The Old Neverending PublishAmerica Thread (Publish America)

[Renee]

I just wanted to agree with Sara on the thumbs up for Triceratops, very well said.

[Sheryl Nantus]

I don't think anyone's "laughing" at the reviews, we're just commenting on how the newest crop of PA authors (and remember, *I* used to be one of them) are hell bent on making sure that nothing even slightly critical is posted about their books, their writing and PublishAmerica.

I've gotten plenty of feedback on my short stories - they're called "rejections". It's a good thing; it teaches you to be a better writer and to work at your skill. And when I do make a sale (like today!) it tells me that it's been earned through improving myself, not making sure that my buds are all good with me and I've stroked their egos enough.

If these authors receive nothing but rave reviews from their friends, how are they ever going to improve? Look at the website that tossed all the PA reviews because of the authors' demanding the "negative" ones be removed. Aside from appearing childish, it's not realistic for any author to expect glowing reviews ad nauseum from every reader. It's just not possible.

These authors are only hurting themselves by not going out there and getting legitimate reviews from professionals, not platitudes from their pals who aren't going to tell them that Chapter 10 makes no sense; or that the poem on Page 12 isn't good. Rejection is part of what makes a writer improve and develop, and I think a *LOT* of PA authors, mostly those who have been there a long time and are still PAvidians, think they've already hit the top of their craft and have no wish to hear anything else.

That's just... sad.

[bikrpreacher]

Originally Posted by Sheryl Nantus

I've gotten plenty of feedback on my short stories - they're called "rejections". It's a good thing; it teaches you to be a better writer and to work at your skill. And when I do make a sale (like today!) it tells me that it's been earned through improving myself, not making sure that my buds are all good with me and I've stroked their egos enough.

Okay. I don't think someone has to have bad reviews to make their writing better, that is just my view. The more you write, the better you get.
All I was trying to say is that this is a PublishAmerica thread, and I suppose since this is a new site, everyone is having fun and there might not be anything wrong with that, but it's getting a little hard for me to wade through all this funnness...not a word but anyhow...I like facts, and reasons, you all are playing and I'm getting a headache. Sorry. Remember, we are here, hmmm, why are we here? Anyone remember?

[Renee]

Originally Posted by GPS

Because it isn't an honest assessment of the work to toss the bad reviews only. Have you ever taken a look at major authors' Amazon sites? There full of bad reviews. Only an amateur would be concerned with such a minute thing. I suppose it takes the mind off the real problem.

If you want to play in public you have to be willing to take the heat.

Some of that I agree with. Some PA authors have been hit by psycho PA people (and I mean that) - and the review was a personal letter type thing listing petty things like why that person didn't like the particular writer personally. Now there is a difference in the situation I spoke of about reviews and the situation you speak of. Sure we are all out there in the public and we have to have a thick skin and take what is dished out. I have no problem with that. But I received a personal vendetta type "post/review" so did Chris. It wasn't a review about our books or an honest assessment of our books - it was strictly a personal bashing. My point? There is a difference between the two (a review whether good or bad and one that is a - I hate your guts kind of thing- from a person that doesn't know you lol) and sometimes things can not be so easily generalized like that.

No big deal this post just caught my eye and I thought I'd blab on..lol...

[Uncarved]

I think it goes without saying that most authors don't mind getting a true negative review from someone who genuinely didn't like their book. But to get slammed by someone just because of petty crap, from someone who didn't read the book, well thats a cow of a different color.

To just take out every negative review whether its a slam review, or a genuine, is bad though.

[Sheryl Nantus]

but if it's a personal attack on the author, then don't you think the next person to read it will figure that out?

I mean, if I read some nutbar's diatribe against Chris, I'm not going to think "Hey, better not buy that book!" I'm going to think "what a sorry man to post this in a public forum." It's pretty easy to see if it's a rambling bit of silliness vs a decent respectable critique of the work in question.

I think people don't give enough credit to the readers.

[Uncarved]

I agree with you. Some people though would like to keep their professional reviews and their private ones separate.

[bikrpreacher]

For me it wasn't removed because I thought no one would buy the book, it was removed because it hurt to see it there...hurt me. I think most of the mean ones are removed because it's an eye sore for the author.

[Gratian Gasparri]

Originally Posted by WhisperingBard

I've long believed that HB is "getting something else out of the deal." In a post on another board, in September 2003, HB said, "Advances are growing for certain individuals who produce." Now, whether or not he's the author that got a $1000 advance, I don't know, but his constant cheerleading and rallying of the troops, and refusal to open his eyes and see the truth, certainly make sense if he's getting paid for it.

While it would not surprise me, I still think this is not likely the case. One thing that develops in all cults are what I call "boosters among the ranks". they're "company men" who in other respects are slightly above average in intelligence and leadership skills, but slightly below average in interpersonal relationships. They have so bought into the product that they're willing to "rally the troops" and "take one for the team" when the need be. In many ways, they are like NCOs in the military.

From my experience speaking and dealing with such folks, money usually has little to do with it. Rather, they hold the party line because: 1) they have found not only acceptance but also admiration within the group, and 2) they cannot bring themselves to believe someone of their calibre, intelligence, etc... got sucked into a cult.

That being said, reality almost always becomes too obvious to deny. At this point, they turn and become leading critics of the former group.

[Renee]

[QUOTE=Sheryl Nantus]but if it's a personal attack on the author, then don't you think the next person to read it will figure that out?


I don't think that's the point. Something wrong and done with ill intent, is just that - wrong. I had mine removed after about a month. I received alot of emails from people telling me about it that was the only reasons I left it up.....well that and it was funny in a sick and totally unhonest way...but it was petty and I don't think those type people should be allowed to spread lies about someone personally.

[Sher2]

Originally Posted by tinasamuels

I think it goes without saying that most authors don't mind getting a true negative review from someone who genuinely didn't like their book. But to get slammed by someone just because of petty crap, from someone who didn't read the book, well thats a cow of a different color.

To just take out every negative review whether its a slam review, or a genuine, is bad though.

I think it should be said also that if it weren't for the PA business model, this problem wouldn't exist. If PA were a true publisher and distributed books to retail outlets the way an actual publisher would, the books would be purchased and read by consumers who, in turn, would review them in legitimate venues.

PA fosters an atmosphere in which the authors, unable to gain much of a readership outside their own circles, turn to each other in desperation for reviews. Naturally, this endeavor is amateurish and unprofessional and is ultimately more of a hindrance than anything else. Such reviews have no standing from a professional perspective and may actually do the authors more harm than good. I'd rather have a less than glowing review from a bona fide reviewer any day of the week than a hubba-hubba review from an acquaintance. I would at least learn something from a review that told me I needed to try harder.

I, in fact, gave a 3-star review to a nationally known bestselling author once, and she e-mailed me to say that she saw in hindsight what I meant and promised to do better next time. She did, too.

[James D. Macdonald]

The reason you don't list PA titles in your cover letters is that no selection was done. A credit in a cover letter means "Some other editor thought my work is of publishable quality." But we all know that isn't true of PA books. All that an acceptance from them means is "I sent it in."

While we're proud of all our books, and we love them, we don't list the ones that are in our desk drawers in our cover letters.

Same reason we don't list stories that were printed in our high school literary journal. There's the selectivity gate.

And while we know that many authors started at PA -- they did a Google search on Book Publisher and PA came out first with those deceptive and misleading advertising pages of theirs -- many people will assume that your book was rejected by every publisher in Writers Market before it came to rest at PublishAmerica.

There are exceptions. If we had a self-published work that sold 10,000 copies, sure, I'd mention that. But unless something like that holds PublishAmerica is as valuable in your cover letter as a book with Vantage, Dorrance, AuthorHouse, or iUniverse.

Last I heard, Midwest Book Reviews was still reviewing PA books. But their mandate is to do small press and self-published works. Nor are they a major venue.

Not listing something isn't lying. You're never required to tell everything you know.

(The usual rule for cover letters is to list only the three most recent/most prestigious sales.)

[AnneMarble]

Originally Posted by Sher2

I think you're talking about the Midwest Book Review.

I didn't know they gave less than glowing reviews!

Originally Posted by Sher2

At any rate, they did decide to review no more PA books because of what you stated above. It wouldn't surprise me at all to hear that there are other sites/organizations which have issued the same edict. Hence, the fellow authors lovefest -- gotta take it where you can get it.

Originally Posted by Sher2

I write a column for a romance review web site that had to stop accepting self-published and vanity-published (yes, we include PA in that) books for review. There were too many of them being sent for the small number of reviewers (all of whom are doing this for fun), and the rewards were small. Off the top of my head, I can only think of two self-published authors who turned out to be good in all that time -- and both were actually self-published rather than published through a "self-publishing service." I bought books from both of them, too.

[Duncan J Macdonald]

Originally Posted by CaoPaux

Clue-by-fours...what cluebats are made of.

And here, PAuthors discuss reviews: http://www.publishamerica.com/cgi-bi...ounge/7792.htm

What I find *boggling* is the following response on that page:
Message:
Kas-

I don't, and won't do reviews. Why, because I would have to be honest, and I don't want to do a bad review if need be.

[AnneMarble]

Originally Posted by keltora

As I have said before, librarians don't take Amazon.com reviews seriously because we know the majority are friends and family reviews, and your family is always going to love what you do (even if they made fun of you for dreaming that dream when you were growing up ).

Heck, I've bought books because some twit on Amazon gave it a negative review that made it sound like something I wanted to read. It's one thing if the negative review says something about the book (such as the viewpoint is bad or the writing is pretentious), but if they start ranting about how the fact that people love this thriller is proof that the world is full of illiterate fools... well, this illiterate fool will probably buy that book just to say I'm glad Amazon gives the opportunity for readers to post reader reviews, however, because some of them are damn good at reviewing, and you can usually tell by reading the review which ones are good and which ones have some hidden agenda.

[Sher2]

Originally Posted by AnneMarble

Off the top of my head, I can only think of two self-published authors who turned out to be good in all that time -- and both were actually self-published rather than published through a "self-publishing service." I bought books from both of them, too. [/color]

Oh, dear, that's a pretty dismal statistic. I suppose it serves to show, however, that there is some wheat among the chaff.

This was published in the the February 13 edition of The Times Picayune.
I was invited to present as their guest! And so was Brian, my co-author)

http://www.nola.com/search/index.ssf...05320.xml?nola
NEW ORLEANS WRITERS CONFERENCE

The New Orleans Writers' Conference will be held May 12-13 at the Hotel Monteleone, bringing authors, agents and editors from the New York literary scene. The first 100 (partial) manuscripts submitted will be reviewed by major agents and editors. All genres included. Register now. www.neworleanswritersconference.com or call 566-5019. Among those scheduled to attend are representatives from the Amy Rennert Agency, Inc., The Rittenberg Agency, Watkins/Loomis Agency, Crown Publishing Group, Simon Spotlight Entertainment (Simon & Schuster), Penguin, Vintage Books; and writers Berthe Amoss, John Barry, Roy Blount Jr., Douglas Brinkley, Patricia Brady, Carol Gelderman, Brian Hill, Carl Lennertz, Tom Piazza, Dee Power, Ben Sandmel, and Christine Wiltz.

Dee

[Kate StAmour]

Originally Posted by DeePower

<snip>

www.neworleanswritersconference.com/"]www.neworleanswritersconference.com[/url] or call 566-5019. Among those scheduled to attend are representatives from the Amy Rennert Agency, Inc., The Rittenberg Agency, Watkins/Loomis Agency, Crown Publishing Group, Simon Spotlight Entertainment (Simon & Schuster), Penguin, Vintage Books; and writers Berthe Amoss, John Barry, Roy Blount Jr., Douglas Brinkley, Patricia Brady, Carol Gelderman, Brian Hill, Carl Lennertz, Tom Piazza, Dee Power, Ben Sandmel, and Christine Wiltz.

Dee

Dee, I am so psyched for you! I actually got emotional when I read your post. You (and Brian) have worked so hard, and done so much for so many people. I wish you both oodles of success; you have more than earned it!

((Hugs and congrats))
Kate

[Sher2]

Originally Posted by DeePower

This was published in the the February 13 edition of The Times Picayune.
I was invited to present as their guest! And so was Brian, my co-author)

http://www.nola.com/search/index.ssf...05320.xml?nola
NEW ORLEANS WRITERS CONFERENCE

The New Orleans Writers' Conference will be held May 12-13 at the Hotel Monteleone, bringing authors, agents and editors from the New York literary scene. The first 100 (partial) manuscripts submitted will be reviewed by major agents and editors. All genres included. Register now. www.neworleanswritersconference.com or call 566-5019. Among those scheduled to attend are representatives from the Amy Rennert Agency, Inc., The Rittenberg Agency, Watkins/Loomis Agency, Crown Publishing Group, Simon Spotlight Entertainment (Simon & Schuster), Penguin, Vintage Books; and writers Berthe Amoss, John Barry, Roy Blount Jr., Douglas Brinkley, Patricia Brady, Carol Gelderman, Brian Hill, Carl Lennertz, Tom Piazza, Dee Power, Ben Sandmel, and Christine Wiltz.

Dee

Oh, wow, you're going to the Monteleone! Do you need a gofer or anything (hint, hint)? Seriously, Dee, you've (and Brian, too) earned this. Enjoy every minute of it!

[GPS]

If seeing an ad hominem review gives you pain you're truely in the wrong business. It's meaningless. Readers will understand as Ms. Nantus said.

[GPS]

I think Meiners probably got that for his hardcover edition. He took it straight from the rest of the recruits.

[keltora]

Originally Posted by AnneMarble

Heck, I've bought books because some twit on Amazon gave it a negative review that made it sound like something I wanted to read. It's one thing if the negative review says something about the book (such as the viewpoint is bad or the writing is pretentious), but if they start ranting about how the fact that people love this thriller is proof that the world is full of illiterate fools... well, this illiterate fool will probably buy that book just to say I'm glad Amazon gives the opportunity for readers to post reader reviews, however, because some of them are damn good at reviewing, and you can usually tell by reading the review which ones are good and which ones have some hidden agenda.

Yep. I know an author who got slammed solely because their books were outselling a jewelry sales person at a con a couple of years a go, and the jewelry sales person blamed them for standing at their publisher's table, shouting anything under the sun to attract attention, and accuse the author of purposely being loud to distract the customers.

Said jewelry maker apparently got a dozen or so friends all in the same area they lived in to post bad reviews on Amazon.com just for payback, but seeing that ALL the reviews were from people livinig in the jeweler's town, they figured out what was happening and had the reviews removed.

But I still think a lot of the PA people who sing the eternal praises of their p/u/b/l/i/s/h/e/r/ printer are deluding themselves into thinking their words are so precious everyone in the world should like what they have written, and that people negative reviews are purely spiteful.

That is a false assumption. It is unrealistic for any author to think the whole world should and will love everything they write. I certainly don't expect it.

But then, I'm not J.K Rowling either.
Laura J. Underwood (A Little Bit of Travis Tea--My ATLANTA NIGHTS can poke out your EYE OF ARGON any day!)

DRAGON'S TONGUE forthcoming from Meisha Merlin in the Summer of 2006. Preview the novel at http://www.embiid.net

[JennaGlatzer]

Originally Posted by GPS

If seeing an ad hominem review gives you pain you're truely in the wrong business. It's meaningless. Readers will understand as Ms. Nantus said.

Don't know about that. If that's true, then I'm in the wrong business, too. I've asked Amazon to remove two reviews of my books. Both were written by people who were banned in this very forum, neither of whom had read my books. Both immediately tanked my Amazon ranks, which meant I sold fewer books as a result of these stupid "reviews," which means that perhaps readers could NOT distinguish these from real reviews. Amazon removed one, and not the other. But to his credit, the other person wound up removing his review himself. I appreciated that. It did hurt me, no matter how much I'd like to say "Bah! I'm bigger than that!" Having to look at a review page and realize "Someone HATES me" hurts me. I don't think that makes me any less of a writer. I'm prepared to withstand these kinds of things to stay in this business, but I can't say it doesn't bug me. Being an author means you need to be tough, but it doesn't mean you lose all sensitivity.

[GPS]

That is a false assumption.

Big time.

[GPS]

Jenna Glatzer,

I don't see how you can attribute tanking Amazon rankings to two negative reviews by amateurs. I would have to call that a false cause fallacy. As for the bad feelings and sensitivity, that is real to you, as with the PA authors, but just doesn't have any merit business wise.

Go look at one of Ann Coulter's books and see how many she has. Ooh boy. She earned em too.