Authors “Writing” Their Own Reviews

I’ve been silent on the topic of authors “writing” their own reviews for far too long. Partly because I’ve been tracking the activities of certain architects of hate and identifying the tactics they were using to simultaneously trash my public image while promoting themselves. What I found were networks of authors, which included many of these same unethical competitors, who were:

a) Writing their own reviews and other commentary

b) Having friends and family write their reviews and other commentary

c) Swapping reviews and other praise like bubble gum with other authors

or d) All of the above.

Digging deeper, I found authors who were buying reviews in bulk either from paid review sites or through enticements/promises of possible remuneration to readers and others. Not to mention, the countless authors and publishers who were paying marketers to get reviews for their books, either through direct solicitations or indirectly through promotional activities designed to garner reviews.

The worst of these employ companies like SoulKool. Soulkool for those who don’t know is one of the pioneers of underground Internet promotion—and one of many similar companies that helped make some of the biggest names in the entertainment industry the biggest names in the entertainment industry. Soulkool and the related “Sons of Soulkool” are where authors and publishers look to make Harry Potters, Twilights and Percy Jacksons.

Sometimes though stealth marketing isn’t so stealth. Like when certain companies use their book fairs and related programs in schools as promotional rocket ships. Not only that, while there, they offer free books and other perks to teachers in exchange for favors, like say getting 20 students to write reviews of certain popular books online. Multiply that one example across all the schools in North America and you start to see the enormity of the problem. Disguise such bias as a literacy program and no one dares say a thing about it.

When these authors and publishers put enough of these unfair/unethical review and commentary practices together, it’s how an author whose first book was published yesterday can appear to be a rock star on Day 1. And let me tell you, there are plenty of Day 1 rock stars out there.

In the real world, very few readers will write a review of a book they read (without some incentive). How few? Generally, only about 1/10th of 1% to about 5/10ths of 1% of readers will write a review of a book they read. Or put another way, a book 50000 people have read will likely garner at the most 200 reader reviews ever.

I've been writing for 30 years, and have over 150 books to my credit. My own books have very few reader reviews relative to the 7.5 million people who have read them (and not including those reviews due to certain tactics of unethical competitors). And that's because in the real world, it's a rare reader who writes a review of any book.

Yes, It is a Problem

So back in 2009 an indie author picked up the nonsense from Rothfuss and friends and started posting hateful reviews of my books and hateful rants on my Facebook pages—under a few dozen accounts before I finally got fed up, called her out and told her to knock it off. She did but in typical fashion she then got her friends involved because she believed that it was her right to harass whoever she wanted to.

One of the same friends, Angela Perry, who had written comments to my Facebook page at that time, came back recently and posted a hateful rant to my blog. The next week she went to Amazon and posted nonsense. A few days later, she went to Goodreads and posted a few hateful reviews.

She then posted nonsense along with links to her reviews and other nonsense to 1) my Robert Stanek facebook page, 2) my William Stanek facebook page, 3) the Reagent Press facebook page AND 4) my personal facebook account.

Clearly by including links to her nonsense, she wanted to me to know what she had done. I ignored all of the above until she started tweeting nonsense directly to my twitter account. When I replied and called her out on using multiple accounts to harass me, she replied with

@robertstanek This is my only account. Not everyone behaves like you do.

@robertstanek Ha! Erm, okay, you call the police and tell them I tweeted you three times. I'll mention your fraud. G'ahead. I'll wait.

Her goal obviously was to twist the truth, get her twitter friends riled up, etc. This is typical of what these people do. Angela Perry is of course a friend of those involved in the twitter nonsense last fall. Two new one star reviews on Goodreads recently from her friends as well and more nonsense elsewhere recently from the same.

Which brings me to the real point of my post: How a few malicious individuals like these cause harm, not just to me but to everyone in the book industry. They try to seem like a majority while in fact being only a few malcontents. Most of these people are other authors--competitors who believe they can do anything they want to harm another author.

Bestseller Lists Can Lie (Or Alternatively Finding Your Happy Place While Perusing the Bestseller Lists)

I'm Robert Stanek and I founded Go Indie and Read Indies to help and support independent authors. Today, I want to break down a mistruth in this industry: the one that says bestseller lists show the actual bestsellers in the industry. The simple truth is that bestseller lists don't necessarily show the books that actually are bestselling in any category or any genre at any particular time. More accurately, bestseller lists are reflective of the bestselling books at any particular time in any particular category or genre.
  

Bestseller lists, like those in the New York Times, can lie. Every year books appear on the New York Times lists that have relatively few sales, especially when you get into the extended portions of particular lists. Every year books appear on the New York Times lists that have fewer sales relative to other titles in a particular genre that aren’t on the list. Every year books appear higher on the New York Times lists that actually have fewer sales than titles ranked lower on the list. And none of this is specific to the New York Times lists, rather this is specific to all lists of this nature.

Bestseller lists capture a portion of sales in particular markets and locations. Some bestseller lists incorporate numbers reported to them by publishers as well, which is sort of like inviting the fox into the hen house.

Publishers can become craftsman at working the bestseller lists to ensure important titles land on them. Ways some publishers do this: one-day laydowns, strict street dates and distribution focused on locations tracked by the lists. So if you’re Publisher XYZ and you have a book that you want on a particular New York Times list, you ensure the boxes of books arrive at specific stores on a specific date, can’t go on sale until a specific “street” date and you ensure those stores tracked by the list are your priority focus—you may even ship at different times to markets not tracked by the list to ensure buyers have to go to locations tracked by the list to make purchases.

Publishers organize marketing, drive pre-orders, give tracked stores incentives—whatever it takes—to ensure buyers go out and buy the book on a specific date or dates and especially at tracked stores—and those targeted sales at the right locations put the book on that important list. For some of the most important lists, depending on time of year and category, that tactic can be used to put a book on that all important list with only a few thousand actual sales in a particular week. For other lists, depending on the time of year and category, that tactic can be used to put a book on a list with less than several thousand actual sales in a particular week. Go into the extended lists and that tactic can be used to put a book on an extended list with even fewer sales. Yet when publishers proclaim a book a New York Times bestseller, they rarely state the list the book was on and I don't think I've ever seen one make the distinction between a primary list and an extended list.

Being on a bestseller list is, of course,  very cool for authors and publishers alike. I just would prefer specificity and you may as well. When possible and practical, a USA Today Bestseller should be listed as such and by category, as should a Publisher's Weekly or other print media bestseller. Likewise for online bestsellers, which should list the website and category. Preferably the category will be a top level or competitive second-level category, as this will have more relevance than lower level categories.

With my books, when possible and practical, I always try to state exactly where my book was a bestseller and in what category and in the relative position within a category. I believe that's the only honest approach. As examples:

'The Pieces of the Puzzle' was #1 Fiction for 4 weeks, Top 10 Mystery for 11 weeks and Top 20 Mystery for 16 weeks at Audible.com. 

'The Kingdoms and the Elves of the Reaches' was #1 in Fiction at Audible and soon #1 on the entire site and not long after one of the Top 100 grossing titles in Audible’s history.

When you are specific, whether on a media list or online list, you let readers determine relevance for themselves. As online categories at specific sites are straight forward and based on actual sales numbers, rather than being weighted or based in part on a publisher's reported numbers, I believe online lists when specified precisely can be more honest than media bestseller lists.

The New York Times in particular has many bestseller lists. These lists change over time and currently, at the time of this writing, are as follows:

Combined Print & E-book Fiction (Top 15, extended to Top 35)

Combined Print & E-book Nonfiction (Top 15, extended to Top 35)

Hardcover Fiction (Top 15, extended to Top 35)

Hardcover Nonfiction (Top 15, extended to Top 35)

Paperback Trade Fiction  (Top 20, extended to Top 35)

Paperback Mass-Market Fiction (Top 20, extended to Top 35)

Paperback Nonfiction (Top 20, extended to Top 35)

E-book Fiction  (Top 25, extended to Top 35)

E-book Nonfiction  (Top 25, extended to Top 35)

Hardcover Advice & Misc.  (Top 10, extended to Top 15)

Paperback Advice & Misc.  (Top 10, extended to Top 15)

Children’s Picture Books   (Top 10, extended to Top 25)

Children’s Middle Grade    (Top 10, extended to Top 15)

Young Adult    (Top 10, not-printed extended)

Children’s Series   (Top 10, not-printed extended)

Hardcover Graphic Books   (Top 10, not-printed extended)

Paperback Graphic Books   (Top 10, not-printed extended)

Manga  (Top 10, not-printed extended)

Combined Hardcover & Paperback Fiction (Top 35, not-printed extended)

Combined Hardcover & Paperback Nonfiction (Top 35, not-printed extended)

Each list has a primary and an extended portion. Some of these lists are harder to get on and more competitive than others. Generally, the number of titles on each list is reflective of how competitive the list is. Generally, unit sales, or the number of books sold, is what lists look at vs. the cost of a book and its total earnings. However, the lists depend on tracked store reporting, on publisher reporting and relative weighting. These things virtually guarantee certain types of books will never appear on certain media bestseller lists--at least until the rules are changed to be more reflective of the entire marketplace (and I won't hold my breath waiting for that to happen anytime soon).

If you're an indie author, while you likely won't get on such a list with printed books, you may get on such a list with ebooks. Inclusion of ebooks is something that's happened only in the last few years. Ebooks were included when the list creators started realizing that many e-only books had unit sales above those of what they were calling bestsellers at a particular time. For the authors whose books peaked before such reporting, they simply missed the opportunity to have those books appear on the media lists--and there were many authors who lost such opportunities. 

View any of these lists online and you’ll be able to read a full explanation of their methodology for creating each list. When you read the fine print, you find that the lists are weighted like I've mentioned: “The universe of print book dealers is well established, and sales of print titles are statistically weighted to represent all outlets nationwide.” 

In other words, the lists for printed books are representative of sales at tracked stores and then multiplied by and/or padded with a modifier value to represent sales across the US. (And there's other fine print as well, such as with regard to publisher reported numbers, etc, etc.)

Reading this you may wonder if a list like this is sort of like Nielsen ratings for books. With Nielsen ratings, the television viewing habits of a relatively small cross-section of households are statistically extrapolated to be representative of millions of viewers across the US. Nielsen ratings are carefully controlled. The bestseller lists are not. With the bestseller lists, publishers know what stores and markets are tracked and what stores and markets aren’t tracked. Using statistical weighting, a few thousand sales at tracked stores can be interpreted as many, many thousands of sales across the US.

It's important to point out that if a list includes publisher reported numbers, as many lists did and some continue to do, the honor system was/is relied upon. The publisher reported numbers were/are simply relied upon as fact--something that some publishers took advantage of by shipping out huge numbers of books at steep discounts and than calling the books "sold."

As with print books, ebook-related lists are representative of the industry while not necessarily all inclusive.  At the time of this writing, the New York Times states they don't weight ebook sales yet--but may in the future--while also stating they track only certain ebook markets. It could be list creators simply want to find ways of being relevant when everyone else is looking to the primary online marketplaces themselves to determine what book is a bestseller at any given time. It's also important to point out that e-audio isn't included in such numbers, nor are ebook sales from websites not considered primary markets.

Finally, keep in mind, it’s not just traditional publishers who work bestseller lists. Over the past year or so, I’ve seen indies working online lists and I don’t like the trend.

Additionally, as cool as it can be for an author to see their free giveaway soar up the Amazon free list and maybe get to #1 Free in a category or even #1 Free on the entire site, a book given away isn't a bestseller. During my giveaways at Amazon every one of the books I had in KDP Select landed at #1 in a top-level category at some point in time. I gave away over 250,000 books and I don't count any of it as anything. Why? I gave the books away for free. Readers weren't purchasing them. Reaching #1 Free multiple times was fun but ultimately meaningless (and I do of course, as always, reserve the right to change my opinion about this).

If you're an author and you disagree with my thoughts on free, and that's your choice to do so, I hope you'll always qualify in any reference that your book was being given away at the time. You can use the same qualifiers I discussed earlier with regard to website, category and position within category. For example:

A #1 Free Mystery at Amazon

Further, true bestsellers stay on print bestseller lists not for a single week but for multiple weeks. True bestsellers stay on online bestseller lists not for a few hours on a particular day or for a particular day but for many days. Here's an example:

'The Kingdoms and the Elves of the Reaches was #1 on Audible for FOURTEEN consecutive weeks and then a Kids & YA Top 10 bestseller for the next THREE YEARS.

Now that's bestselling power and it was reflected in the massive sales and millions in retail earnings for my books at Audible.

Thanks for reading,

Robert Stanek

Don’t Cry for Me Argentina (Or Alternatively Muddling Through the Gold Rush… ;-)

Hi I'm Robert Stanek and I founded Go Indie and Read Indies to help and support independent authors. I've been an indie published author since 2001 and a professionally published author since 1995.

The writer’s life can be a great one. I don’t regret this writer’s life. Not in any way. But I am kind of tired of hearing about how poverty has chosen our profession and I am equally tired of hearing about writers who once made $45,000 in a week and now have a marketing book about it. Hence this post and its title: “Don’t Cry for Me Argentina.” And alternatively, “Muddling Through the Gold Rush.”

Recently a writer said in his blog that his indie bestseller made him nothing. The author said his book was on a particular bestseller list for about a week, expected it might make him a millionaire and was disappointed to find that he’d only (his word) earned about $15,000 that whole earnings period (which I assume covered a 3-month or 6-month period of time, based on the post). The disappointment in the post was quite the opposite of the “gold rush” euphoria of some others. But why the disappointment in the first place? Events like that one are fun times. String a few of those together and you just might have a career in this crazy business.

Some time back I read a blog post from a writer who had been a full-time writer with several modestly successful books yet only made about $35,000 a year as a professional writer for most of his career, but now that he’d gone indie he’d “hit it big” (his words) and was enjoying income of $75K a year or so. He’d been a “successful indie” about two years at the time. Based on the price of his books, it wasn’t hard to figure out this “success” was about 50,000 book sales a year in total. Good numbers, not necessarily big numbers. The truly BIG numbers come over the long term like when you continue to sell 50,000 books year after year for a decade or two.

Another indie expert I met along my travels was a writer who had a single period of success. She made $45,000 in a week during the holidays a few years ago and then rushed to publish a marketing book about her big success and to offer her indie marketing expertise. She’s had continuing sales but not like that one holiday success. I understand the “indie gold rush” euphoria that makes writers say and do things like this. Everyone in this crazy business of the writing life should. 

My thought on experts in any field is that there are very few actual experts. Be careful with that word when positioning yourself. Be honest too when you talk about your success and actual experience.

My thought on success in the writing life is that: You are a success when you know you are a success. Success isn’t about other people. It’s about you. John Steinbeck once said that “The writer must believe that what he is doing is the most important thing in the world. And he must hold to this illusion even when he knows it is not true.” 

Still, the truest success in this writing life really is something you can only look back on to know fully. The truest perspective comes with time. Time measured not in a handful of months or a couple of years but in many years, maybe even a decade or two.

Some of the biggest disappointments related to the writing life come from a misunderstanding of how the industry works. This business has feast and famine—boom and bust. What sells today might not sell tomorrow; what didn’t sell yesterday or today might sell tomorrow. You can be a failure today, a success tomorrow; a success yesterday, a failure today but a success tomorrow. Neither one sale nor one million sales make an expert—time and actual experience make an expert.

Don’t forget that in this “indie gold rush”–as with any gold rush—the ones who are going to strike it rich are more likely to be the ones on the periphery providing services than those of us who write the books. Mark Coker said something similar in a recent blog post. Now there's a guy who is an expert.

Thanks for reading,

Robert Stanek

Authors Who Trash Competitors

My first book was published by Macmillan in 1995. That bestselling book—Electronic Publishing Unleashed—and it’s bestselling follow up—Web Publishing Unleashed—became the seminal books on their subjects and helped define electronic and web publishing in the digital age, so much so that I was dubbed “A Face Behind the Future” by The Olympian. In 1998, I launched a series of books with Microsoft called Pocket Consultants, that quickly dominated their market and “defined excellence in technical writing”—not my words but the words of peers in peer groups at the ACM and beyond through awards for excellence, outstanding writing and merit. By 2000, my books had sold millions of copies.

It was early 2000 that I decided to do something different. I decided to get my fiction works published independently using my middle name, Robert. Going indie at that time wasn’t something professional writers did. In fall 2001, Reagent Press and I tested the market by publishing my first fiction book as a serial ebook. The test was hugely successful and we released ‘Keeper Martin’s Tale’ as a single volume in February 2002, where it quickly became a Science Fiction & Fantasy bestseller at Amazon.

With the phenomenal sales, the book started getting reviews. First, two short supportive reviews from readers who liked the book, then a strange one-star review that said, among other things, “I’ve been had. This is nowhere near a 5 star book like all these reviews claim.” Another of my books, published shortly after my first, got a similar strange ranting one-star review—the second review ever for that book.

This continued. An anonymous one-star review soon asked “Is it just me, or what?” before trashing the book and me personally. A series of one-star reviews followed, one in mid April 2002 stating “For those who enjoy a great fantasy read, no one comes remotely close to George R. R. Martin's ‘A Song of Fire and Ice Series’. Stanek has the initial makings of a good storyteller, but he's still a long, long way off. Don't waste your time with this one...”

This was followed by an anonymous one-star review on April 19 2002 stating “There's no way it even begins to compare to the works of authors such as George R.R. Martin.”

Another one-star review, written in an identical style, with the title “What book are the rest of you reading?” soon followed in late April 2002. This review said, among many things, “After reading him for an hour, I had to go pick up Lord of the Rings just to confirm to myself that Tolkien's writing wasn't that bad. I don't see how Stanek can even be close to Robert Jordan or George RR Martin, its like comparing a high school english paper with War and Peace.”

The flow of one-star reviews from anonymous (and sometimes from someone using pseudonyms and newly created accounts that typically had only reviewed my book the day the account was created) continued throughout April and into May. The timeline here is important because in May 2002, the following appeared in David Langford’s Ansible: “Amazon Mystery. Authors of fantasies on sale at Amazon.com have noticed a rash of oddly similar customer reviews that rubbish their work and instead recommend, say, George R.R. Martin, Robert Jordan, and Robert Stanek. The number of Big Name commendations varies, but not the plug for self-published author Robert Stanek. Who could possibly be posting these reviews (many since removed by Amazon) under a variety of names? It is a mystery, but Ansible is reminded of how Lionel Fanthorpe's pseudonymous sf would often mention those great classic masters of the genre, Verne, Wells and Fanthorpe.”

Note how they twist what they’ve done into something I’ve supposedly done to them--this is a constant tactic. I assume this post was written by David Langford friend and blogger, Adam Whitehead, as Whitehead then took to his blog to rant about how I was supposedly writing fake five-star reviews of my own books using sock puppets. As Whitehead is and was the self-professed #1 fan of George RR Martin (and is even credited in one of George’s books), all the sock puppet one-star reviews mentioning George RR Martin were suddenly starting to make sense as they were all likely written by Whitehead and his friends.

If this nonsense had all ended there, this would be a much shorter article, but the nonsense didn’t end. Instead, a group of competitors, started trashing me everywhere they could think of online--from Terry Goodkind's forums to SffWorld and beyond. Soon after I was being trashed on several author bashing sites as well with fun names like cr*p authors and dog sh*t—sites set up by certain authors and their friends to bash authors they disliked and/or wanted to ruin for whatever reasons.

Crazy? Surreal? In a word, Y-E-S. But all this was just the beginning.

In 2005 my books were praised in three printed books: ‘The Complete Idiots Guide to Elves and Fairies’ (June 2005), ‘Ancient Art of Faery Magick’ (Sep 2005) and ‘Popular Series Fiction for Middle School and Teen Readers: A Reading and Selection Guide (Children's and Young Adult Literature Reference)’ (Jan 2005). Also in 2005, my Ruin Mist books debuted in audio and ‘The Kingdoms and the Elves of the Reaches’ became an instant bestseller, catapulting straight to #1 in Fiction at Audible and soon #1 on the entire site and not long after one of the Top 100 grossing titles in Audible’s history. It was my moment in the sun and I should have been in heaven. Meanwhile, I discovered these hateful people were organizing others to trash my books and me personally across the Internet—and they did so with ruthless abandon while someone or some few began sending me daily threats.

In February 2007 ‘The Kingdoms and the Elves of the Reaches’ was praised and reviewed by the leading magazine for YA librarians and later was on a number of reading group’s lists. This seems to have caused this group to set their teeth in again. Around this time a new group got involved as well, including authors Patrick Rothfuss and David Louis Edelman. Rothfuss and Edelman trashed me on their blogs in 2007, trying to enlist their fans in trashing me and their fans did begin trashing me in a big way. Blogger Patrick St. Dennis of Pat’s Fantasy List, Rothfuss’ #1 fan and friend, set to trashing me in his blog as well. Others joined in and quite a few who were directly associated with fantasy publisher Tor.

Edelman stoked the flames through comments he and others added to his pages while later blogging about a picture I took with Brian Jacques. The claim being I supposedly photoshopped myself into a picture of Brian Jacques to make it look like I was at a book signing with him (and many variations of such to get people angry). The picture (of myself, my entire family and Brian Jacques at Brian’s book signing in my hometown, posted with Brian’s permission) was taken without my permission from a tribute page featuring Brian’s Redwall books and distributed around various blogs and sites while people trashed me.

When my military memoir ‘Stormjammers: The Extraordinary Story of Electronic Warfare in the Gulf War’ was published, these same few started spreading lies about my military service. They told people I hadn’t earned the Distinguished Flying Cross, that I hadn’t been in combat. One of these went as far as telling people I hadn't even been in the military because he flew EC's and no one had ever heard of me. Considering, I’m a distinguished combat veteran, having received many accommodations for my wartime service, that was the deepest of insults. I couldn’t tell you why people believed such nonsense when I had written a memoir about my time in service, but they did—and if the daily threats I had been receiving weren’t bad enough, the new threats I got became even worse.

Apparently, they hadn’t done enough damage by 2009, because that’s when they came back at me in a big way again with Rothfuss publicly trashing me on his Facebook page and blog again. Some few also set up websites to praise themselves and their friends while trashing me (or simply to trash me). This is when sites like No hoper, best fantasy books and conjugal felicity were created.

These few are also consummate experts at cross-linking diatribes from one to the other while twisting what they’ve done into something I’ve supposedly done to them. The worst of these strange jabs at blaming me for their own handiwork?

In 2009 around the time Rothfuss publicly trashed me on Facebook and his blog, this “crew” seems to have written several one-star reviews of ‘A Name of the Wind’ (Patrick Rothfuss’s first book) that they then tried to claim I had written. A likely goal of getting people to rally around Rothfuss while sending an even bigger mob to trash me. The only problem is, though the accounts they used on Amazon apparently had written no previous reviews, they seem to have forgotten they had been using the accounts for a long time to add “trash tags” to my books. This meant the accounts had posted numerous tags to my books like “Fraud fraud” “Fake fake fake” “King of the Sockpuppets” and on and on.

Apparently, after they realized their mistake, they immediately removed all the trash tags to hide the evidence. They then claimed that the tags that had been associated with the accounts were instead “praising” my books. Taking this nonsense a step further, they reported the reviews to Amazon, telling Amazon that Robert Stanek wrote the reviews to trash Patrick Rothfuss.

Can you imagine their surprise when they realized their second mistake? Because I can. I had already previously reported these accounts to Amazon, as someone using these accounts had been posting trash tags to my books for months.

But this one doesn’t end there because someone then used SFFWORLD credentials to get the following posted to io9: “Science fiction and fantasy authors, including Pat Rothfuss and David Louis Edelman, have started noticing a rash of one-star reviews of their books on Amazon.com, all at once, The reviews seem to come from newly created profiles, and often say the same thing in slightly different words over and over. And now, observers think they've fingered the culprit: frustrated fantasy author Robert Stanek. In the past, Stanek has had the habit of posting tons of "anonymous" one-star reviews of people's books which all said, "This guy is rubbish, if you want to read real fantasy, go read Robert Jordan, George R.R. Martin and Robert Stanek!" The new batch of reviews don't mention Stanek by name, but do suggest that the authors should try serving in the armed forces to build character (a Stanek bugaboo.) And if you look at their profiles, the anonymous accounts have all tagged Stanek as a favorite author. All of this raises the question: How much damage can one anonymous maniac with an army of sock puppets really do to an established author on Amazon? [SFF World].”

Consummate hucksters? You betcha.

Rising Above and Finding Success As a Writer: Robert Stanek's Writing Life

I'm Robert Stanek and I run Go Indie / Read Indies as a platform to help other writers. Throughout my life I’ve found myself in extraordinary circumstances. As a child, I loved watching episodes of the Six Million Dollar Man starring Lee Majors as the bionic man. I loved the spin-off show, The Bionic Woman starring Jaime Sommers, just as much. Both were stories of larger-than-life people in extraordinary circumstances. They were classic television shows, written in the style of the day, and like the classic novels of Verne and Wells and Stevenson they helped me transcend abject poverty, a tragedy-filled youth and the misery of my circumstances.

However difficult that journey from childhood was, it did prepare me for an extraordinary life. A life filled with not just fleeting moments of transcendence but a life filled with sustained stretches of transcendence where I was able to rise above circumstance time and again.

Where I find myself today is a long way from a childhood where “flour and water” pancakes were breakfast and a can of peas was dinner shared by many. A long way from that kid who graduated high school near the top of his class but had no way or means to go to college. A long way from that kid who joined the military to serve his country and make a better life but later found himself in multiple warzones. A long way from that kid who eventually put himself through college while working full time and starting a family but with no idea of what he really wanted to do in this life.

And yet, every turn that seemed wrong eventually became right as I was able to overcome circumstance and rise above--like a phoenix born from the ashes. So much so that now as I look back, it seems I look back upon another’s life, thinking that kid really couldn’t have lived through all that. But that kid did, and that kid is me--all grown up now.

That kid all grown up has had as many difficult turns as ever from encounters with crooked competitors to encounters with just plain crooks. To say that writing is a difficult business is a serious understatement. Any business where some very few make billions and millions is a difficult business. Exacting, harsh, risky--and dare I say at times even hazardous. That is the writing business. As a writer you put yourself out there for the world to see. Though others may try to twist and pervert the lens through which the world sees you, you can rise above--you can succeed. You have only to dare to dream.

And when you dare to dream, measure your success not by the words and thoughts of others but by standards of your own heart and mind. Believe in yourself. You are a success when you know in your heart and mind you are.

For me personally, though I’m in no way bashful about my commitment to the written word and will gladly let you know about the 150+ books I’ve written and the many millions who have read my books, while shouting from the rooftops about the same, success has never been about stacks of books written or millions of books sold. It’s always been about loving what I do and believing in what I do each and every day. That in itself is enough for me to know I am a success. It’s why I get up each and every morning eager to write. It’s why I’ve never had writer’s block. It’s why I’ve been so prolific over a lifetime of writing.

Finding Reality in Hate: Personal Attacks, Stalkers, Unethical Competitors

On January 5, I contacted a guy who appears to have been writing malicious nonsense about me since at least 2009 and asked him to remove an objectionable review from GoodReads. This also is a guy who is friends with many of the bloggers and several of the authors who have been writing personal attacks about me online for years.

I joined GoodReads at the beginning of January 2013. Immediately after I joined, Tyson was one of several people who modified their reviews. To me, it seemed these people wanted to make sure their reviews were the first thing anyone--and me in particular--saw when they looked at particular books I'd written. All sort of a welcome to GoodReads greeting for me from these folks.

In this particular case, Tyson reposted his review from 2011 to give it a new date, January 5 2013. He also added the text of the review which had been on his blog. This moved his review to the top of the listings and made it appear as a new review.

Reading what follows should help you get a feel for just how far outside of reality all this nonsense that they keep cooking up really is and just how much rage some of these people have inside them. As you read this, note the timestamps: The conversation via GoodReads messages is finished when this person goes over to Sffworld and tries to stir up the mob, saying specifically "I haven't heard anything back from him, but then again this just happened tonight."

For the record, the ____ I've inserted replaces a threatened act that I stated in the message but is best left in private, regarding a specific incident, which was prosecuted successfully in April 2012.

Tyson lives in Lakewood, WA. From his messages, he believes I don't know that (and that I don't know what he's been doing). In his messages, he tries to act like he's offering helpful advice while he twists the knife with the other hand.

Let's start with his nonsense on Sffworld. His alias is DurzoBlint:


#   #    #   # 

January 6th, 2013, 02:40 AM #1
DurzoBlint

Just Threatened by Robert Stanek on Goodreads

I am sure that many of you are familiar with Mr. Stanek and way back in mid-2011, I wrote and posted a review of his book The Kingdom and The Elves of the Reaches on Goodreads. When I originally posted my review, I heard absolutely nothing from him. That is until about a week ago when I changed my review from a link to my review site to the actual review for all the world to read.

Now, Mr. Stanek is threatening me with slander (slander for those of you keeping score at home is defamation that is spoken [not written as in my review]). He also claims that my review has in fact harassed children that enjoy his books. Not sure how that can occur. Has anyone else had this issue with him, or with a different author? How did you respond, if you gave any response at all.

I did respond and told him I would alter the review where I felt he could possibly feel that he was being personally attacked as to avoid "libel" or where children could be "harassed"(I even went so far as to set him straight on the two forms of defamation). However, I remained vigilant in my rights to post a negative review of his book.

I haven't heard anything back from him, but then again this just happened tonight. I am not worried about any repercussions but I am curious as to what other reviewers have done in the past if something similar occurred to them.

Didn't quite know where to post this thread, so Mods feel free to move it to its proper location if this is not the proper place.

#   #    #   # 

Although Tyson says he didn't quite know where to put his post, I'm fairly confident he knew exactly what he was doing when he posted that message to the Books and Literature - Fantasy / Horror discussion. This location ensures his post is seen by just about everyone who logs in to the site, which is what he wanted.

He's been an active member of the site since March 2009, having actually participated in other threads there and elsewhere regarding me specifically. What he wanted to do was to get the most eyeballs, stir up the mob, get people angry and have them retaliate--as ever.

So what precipitated this? Here are the GoodReads messages between Tyson and myself.


#   #    #   # 

My message:

Jan 05, 2013 09:40pm

Dear Tyson,

I understand you did not enjoy my book. However, many readers have and most of my readers are children. As a result of posts like yours, many people have been harassed and most of them were children who were unable to defend themselves.

What you've written constitutes slander and under defamation laws you are personally liable for any damages caused by such. Rather than pursue legal action, I simply ask you to do the right thing.

I do not appreciate your personal attacks. I ask you to remove your review and refrain from posting in the future.

Thank you,

William Robert Stanek

#   #    #   # 

Jan 05, 2013 11:19pm

His response:

Mr. Stanek,
Grow up. Stop using children as a shield to protect yourself from negative reviews. There is no slander in the review (for your own information slander is spoken, libel is written). I maintain my right to freedom of speech by posting a negative review. Since I reside in Korea, I am not under American jurisdiction of defamation laws. Which even if I did, your case is about as solid as a wet paper sack. Considering you are a veteran, I would assume you of all people would support a person's right to free speech. And would have enough backbone to be able to take a little criticism, guess not.

The review has been up for quite some time (Mid-2011). The change was making the review for all to see without needing to click on the actual review website. You didn't have an issue with the review until it was made plain for all to see. However, since you have an issue with parts of my review, and to appease you I will remove the first paragraph of the review where "children" could, for some reason, known only to you, some how be harassed. Which should appease you under Section 230. The remainder of the review stands as is.

This is why you have such negative press. You take everything as a personal insult instead of taking reviewer's critiques and using them to improve. You would win over more readers and fans if you engaged them intellectually instead of cramming a bunch of legal mumbo jumbo that anyone with a high school diploma knows is total malarky. It is your online antics that have turned the reviewing community against you.

While I commend you on publishing books, that does not automatically mean that you are an accomplished author or that you should receive automatic acceptance. Accomplished authors work with their peers and constantly work to improve themselves while building a rapport with their audience and fans. Something you have failed to do.

Tyson Mauermann
PS- We are not on a first name basis.

#   #    #   # 

Jan 05, 2013 11:39pm

My response:

Dear Mr. Mauermann,

I appreciate this change. As an associate of multiple people who have written personal attacks against me online, you know very well what has been going on and that it has been going on for many years. These persons were extremely vindictive and personal in their attacks, and this is something you also know.

I've rarely engaged these persons, though they seem to have created all sorts of untrue nonsense stating I have.

Children have been harassed because of related nonsense. One of these persons threatened to ____ a child. Hope you can live with that on your conscience.

#   #    #   # 

Jan 06, 2013 12:17am

His response:

Mr. Stanek,

Really? You really think that the allegation that someone else threatened a child is going to make me not sleep at night, or somehow make me increase my opinion of you? Simply by using this random fact in correspondence with me has lowered my opinion of you a hundredfold. I have absolutely no connection with a random act of violence and you want to put the blame on me? I sleep quite well at night. It is silly, over-the-top antics like your last three sentences that have put you in the doghouse with the reviewing and online community at-large.

Do not presume to know what I do and do not know; however, if you are referring to who I think you are, they are highly regarded individuals in not only the reviewing community, but the publishing community as a whole. While they may have personally attacked you in the past, your attempts to elevate the argument only proved that they were not dealing with a rational person. Which again, I direct you back to your last three sentences you wrote to me.

Book reviewers, fans, and the occasional reader love their books, but never have I been witnessed to anyone threatening a child with physical harm. Not sure who these individuals are, but the online community would certainly condone that type of behavior and seek to identify that individual so that the proper authorities could take any and all legal action pursuant to the the law to prosecute them. I personally feel as if you are a bit delusional about a great many things.

This is all very unfortunate as I can tell you have a great passion for your novels and the world you have created; however, the way you have gone above and beyond to vilify and discredit negative reviews and book reviewers has led to the position you are in. My advice to you, and you can take it or leave it, is to grow from each positive and negative review instead of lashing out at the individual. Not everyone's tastes run as parallel to your own. That is the beauty of a review.

Furthermore, you have no inkling as to who I am. For all you know I could be in law enforcement or serving in the armed services and have seen many horrible things that far outweigh [what you attempted to hang upon my conscience.

I have done my best to be civil and not hang any moral obligations on you. I have also done my best to give you some advice as someone who is involve in the reviewing community. You can take it or leave it. But I ask you to refrain from contacting me again. I will uphold my end of the bargain and leave the review in its current form (which you have stated is adequate) and refrain from reviewing anything else in your catalog and in return I ask that you abstain from anymore correspondence with me as I plan to do the same. This will be the last time you hear from me. Best of luck in the future.

Tyson Mauermann

#   #    #   #