book for good.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]visp
2012-01-09 11:56 pm UTC (link)
As I posted my latest weekly blog this weekend, I realized that the blog was written more for me than for my fans: “Expections Kill Relationships” (see http://www.mikecoe.blogspot.com).

The link he's pimping out is to an article by him on how ladies shouldn't let romcoms give them high expectations in real life and then something about listening to God. WTF? What does that have to do with being an ass when someone doesn't like your book?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]ekaterinv
2012-01-10 12:09 am UTC (link)
He's showing the many, many ways in which he is a creeper, and why women are wrong wrong wrong to ever expect him to be anything else?

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]the__ivorytower
2012-01-10 01:15 am UTC (link)
I choose to ignore his advice and instead listen to SBTB.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]jupiterpluvius
2012-01-10 02:21 am UTC (link)
I thought Sarah Wendell's latest rocked. I am not so much a romance fan (because I like it when things blow up and/or there are aliens, ngl) and even so I was fist-pumping like a drunken frat brother the whole time I was reading it.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]the__ivorytower
2012-01-10 02:42 am UTC (link)
I'm one of those people who likes romance *in* things, rather than just straight romance. I love looking for the chemistry in a book primarily about, say, shooting xenos in the name of the God-Emperor of Mankind, but I'm less interested when the focus is on romance, but I still read their reviews and appreciate their advice. They were also super nice when I asked about eReaders.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]tehrin
2012-01-10 07:01 am UTC (link)
And he wants to be taken seriously as a romance novelist. lol

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]loopywafflehead
2012-01-10 09:51 am UTC (link)
Mike Coe is the new Chancery Stone.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]ekaterinv
2012-01-09 10:17 pm UTC (link)
The review makes Mike Coe sound like one of those so common creepy male authors who writes with one hand whenever he writes what he calls women. His posts on Jane Smith's blog prove that he's that and worse. I'd be calling the cops if I were her.

(Reply to this)


[info]commathulhu
2012-01-09 10:58 pm UTC (link)
Joining those who are also creeped out by the author's insistance on meeting in person. Noooooooo, Jane, run away!

I was talking about this with a friend, and she asked "it's like was Mecury in the sensitive woobie phase or something?" and I can't think of anything better to sum up this + the Goodreads thing + Julie Halpern all happening in the same week. People know they need to update their wank for 2012, right?

(Reply to this)


[info]sepiamagpie
2012-01-10 12:45 am UTC (link)
Is there a way to mace someone via computer?

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]annathepiper
2012-01-10 05:35 am UTC (link)
My partner has wanted to implement Remote Bitchslap Protocol for some time!

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]icedark_elf
2012-01-10 08:23 am UTC (link)
If I ever get a superpower, I'm hoping it'll be the ability to slap someone through electronics. I'll make billions and, of course, use my powers for evil.

And indulge in the sheer pleasure of swatting people like this.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]wankismyfandom
2012-01-10 02:05 am UTC (link)
However, since there is an ocean between us (plus the entire United States)

Thank fuck.

(Reply to this)


[info]jupiterpluvius
2012-01-10 02:24 am UTC (link)
The thing that maddened me about this is that he was all 'OH YOU DIDN'T READ MY WHOLE BOOK' and she was all 'Dude, it says how I roll in the guidelines, and how I roll is that I stop reading after 15 errors' and then someone (Obviously A Completely Different Person Who Isn't Related To Mike Coe In Any Way) comes in to trash Jane for the same thing. And to call her sexist to boot.

Also, the day anyone eagerly puts "Meeting with weirdo who hectored me on the Internets" into their calendar is the day I set up a lucrative business renting ice skates in Hell.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]cleolinda
2012-01-10 02:27 am UTC (link)
Oh, snap, that may have happened after I posted this. Or my brain just went to mush and I didn't see it--potential sockpuppetry?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]commathulhu
2012-01-10 06:07 am UTC (link)
Amber says: If it’s true that you only read 4 pages of the entire novel, this isn’t a review. You don’t have enough information to make any kind of educated opinion on the author or their book. This strikes me of sexism and self righteousness and not any real attempt to review the book.

Jane says: And Amber: you might not like my reviewing methods but please note that I’m very upfront about how I work here, and if Mike Coe didn’t want me to review his book in the way that I do, he was under no obligation to submit to me.

Four pages was plenty for me to note the problems that I did; and how reading four pages can equate to sexism I have no idea. Either your logic is lacking or your grammar.


That's the only mention of sexism or "hdu read only four pages," aside from the author continuing to defend that if Jane would meet him in person and had read the whole thing then maybe she'd understand.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]jupiterpluvius
2012-01-10 06:38 pm UTC (link)
Coe earlier says "If you had read the whole book" blah blah, and Jane explained her process (even though it is explained clearly on her submissions page).

But yeah, that was the point I was trying to make--that Amber (Obviously A Completely Different Person) then white-knighted in in to call Jane sexist. Was I that confusing?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]commathulhu
2012-01-10 07:38 pm UTC (link)
No, no, I think it's me being too tired to function and shouldn't be on the internet. All I hooked onto was Cleo didn't see the comment and dug up the link. Fail, self. /o\

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]tangentialone
2012-01-11 01:05 am UTC (link)
Fifteen errors in four pages? Oh, dear.

I recently read a book where there were (probably) fewer errors than that in the entire book and that was still enough to be a little distracting, and to make me thing it hadn't been proofread carefully enough. Three or four per page makes it sound like he didn't even try.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]ashenmote
2012-01-10 02:39 am UTC (link)
This is some "What if the Borgs tried to take over the self-publishing light fiction market' RPG, right?

(Reply to this)


[info]tehrin
2012-01-10 06:56 am UTC (link)
I think the "Jane:" and "Mike:" thing may be attributed to not knowing how to mark quotations in a way that makes the comment readable. Not surprising since he can't make his book readable either.

(Reply to this)


[info]loopywafflehead
2012-01-10 09:49 am UTC (link)
That is some major, creepy, disturbingly intense passive-aggression.

The tags on Jane's post are the best summary ever: 04 pages read, capitalisation errors, clichéd, exposition, ineffective back cover copy, overwritten, poor characterisation, poor use of detail r, poor word choice, poor writing, problems with grammar, problems with punctuation, punctuation

(Reply to this)


[info]phosfate
2012-01-10 04:55 pm UTC (link)
At this point, based on the frustration and touch of anger I detect in your comment, I’m afraid it would take a face-to-face meeting to FULLY dissolve your belief that I am some sort of dishonest, rebellious malcontent.

LET ME LOVE YOU, JANE! I'M A NICE GUY! HERE, HAVE AN INJECTION!

(Reply to this)


[info]cmdr_zoom
2012-01-10 05:24 pm UTC (link)
How can you ignore me
When you know that I can't live without you?
I have to go through your garbage
Just to learn more about you


- "Weird" Al Yankovic, "Melanie"

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(Deleted post)
ATTN MODS: THE ABOVE IS SPAM
[info]cyan_aura
2012-03-25 09:06 pm UTC (link)
This guy has posted this same phrase over a couple of different posts, don't know if you can weed them out or not, but it's pimping his lame ass blog. May wish to delete, or mock, or something.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]spawn_of_kong
2012-01-13 02:42 pm UTC (link)
Every time I read this report and see the name "Jane Smith," I keep wanting to add a "Sarah" to the front of it.

(Reply to this)


 
   
Privacy Policy - COPPA
Legal Disclaimer - Site Map