Entry tags:

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 “I’ve told only two unpublished novelists (from well over a hundred novelists and short-story authors) their work was excellent–you are the third.”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.

(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)

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)

	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)

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)

	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)

	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)

	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)

(Read comments) -