Off-topic posts removed from review, Feb 28

[donaldzlotnik]

I've read Sam's book and strongly suspect website politics (his history of stroking reviewers) being involved in his 4 star reviews. He has a lot of Mickey Spillane (sp?) type scenes in the book (all his books) and a very irritating tendency to cut connecting "small words" from his sentences.(Re-doing how people speak English.) Anytime a reader has to change how they read to understand the author is a huge distraction. I also found his "dumping" numerous secondary characters into his storyline and giving them names is distracting and difficult for the reader to remember them all as his storyline unfolds. Comparing his writing to other crime novels I've read--he rates a solid 2-3 stars. Maybe a dedicated crime novel reader who loves the genre can see 4 stars--I cannot.

[moderntimes]

I believe that I need to reply to these comments. Mr. Zlotnik and I corresponded earlier. He sent me a book he'd written and I read much of it, but since his book was not posted here for review, commenting on his book would be injudicious.

He accuses me of "stroking reviews" which I take to mean that I have somehow preened the reviewer for a good rating. This is untrue completely. I have had my disagreements with Scott (owner of this site) re. his pushing self-publishing over conventional professional book sale to a legit non-subsidy house. My objections however have only been procedural, in that I recommend that new novelists at least TRY to sell their books via a conventional route first. Scott has been honorable in his promotion of self-publishing throughout, and so our disagreement is only modest.

However... Scott runs a first rate operation and he is adamant about any bias or untoward influence for the BookClub reviews. I wish to state unequivocally that I have NEVER attempted to influence the reviewer in any way. Nor would I ever do this. As I said, my books stand on their own. Besides, Scott would NEVER allow such an influence. He does not tell the author who will be reviewing the book, and ensures that the reviews are unbiased. This is why I value the 4-star reviews that both of my novels have received. The ratings are honest and were created with zero influence from me. I credit Scott for preserving a fair and unbiased review system here.

I'm fortunate that my novels were purchased and are being published by a small "boutique" house, a contract which is fair and mostly standard, with industry-standard royalties and advances that are commensurate with the low budget of a small publisher but nevertheless are equitable. I don't diss self publishing if the author wants to. I only recommend that the new writer create the book with the intent of seeing it sold to, oh, Random House, for a big check. That mental image will help the new writer persevere to a high professional level, regardless of whether the book ends up being self published.

But I am angered by the implication from Mr. Zlotnik that I somehow milked the reviewer for favorable ratings. I want to state clearly that this never happened. I would not do it nor would Scott allow such.

I'm asking that Scott state here in this thread that this is true, that the reviewer was never influenced, "stroked" by me or by anyone else, in any way.

If you read my thread here and in the "Blood Storm" thread (my 2nd novel) you'll also see that I ask those who've read the book to please post a review on Amazon. But I clearly say that I am not asking for a high rating, only a fair review. You can see where I've said this previously. I would never ask for a biased review. I am a professional and that would be beneath me.

Regarding Mr. Zlotnik's own judgment of my novel and writing style, he's entitled to his own views. He takes umbrage at my somewhat abbreviated narrative and thinks this isn't how people speak. Well, a narrative isn't dialogue, first of all. And second, my style is perfectly within the bounds of modern English composition. As most of you know (perhaps Mr. Zlotnik does not) there are various sub-groups within English usage. Were I writing a formal magazine article or perhaps a technical paper (I've written many in my career) I would use "formal" English rather than "informal" English which I employ in my novels. Neither style is more correct than the other. It's a matter of choice.

Mr. Zlotnik's objection is mainly for my omission of articles which he found annoying. I'll illustrate with the first paragraph from Blood Spiral, which, incidentally, was professionally purchased by a publisher, and edited and reviewed by that staff (Tell-Tale), and none of the editors or proofreaders found any problems. Here's the original paragraph as published:

Police Headquarters in Houston is a seven-story concrete monstrosity that squats on a downtown cul-de-sac named Riesner Street. Since city jail is on the top two floors of the building, Houstonians refer to jail as the Hotel Riesner. I was on my way there to meet a client, currently a guest of the hotel.

Mr. Zlotnik took objection to this because he felt that I'd omitted articles (mostly "the") from the narrative which somehow made the passage difficult to read. So I ask you: Did you find this passage hard to understand? Were you annoyed by the English usage?

Here's a revised paragraph which Mr. Zlotnik would apparently prefer:

The police Headquarters in Houston is a seven-story concrete monstrosity that squats on a downtown cul-de-sac named Riesner Street. Since the city jail is on the top two floors of the building, Houstonians refer to the jail as the Hotel Riesner. I was on my way there to meet a client, currently a guest of the hotel.

I've added the missing articles as I'd expect he would judge better, and maybe give me a half-star for effort. And regarding his comment about too many ancillary characters? I am unsure what he meant. My novels are modern American crime fiction, and meant to be very realistic. I therefore have supporting characters as would be normally part of any genuine encounter with the police or judiciary. My private detective meets many people during his investigations. Characters are part of the story. This is, after all, the 4th largest city in the USA and any dealings with a crime investigation will result in my protagonist meeting everyday cops, rude drunks in a tavern, and at NASA, a fair number of staffers. I suppose that Mr. Zlotnik would excise Rosencranz and Guildenstern, also the gravedigger, perhaps Ophelia from Hamlet to make it less confusing?

Mr. Zlotnik is free to judge my writing. What is not acceptable however is for him to impugn my impartiality and imply that I somehow influenced the reviews.

Should anyone wish to further investigate, I recommend you check out the comments by the famed mystery novelist Bill Pronzini which he made about Blood Spiral:

“It's an enjoyable read. I think Sam Waas has done a good job of combining toughness and humanity in Mitch and in the people he deals with. Mitch comes across as both real and likable in spite (and in some ways because) of his shortcomings, and I look forward to seeing what happens to him in the sequel, particularly how he handles his guilt and remorse. The storylines are convincing and there’s a strong sense of place; the descriptions of Houston and environs and NASA are very well done. I’ve always subscribed to the theory that place should be depicted as realistically as the characters in a novel; that place should in fact be a character. Waas has succeeded admirably in that respect.”

And no, I didn't "stroke" Bill Pronzini for that generous statement, either.

[gali]

As both a reviewer and an admin I can attest that reviewers here are not influenced in any way by the authors. The site does NOT offer 'positive' reviews, only honest reviews, and there isn't any contact between the author and the reviewer prior the review. In fact, members of the review team are prohibited from having private conversations with any authors who have requested a review to prevent such an influence, among other things. Also the author doesn't know ahead of time the identity of the reviewer in order to ensure the integrity of the review. Mr. Zlotnik should be aware of all that since some of his books were officially reviewed here.

@"Scott" indeed would never allow untoward influence on the reviews, as it would undermine the whole point of the system.

I didn't have any difficulties understanding the passage (from the book) nor was I annoyed by the English usage. I actually liked this style of writing.

[moderntimes]

Thanks. What I asked for was the assurance that BookClub does not allow biased reviews nor allows the author to somehow influence the reviewer. And I maintain personal integrity in my own life, which includes my writing, which would also never entertain such actions.

Regarding his criticism of my writing, that is his right.

[sahmoun2778]

As the reviewer of Mr. Waas's books, I would like to say that I was not influenced by anybody when reviewing these books. I gave them 4 stars because I loved the stories and the author's style. Other readers may not like his style as much, this is true of every book that has ever been written. The forum here is available for discussion, so if you don't like something then say so, but let's keep it friendly and not make accusations against someone's character.

[gali]

Thanks. What I asked for was the assurance that BookClub does not allow biased reviews nor allows the author to somehow influence the reviewer. And I maintain personal integrity in my own life, which includes my writing, which would also never entertain such actions.

Regarding his criticism of my writing, that is his right.

You got such an assurance, and Scott will confirm.

You asked for opinions about your writing, so I stated mine. Each is of course entitled to his own view.

-- February 27th, 2016, 6:39 pm --

As the reviewer of Mr. Waas's books, I would like to say that I was not influenced by anybody when reviewing these books. I gave them 4 stars because I loved the stories and the author's style. Other readers may not like his style as much, this is true of every book that has ever been written. The forum here is available for discussion, so if you don't like something then say so, but let's keep it friendly and not make accusations against someone's character.

[bookowlie]

I am an experienced reviewer on this site. There is no contact between the reviewer and author of the book they are reviewing. The authors have no idea which reviewer has chosen their book. There are strict rules prohibiting private contact between the reviewer and author and you can be kicked off the site for doing so.

I "know" Moderntimes from his postings on this site, mainly in the Writing Discussion subforums. He has never stroked the reviewers on this site and always seems to want an honest, objective review of his books. The only thing he has ever mentioned, which I agree with, is that he doesn't want a subjective review based on a member's personal reading preferences or individual beliefs.

[moderntimes]

Thanks again. I not only wanted a verification of the fact that I never influenced reviews, but the assurance to others here that BookClub reviews are impartial for their own submissions. This is good for both the author and the reviewer.

In fact there was a lengthy and informative thread here recently regarding the non-impartiality of Amazon reviews, that they are pushed and "tweeted" by author friends and such. For the record, yes I've asked friends to post reviews of my books. But even from friends, I have never asked for a biased rating, just the review.

Mr. Zlotnik prefers a more ornate and less "modern" narrative. This is fine with me and if he felt that my style impaired his comprehension of the material (apparently it does) then he's perfectly free to state thus.

I learned to write in college, of course, but then from my part-time work at the Kansas City Star, "stringing" copy. I hew to the style exemplified by one of their former war correspondents, a guy who happened to once live 4 doors down from where I lived in KC, and who was instrumental in developing the KC Star stylebook, which I learned from. The reporter of course was a guy named E. Hemingway.

[Scott]

Wow, I am so happy to see so many influential members of the club attesting to the integrity of our review team.

From day one of the review system, I have worked so hard to keep a strong focus on the integrity of the review team system. I designed it so that the authors and reviewers do not have direct contact. The authors are never made aware of who selected their book until, if ever, the review is published. The authors do not get to see the review before is published. Sam knows this and never did anything to solicit a biased review from me and my team or as far as I know from anyone. There are countless other details to the way the system works that have been fine-tuned over the years to keep reviews unbiased and maintain integrity.

Nothing is perfect, and I welcome critiques, suggestions, feedback, and criticism of the review team system and software I have developed and of the way I administer the website.

However, I have a zero tolerance policy when it comes to anyone publicly commenting on a review to question the reviewer's integrity or to otherwise personally attack or criticize the reviewer or any member of Online Book Club.

As we can see by the preceding posts, the reviewers take great pride in their valuable and generous work here. This generous service provided by the reviewers has not only been immeasurably helpful for Online Book Club but also for so many authors who have benefited from the in-depth feedback on their work. Many authors have even ordered private reviews for unpublished books. The reviewers' own commitment to helping uphold these values is perhaps the most convincing reason to have confidence in the integrity of our reviews. The reviewers would not sacrifice that for some petty personal reason.

The reviewers, including sahmoun2778, are amazing, and I simply will not accept public criticisms of them or any members of Online Book Club.

Again, nothing is perfect. Please, everyone, provide any and all criticism you have about me or the way this website is run. You can send it to me privately or post it in the Suggestion Box, whichever you prefer.

[moderntimes]

Thanks, Scott.

Please everyone understand -- I do NOT have problems with anyone who questions my writing style or temperament or whether the books are good or bad.

From time to time I've posted excerpts from my novels and occasional short stories, and asked for critique, and have replied to those comments accordingly, as any writer should. I never question the person only the statements made.

Anyone who's read my postings can attest to this -- we've had lively and vigorous debate on various topics but we've all stuck to the material, and never, never the person making them.

For example, I write fairly "adult" private detective novels which may contain some sexual interludes and scenes of graphic crime violence. These book are not meant for kids nor for those who prefer more sedate and kindhearted tales. And I've been criticized occasionally for such content, and my response has never been to attack the person, but to simply state that my books aren't for everyone.

And like all authors I was delighted to receive a 4-star rating for both my novels, and yes, I posted the links on my website and my publisher has done the same.

Mr. Zlotnik had made certain critiques about my writing style which were totally within the parameters of the forum rules. He didn't insult me or cast aspersions, only commented about my narrative mode. This was a very routine critique and I would have been happy to discuss such with him.

He did however also hint (okay, impugn) that I had somehow pushed for a favorable review, which was both an affront to me and to this forum. I've lived a long and varied life and believe me, I've seen lots more turmoil than a website negative comment. But I am also a person who values my integrity. I write my novels and have fortunately been lucky to sell them to a legit and non-subsidy publisher, and so all my novels are professionally published via Amazon and are now on sale at selected bookstores. And now, I'm happy that both of my novels extant have received 4-star reviews here.

But ALL of this has been gained above board and without any undue influence. I didn't pay a red cent to see my books published and I didn't make the slightest effort to push for a favorable review. Likewise, a couple of top rated and very established mystery writers have given my books a nice "cover blurb" and believe me, none of that was fake or seduced or in any way pushed. I had already established a friendship with these authors and they were kind enough to provide me with the favorable comments.

Likewise here. I was delighted when the reviews were posted, and believe me, I was as surprised as anyone else would be. I also credited the reviewer for saying WHY the book was good -- and the reviewer was spot on in understanding the mentality of my private eye protagonist and recognizing the themes.

This is essential to a novel. There are two major "arcs" to any novel. First, the story or plot arc. And for a mystery thriller, there are clues and false leads and adventures which entertain the reader. But moreover, there is a second arc, which is the internal human drives of the principal characters and their movement in time and personal growth (or lack of such). This is what sets a good action novel apart from the "Michael Bay stuff being blown up" cheap substitute.

And the reviewer correctly saw the 2nd story arc and commented on it, and this really made me happy. Now I've had people who did see the underlying drives in the characters and who may have disagreed with them. For example, in Blood Spiral, my private eye's obsession with Terrie and how it is too "forced". But this again is fine -- comment on the way I tell a story is okay.

What Mr. Zlotnik did do, however, which led me to PM Scott about this, is that he clearly said that I'd somehow pushed or influenced a good review. This irritated me first because I would NEVER do this. I stand on my personal integrity. And second, he impugned the forum itself and the reviewers. This cannot be allowed, because (even thought Scott and I have "crossed swords" over literary matters) I know that the forum he runs is beyond reproach in integrity.

Thanks to Scott and others here who have made it very clear that this form's reviews are impartial.

Those who wish to know more about my novels, PM me and I'll give you my website info. My 3rd novel in the Mitch King series, "Blood Vengeance" will be out soon and I'll of course be submitting it for review here. And I'll stand by the review and its ratings as impartial, as the other reviews have also been.

And to Scott --
Removing Mr. Zlotnik's post would perhaps confuse other readers here. I would ask that his post be kept intact. He made certain allegations which, if the post were deleted, would seem perhaps displaced. He didn't use obscenity and his comments on my writing style (part 2 of his post) are valid criticisms which I endeavored to answer.

So if possible, I ask that his post be kept in the queue. Thanks.

[Scott]

I did not delete the posts. I moved the posts about this matter into this new topic here.

I do invite @donaldzlotnik to re-post the comments and critique of the the book itself in the review topic if he wishes. I agree that the post was mostly perfectly fine. No book is loved or hated by everyone, so it is greatly appreciated by author and reader alike to get all the different opinions. In that respect, I thank you, donaldzlotnik, for taking the time to share your comments.

With that said, my point is just that I do not want there to be any public personal criticisms of members on the forums except for criticisms of me.

Insofar as there is anything wrong with the site or the way things happen here, which is not unexpected since nothing is perfect, the fault is mine.

The authors who submit their books deserve much appreciation such as is done in, but not limited to, the "Author Appreciation" topic. The reviewers are extremely generous with the valuable service they provide to the website, and so the reviewers also deserve nothing but appreciation. Even broader, there is a vast team of people who help make this site possible in many different ways; I could not possibly name them all. I appreciate all the members of OnlineBookClub.org because the thing about a club is you can't have one by yourself.

[moderntimes]

Again, thanks. This is a fine forum and I plan to be lurking around here a lot longer, ha ha.

[bookowlie]

Each review has to be approved by the Editing Team before publication. There are specific guidelines for approval. One of the guidelines is that there has to be justification for the rating and the reasons have to be objective. If a reviewer gives reasons that are not objective, the Editing score will be significantly lowered and, in some cases, the review may be rejected altogether. This process is in place to ensure that the Official Reviews are objective rather than just a review based on a person's personal preferences.

[moderntimes]

Good points, owl.

We had a very interesting thread not long ago, "What constitutes an unfair review?" and many good issues were discussed.

The principal point I made in the thread is that a reviewer cannot downgrade the book just because it doesn't match the type of book the reviewer prefers. For example, for a mystery, if the reviewer prefers the action-filled, slam-bang thriller, and the book under review was a more genteel and sedate mystery, of the Agatha Christie style, the review cannot downgrade the book just because there was no car chase or blazing gun battle. That would be unfair.

What would be fair is a downgrade if the book didn't present the plot or story or theme well, if the writing was not very good, and the "genteel" story was poorly presented. That would be a fair criticism.

But we of course all know that and I'm pleased that BookClub "reviews the reviewer" to ensure that the assessment of the book is fair. Which is as it should be.

As Scott said (and so did I), Mr. Zlotnik's post was of 2 parts. His critique of my writing style was totally within his right. His jab at the review process and the implication that I'd somehow influenced a reviewer was however off base and has been correctly dealt with.

Like Scott, I welcome Mr. Zlotnik's feedback on my writing, as I do whenever I post an excerpt, asking for commentary. I've often received some excellent help on tweaking my story. And all authors should accept fair criticism.

Thanks to all.

[bookowlie]

It's also a problem when people give a review and don't give clear justification for the rating. For example, someone rates a book 3 stars, but all of the opinions are positive. If even one star is taken away, it should be clear why.

Moderntimes, it's true that Mr. Zlotnik is entitled to state his opinion of your writing style in his own "unofficial review" of your book. However, in an Official Review, there should be a reason why that writing style affects the rating. For example, a very wordy writing style might dramatically slow the pace of the story, too many changes in perspective might throw the plot off track, etc.