THE Group for Authors! discussion

As a member of noted Author and Novelist Warren Adler's newsletter list, I just received an interesting post in which the author of "War of the Roses" asks the question: "Should Novelists Review Another Novelist’s Novels?"
Not being a novelist, nor having pretensions in that direction, I had no answer but his question does raise a similar question in my mind. Should authors review each other? I'd love to hear the comments of all professional level writers at the Published Authors Biz group: http://www.goodreads.com/group/show/5...

Larry wrote: "As a member of noted Author and Novelist Warren Adler's newsletter list, I just received an interesting post in which the author of "War of the Roses" asks the question: "Should Novelists Review A..."

Personally, I've never agreed with it. It's just too easy for an author to simply pitch in a few good pennies on someone else's book, and then expect the same in return. Which is why places like Amazon are finally starting to view it as suspect, and with good reason. I've personally always believed that the reviewers should be the ones with no vested interest--the readers.

However, the reality is that the ones in the best position to offer reviews are usually other writers with the high-visibility blogs. Other writers tend to be the most voracious readers--or so the argument goes--so naturally they should have a say in the review and be allowed to offer one of their own, as a reader.

My position, however, is that even the best-intentioned author doesn't have the full capacity to be unbiased toward those authors he knows, or those who already did him a good turn beforehand.

It's a complex situation with no easy answer, obviously.

I say, no. Whereas I maybe better able to judge another writer's work compared to the average reader in respect to the craft, I know the blood, sweat, time and energy it takes. It's a cutthroat world out there, and I don't need to add fuel to the fire by passing judgement on another author's work.

I do believe in helping and frequently host authors as guests on my blog to post about writing and the publishing industry. If they host me in return fine, but not necessary. I'm more interesting in building my reputation as an approachable and well-mannered author to fellow authors and readers alike.

I can see what Shawn and Carla are saying, and have found myself in such a quandary. But I've never given an author I know a full five stars in a review, though I have received one myself. I don't think it is as straight-forward decision for an indi author as it may be for a more traditional author. But then 'professional' authors do get leaned out by their publisher or agent to provide an endorsement for a stable buddy.

Oh, definitely, Noor. I was first traditionally published before going self. My publisher sent me a list of things I needed to do for promotion and hiring a publicist and getting as many reviews as possible were numbers 1 & 2 on that list.

Noor wrote: "I can see what Shawn and Carla are saying, and have found myself in such a quandary. But I've never given an author I know a full five stars in a review, though I have received one myself. I don't ..."

Noor, I'm a tad puzzled by two comments: 1. "I don't think it is as straight-forward decision for an indi author as it may be for a more traditional author." What do you see as the ethical differentiation between an Indie author and a "more traditional" author?

2. "But then 'professional' authors do get leaned out by their publisher or agent to provide an endorsement for a stable buddy." Your implication is that someone is a professional author if they have a traditional publisher, whereas the standard definitions, dictionary and labor department of a professional is one who earns a living. By your standard, authors such as J.A. Konrath are amateurs. I don't think Joe would agree.

The New York Times Book Review is full of authors reviewing books. Authors are among the best readers there are; it would be a shame if they didn't give us their opinions on books. I think the single most underrated thing an author can do to promote their work on Goodreads is to use the site as a reader. It's a great way to talk about books without talking about your own book.

I would hardly hold up the New York Times as an ethical bastion. It's a business, they do what's right for them. I.e. sell newspapers and make money.

Larry wrote: "I would hardly hold up the New York Times as an ethical bastion. It's a business, they do what's right for them. I.e. sell newspapers and make money."

They publish reviews I'm interested in reading. For instance, if Kate Christensen (one of my favorite authors) gives a book a great review, I will probably check it out. It's the same concept as if a friend of mien whose taste I trust reviewed a book. There's no ethical problem with it.

Patrick wrote: "Larry wrote: "I would hardly hold up the New York Times as an ethical bastion. It's a business, they do what's right for them. I.e. sell newspapers and make money."

They publish reviews I'm inte..."

I still disagree. As I've stated, there is no absolute way of knowing just how unbiased that review you're salivating over really was. Call me cynical, but this business is just that: business, motivated by financial gain, and if an author sees a way of selling more books by highly-publicised back-scratching with a published review in the NYT, then they'll take it. To think anything else is naive.

Eh. If it happens, it's a lot less direct than that, and it just doesn't bother me. In the end, I don't think it matters much. I've found too many good books that way to just write off all reviews by authors.

I mean, in the end, nobody is "unbiased." I know plenty of authors and have reviewed their books on Goodreads and elsewhere, yet I myself am not an author.

Here's an example of 'biased' and untrustworthy review. My publicist sent out copies of my first book to the 40 on her list who responded to the invitation. She didn't vet them or even check to see if they read YA fantasy. When I did my blog tour, the most scathing review and laced with personal criticism of me and my daughter (for whom the book was written) came from a woman who used it to promote her manuscript editing site. It was displayed boldly on the front page! I was livid!! I immediately contacted my publicist to demand if she knew who this woman was and have it taken down.

Carla wrote: "Patrick wrote: "Larry wrote: "I would hardly hold up the New York Times as an ethical bastion. It's a business, they do what's right for them. I.e. sell newspapers and make money."

They publish ..."

Carla, Spot ON!!!

Shawn wrote: "Here's an example of 'biased' and untrustworthy review. My publicist sent out copies of my first book to the 40 on her list who responded to the invitation. She didn't vet them or even check to see..."

Shawn, While many aspiring Goodreads authors don't realize it, "self-serving" is becoming the motto of EBooks. I somehow hope the voices of fellow pros will reverse that trend.

This didn't happen with an e-book - rather my first traditionally published print book. And with the publicist my publisher suggested I hire.

But I do understand what you're saying, Larry.

Patrick wrote: "I mean, in the end, nobody is "unbiased."

Exactly a point I conceded in my very first post.

But my point that was missed however, was that the higher the visibility the review, the less motivated by altruism it will be. It's the law of Social Darwinism.

I think society is crippling itself with concerns about what might happen. In Australia, you can't take a photo at the beach because it might end up on a pornographic website. I'd rather we cut the rules and deal with the problems as they actually occur.

The same goes here. I learnt a lot about reviewing books in the process of learning to write so I feel that I (and most authors) can add value by giving reviews of books. Let's deal with the few cases of outright commercialism as they occur rather than saying that authors shouldn't review books.

Larry wrote: "Shawn, While many aspiring Goodreads authors don't realize it, "self-serving" is becoming the motto of EBooks. I somehow hope the voices of fellow pros with reverse that trend."

You obviously don't spend much time on Kindleboards, then. The majority of self-published authors KNOW how self-serving they are becoming. Again, they're following the laws of Social Darwinism and acting only in their own best self-interest for preservation, since the moving slush pile has grown exponentially in regard to the closing of traditional imprint houses.

And it's thanks to these self-serving self-published authors that Amazon began cracking down on reviews about six months ago. They began removing reviews of the entire book if you were an author who contributed just one story to the Anthology. And that was for traditionally-published. For the self-published, they've removed many reviews of authors' books if you contributed one and are another author.

Like I said, it's a highly-complex situation with no easy answer, as is the case with everything social in this world. You can't please everyone no matter how hard you try, because in essence, everyone's a cook in the kitchen with an opinion.

I think it's just a futile question to begin with.

Murray wrote: "I think society is crippling itself with concerns about what might happen."

That's an idealistic view not really based in reality, however. The reason society is concerned is because those few who have abused the system have set a new precedent that would create more problems if they were ignored. The paradigm constantly shifts each time someone else learns how to crack DRM, or hack software, or fake a deposit. It's a reality that must be dealt with if we want to continue having freedoms.

"I learnt a lot about reviewing books in the process of learning to write so I feel that I (and most authors) can add value by giving reviews of books. Let's deal with the few cases of outright commercialism as they occur rather than saying that authors shouldn't review books."

But again, you're failing to see that dealing with the mere symptom won't fix anything unless we address the disease. Becoming myopic and killing one bee won't take care of the growing nest above your head.

The fact is, because so many self-published authors have sought a way to gain a wider platform, they've abused the reviewing privilege, and it's affecting the rest of us. Amazon, in its zeal to level the playing field for everyone, may not be handling it right by choosing to view ALL author reviews as suspect, but at least they're attempting to curb the problem before it gets completely out of hand and they will eventually need to stop the reviewing at all.

Carla wrote: "Larry wrote: "Shawn, While many aspiring Goodreads authors don't realize it, "self-serving" is becoming the motto of EBooks. I somehow hope the voices of fellow pros with reverse that trend."

You ..."

Granted, it's a complex situation but, as you pointed out, it took Amazon stepping in to police rather than authors doing it themselves.

Carla, you also said: "...because so many self-published authors have sought a way to gain a wider platform, they've abused the reviewing privilege, and it's affecting the rest of us." I couldn't have said it better myself. In fact, I wish I had said it myself. :-)

Carla, I don't think it's a futile question, rather one that must be answered individually. I believe it all boils down to the author's personal choices of how they handle self-promotion.

Honestly, I hate having to promote myself, but it is the nature of the beast. Still, I only take steps I'm comfortable with. I try thinking outside the box, so to speak, but not push the box to some place I don't feel it belongs. I won't trash another author to advance my work, nor pass judgement in review, but that is my personal decision.

Others are more ready, willing and able do reviews and take some not so nice pot-shots in the process.

Shawn wrote: "Carla, I don't think it's a futile question, rather one that must be answered individually. "

I meant if the original author asking the question was doing so in seeking a definitive answer, then most definitely, it is a futile question, en par with such greats as, "Is abortion killing a life," or, "Should we have stronger gun control laws?"

However, I do see that since it is becoming such a regular problem, if one asks the question merely as a devil's advocate, hoping to generate more self-awareness than what currently exists, then sure, maybe it's necessary.

But, I still don't think authors asking the question will get any satisfaction from the answers. So in that regard it's still futile to ask. Because even if Amazon does completely stop the reviewing by their registered authors, you can rest assured, the desire for self-preservation will force these authors to other under-handed means to do it. Even if they have to break the rules and create separate non-author accounts.

And Amazon is just a small piece of the puzzle. There is absolutely no way to police the thousands of author and review blogs currently running. So the problem will continue--another reason why I think it's a futile question.

I think this question should be answered in two parts.

The first question should be should authors agree to review each other's books? I don't think so. Even if they agree to "be honest," there's pressure to give a high review. And which author is going to be happy if they give someone a 4 or 5 star review and the other author gives them a 1 or 2 star review?

The next question is should authors review other authors' books? I say yes. Why not? We're readers. If I enjoy a book, I want to tell others so they can hopefully enjoy it too. I'm assuming you all agree with this second answer because we all have reviews here on Goodreads.

Delaney wrote: "The next question is should authors review other authors' books? I say yes. Why not? We're readers. If I enjoy a book, I want to tell others so they can hopefully enjoy it too. I'm assuming you all agree with this second answer because we all have reviews here on Goodreads. "

That's presupposing that every single review we have is by another author, which certainly isn't the case.

Actually, Carla, I didn't assume that. I said that "we all have reviews here on Goodreads."

My point is, if you're saying it's wrong, then why do reviews at all? I don't see the difference. Maybe you can explain it to me...? I'm not trying to be funny. I'm really asking for clarification of the difference.

Further clarification: I'm talking about authors who post reviews. I don't see anything wrong with authors sharing their opinions about other authors' books, but if you think it's wrong, then why post on Goodreads?

Delaney. I posted this discussion on several forums. For more views and perhaps some clarification, suggest you take a look at a few. Here's one to get you started: Tips for Self Promotion, Sales, and Advertising.
However, it's really much simpler than some people are trying to make it to justify their own actions. It's a matter of ethics.

I think she means that we have all reviewed other books on Goodreads.

Carla wrote: "That's an idealistic view not really based in reality, however. The reason society is concerned is becau..."

It's completely based in reality. Your example proves it. Publishers create DRM so others hack it, so they create more complex DRM so others create better hacks. No one wins and the honest people suffer most.

If we want to continue having freedoms we have to stop taking them away.

Carla wrote: "But again, you're failing to see that dealing with the mere symptom won't fix anything unless we address the disease. Becoming myopic and killing one bee won't take care of the growing nest above your head."

No, but cutting down all branches to stop any hives growing is overkill. I'd suggest you move away from the nest or worry about the few bees that actually attack. Stopping writers from reviewing is dealing with the symptom. To deal with the cause, you'd have to take away the reason people want to write biased reviews in the first place.

I don't think that I should lose my rights as a reader just because I now write as well.

Oh please, let's not turn this into a useless philosophical discussion. It's really about three simple concepts. Greed, Ego, Ethics.

Delaney wrote: "Further clarification: I'm talking about authors who post reviews. I don't see anything wrong with authors sharing their opinions about other authors' books, but if you think it's wrong, then why p..."

You're assuming I do. I have done reviews in the past of books that completely blew me away (Blasphemy, for one, because the science was so dead-on), but I don't do it as a regular habit, because of my views that I just stated. I think the last review I posted was sometime in the spring on a Jeffrey Archer collection. I've read many books since then, and have come to realise the futility of the exercise. And I'm speaking of fiction. If the book is by Stephen Hawking or some other astrophysicist wannabe, and I see holes in his scientific method, then I will say so and am very outspoken on the topic of math or physics.

But I've never seen the point in authors reviewing fiction. I have seen enough and read enough about how the self-publishing world operates to be suspect of any review, let alone the ones done by so-called reputable authors with a shred of ethics.

Larry wrote: "Oh please, let's not turn this into a useless philosophical discussion. It's really about three simple concepts. Greed, Ego, Ethics."

This was my original point in it being a completely futile question.

And in all fairness, you can't post a question as open-ended as this one and then complain when it veers into a direction other than the one that aligns with your view of it. ;) There are more factors at play than the mere boiling down you've demonstrated.

Murray wrote: "Carla wrote: "That's an idealistic view not really based in reality, however. The reason society is concerned is becau..."

I..."

Your original statement was that we need to stop being concerned with what *might* happen and deal with the problems as they occur, and then proceeded to give an example. That certainly isn't based in reality, because it's like trying to put a band-aid on a carotid bleed. Societal problems can't be dealt with AS they occur because they're based in some deeper reason than the mere moment they occur. They're symptomatic of something deeper, and if we don't address that, then the bleeding and band-aids will continue.

So then I'm guessing you think Homeland Security overreacted when they put extra security measures in place after 9/11? Full body scans? C'mon, that's ludicrous! I just want to visit my mum!

But the fact is, they're being pro-active against a growing trend of hatred against Americans, and I, for one, am thankful that I have extra protection in place. Yes, I exchanged some fundamental luxuries so I could fly safer, but in the grand scheme of things, I'd much rather be alive than allowed to carry knitting needles.

No, biased book reviews by other authors certainly isn't a national crisis like terrorism, but the underlying principle and subsequent arguments are the same. The fix will come in organisations like Amazon becoming pro-active in finding measures to stop it before it starts.

Do you know how to fix black spot on a rose bush that's been infected? 9 times out of 10, they will tell you not to apply the anti-fungals if you didn't catch it in time, and the last recourse is to cut down the entire thing and start over. So, yes--sometimes you have to cut down all the branches to save the tree. It's the fundamental principle upon which most military organisations operate: save the many at the expense of the few.

And dealing with symptoms as they arise has never been successful in all of human history. Just ask the idiot infantrymen of the Boston Massacre. They went off half-cocked and shot into the crowd due to fear, when the real problems continued to exist and grow exponentially. Just ask Obama in this recent ridiculousness with the national debt. They put a band-aid on a Carotid bleed and it solved nothing. In fact, when all is said and done years from now when those commissions kick into action, it will have actually made things much worse.

But that doesn't matter, cause they dealt with the problem at hand, right? ;)

To me, blocking all authors from writing reviews IS shooting into the crowd.

If we ban everything that MIGHT cause problems, we wouldn't be able to do anything at all. If Amazon is losing customers because of unethical writers, then perhaps they're right to block writers from leaving reviews, but as you say, those writers will find other ways of getting around the blocks. Until Goodreads actually has a problem with writers giving bad reviews, I don't see any sense in putting blocks in place and the same goes for any other site / publication.

Murray wrote: "To me, blocking all authors from writing reviews IS shooting into the crowd.

If we ban everything that MIGHT cause problems, we wouldn't be able to do anything at all."

And unfortunately, that's the trade-off. Each time some other idiot finds a way to breach existing policies and laws, we lose a little more of our freedoms. As I said, I'd much rather be alive than be allowed to carry my knitting needles on a transatlantic flight.

But that's exactly how the government has realised they have to deal with problems. If your child is prone to accidents, then letting him climb trees at will is poor judgement, so you stop him from climbing trees. If you know people get hit by cars, you stop them from running into traffic, no matter how much they love the feel of the breeze from the on-coming semi. Simples.

I think we have a fundamental disagreement of the issue of pro-active interception, and will just have to agree to disagree.

Authors are people first. I have reviewed books on Amazon that I enjoyed, but did not put the tagline "Author of" at the end of the review. I don't feel right about it, but that's a personal decision. Just like I don't automatically tweet every new twitter follower with a "read my book, here's my site, love me" instant message.

Here's the thing: indie authors don't have a marketing crew that are experts in the field to help them promote. We all know this, but what some don't consider is that there are numerous sites out there with conflicting advice. There are several groups here on goodreads that recommend you review everything you can on Amazon with the tagline mentioned above as a marketing tool to get your name out there. I've read about one author who has made it to bestseller rank doing just this. Personally, I think people see through it and resent it. I do review others work, but the intent is not to promote myself in any way.

Amazon is in uncharted waters. We are paving new ground, all of us, traditional and indie authors alike. There are going to be bumps in the road, but I grow weary of people referring to my work as substandard. I have had offers from smaller traditional houses, but I chose to remain my own publishing company because I like the control. My book is selling well. I have grown to know the people who've read my work, and I love the fact that they contact me with a genuine desire to connect on a human level.

To me, that's worth more than all the money in the world.

So yes, I believe I should have the right to review whatever I want ... as long as the intent is to share my opinion not to hock my wares.

Carla wrote: "Larry wrote: "Oh please, let's not turn this into a useless philosophical discussion. It's really about three simple concepts. Greed, Ego, Ethics."

This was my original point in it being a compl..."

How is something that can be answered YES or NO be an open ended question? The original question, printed in bold face was: Should authors review each other? And, none of the responders did as requested and went to Published Authors Biz to record their answers!

I can't ... I'm not a member of that group

Here's an interesting article very pertinent to this discussion and reviews from the NY Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/20/tec...

So let me get this straight. You post a question in this group, asking authors who may or may not qualify to join another group so that they can answer yes or no to an open ended question that is becoming more complicated by the minute?

And how is this is not supposed to frustrate me?

Please don't think I'm being snarky. If I am I apologize, it's just that your last post seems to chastise the people on this thread because they aren't jumping over to join a group that needs approval before they can voice their opinion. Personally, I hate joining sites where I have to meet some guideline in order to be a part of a conversation, and absolutes never bode well for me. I don't see the world in terms of black and white, I'm an all shades of gray girl, so I choose never to voice my opinion in that way.

I can't be responsible for your frustrations. You should see how frustrated I am at some of the absurd responses. I made it a simple question capable of a one word answer. If others decide to use it to launch a diatribe or comment on the issues of the world, I can't control that.

Shawn wrote: "Here's an interesting article very pertinent to this discussion and reviews from the NY Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/20/tec......"

Shawn, thank you so much for posting that story. Interesting that fake reviews are dilluting the value of the remainder. Didn't I say something like that? :-) Oh yeah, I did. I especially liked the following passage from the New York Times story: “The whole system falls apart if made-up reviews are given the same weight as honest ones,” said one of the researchers, Myle Ott. Among those seeking out Mr. Ott, a 22-year-old Ph.D. candidate in computer science, after the study was published was Google,.."

I also must admire the mild language used by the Times: "...an industry of fibbers and promoters has sprung up to buy and sell raves for a pittance." I would have used stronger terms: ...an industry of liars and con artists attempting to defraud book buyers.

It goes to the heart of the "philosophical" argument in that there is no way to tell real 5 star reviews from fake - thus leading to drastic steps to curb the growing problem.

This is another reason I don't do reviews or even request reviews. If people want to read my books and post a review or give them a star rating, they do so on their own, no prompting from me, no expectation, no reciprocation. I don't even like posting reviews of books I own, but that is a requirement and/or expectation on sites like Goodreads.

As to an earlier comment of why be on Goodreads as an author if one does not review - I'm here to interact with readers and fellow authors. I give and take advice and grow by the knowledge learned.

As I've said before, I admittedly did a mutual review in which the other "writer" specified complete honesty. I received four stars, which seemed fair, but was appalled by the poor writing, lack of cohesive plot, characterization, etc. I gave it one star and myself a guilt trip. I vowed to not do it again.

Larry wrote: "I can't be responsible for your frustrations. You should see how frustrated I am at some of the absurd responses. I made it a simple question capable of a one word answer. If others decide to us..."

Now I see you're simply being obtuse on purpose, AND beginning to belittle those of us who have decided to humour you and respond. If you didn't want open discussion on THIS site, then why did you post your question here, ffs??

"Granted, it's a complex situation but,"

Once you said this, I failed to see why you continued to harp on the continuing discussion. You're not even listening to yourself when you talk, are you?

We're proving to you that it ISN'T a simple, one-word answer. You asked a question with the possibility of having several answers (because truly intelligent people see things from all angles and then have to make an informed decision), AND accompanied it with an edict that we join some group. Now THAT'S absurd.

"Interesting that fake reviews are dilluting the value of the remainder. Didn't I say something like that? :-) Oh yeah, I did."

And for the record? First, you misspelled diluting. Second, no, you didn't mention anything about false reviews or them diluting anything. I've gone back and re-read every single thing you said in this thread, and there wasn't one time you even alluded to that. Methinks you've posted to so many places you're incapable of remembering what you DID write and now you're trying to make us look stupid for your poor memory because you don't like it that you no longer have complete control of the conversation. People like you get on my tit.

And now I think this thread has run its course.

Shawn wrote: "It goes to the heart of the "philosophical" argument in that there is no way to tell real 5 star reviews from fake - thus leading to drastic steps to curb the growing problem.

This is another reas..."

You have great points.

Let me preface my next comment by saying I love Joe Konrath. We met in the same online critique group back in 2000, and he came to me in 2002 as soon as he landed his Hyperion Press deal and asked me to design his first web-site. I've spent years critiquing Konrath's fiction and making him look good in the press, and we've continued to be friends as a result.

So it naturally followed that when he asked me to be a Beta reader for Draculas in September of last year, I jumped at the chance.

The deal was he was breaking Draculas as a traditional book and needed reviews on Amazon so his deal with KDP's pre-order would work. And it DID work. On the day the book debuted, it did so in the #8 spot on their Top 100. I was thrilled that he had again achieved something no one else had.

However.

I didn't trust one of his reviews. I was honest and blunt like I've always been in my critiques/reviews, even going so far as to tell Blake he had numerous typos still left in the final manuscript which he graciously welcomed. But the reviews were posted by devout followers of Joe's blog and thus were motivated by reciprocity. Hell, even I did it to some degree: I was hoping he would then read my book and offer me his seal-of-approval. Well, half-hearted--I knew historical fiction wasn't his thing. (Early on while we were still in the critique group together and before he hit it big, he liked The Gaslight Journal so much he offered to pass it along to his agent, but that never happened, either.)

But after the book debuted and the experiment worked, you should've seen the hoards of authors debuting their own books who blatantly stole our e-mail addresses from his blog and then sent us spam of their very own, asking for the same deal. I wasted no time in sending them blistering e-mails and chastising them for something that *used* to be a practise commonly viewed as being in poor taste.

But my point is that when Joe set the precedent, it opened the door for every other unscrupulous idiot to do the same thing. And I tried his method with the release of Gaslight, and couldn't even get ten reviews up on Amazon. But *I* asked his permission first, because we have a working relationship to protect.

I don't know if anyone else got the method to work or not, but now there is a horrendous backlash of back-scratching going on that must be dealt with, and it's hurting the rest of us.

Carla, I'm not surprised. The pressure for authors to pursue, pay, request, beg, borrow or steal reviews is overwhelming! Both from PR firms and readers. The fact the article is appearing in the NY Times shows how systemic the problem has become.

This is also one of the reasons I won't solicit reviews. Any reviews or star ratings you find of my books, people did on their own. As a result, I don't have hundreds on Amazon or B&N - despite the hundreds that have already sold this year. Yet, it is the only way to ensure the reviews are genuine - by me NOT being involved.

Shawn wrote: "Yet, it is the only way to ensure the reviews are genuine - by me NOT being involved. "

EGGSactly.

Carla wrote: "Shawn wrote: "It goes to the heart of the "philosophical" argument in that there is no way to tell real 5 star reviews from fake - thus leading to drastic steps to curb the growing problem.

This i..."

Carla: Fascinating info. I suspect a lot of people following the practice do so without even caring about sales numbers. It's all about a distorted sense of making them "authors." Whether their writing is good or bad, whether they are selling, nothing matters to them except the questionable "prestige" of saying they are "authors." To be blunt, screw the prestige, give me the money everytime. Writing has been a business for nearly 50 years. My mortgage company won't accept prestige in lieu of greenbacks.

Carla wrote: "Larry wrote: "I can't be responsible for your frustrations. You should see how frustrated I am at some of the absurd responses. I made it a simple question capable of a one word answer. If other..."

If we're going to talk about misspelling, you misspelled humor as humour in your patronizing remark. And, since you allege being part of creating the problem that exists, isn't that a bit holier-than-thou to criticize me for disliking the fraudulent practice?

Larry wrote: "Carla wrote: "Larry wrote: "I can't be responsible for your frustrations. You should see how frustrated I am at some of the absurd responses. I made it a simple question capable of a one word ans..."

Humour is the English spelling.

I never created anything. You need to re-read it.