If her so-called agenda is to sit up there on her Queen of the Pompous and Insufficiently Edited, then okay. But if her agenda is to support new, beginning, indie authors, she's about as silly as silly can be.
The couple dozen (at most) small indie authors who became the targets of reviewer scorn and who then lashed out at reviewers in vicious retaliation were bad writers. Many of them had paid for those gushing 5-star reviews that cluttered up the Amazon pages. They were the ones who down-voted honest, negative reviews. They were the ones who engaged in revenge reviews. There is no honesty in Anne Rice; there is only petty spite and a silliness worthy of a folktale. https://www.worldoftales.com/European_folktales/English_folktale_96.html
Her agenda is to teach readers, and other authors, not to leave negative reviews. Sure, she'll give lip service about "honest" negative reviews, but pounds the rest of her claims and accusations to the point it's clearly lip service.
She is teaching people that reviews that are negative harm authors, and harming authors is what "gangster-thug reviewers" do, and that their "job" is to help authors - and if they cannot then remain silent.
She says it over and over. How *she* won't post a less than 4 or 5 star review. And demonizing those who do, consistently claiming they have nefarious intent. As well as never, ever acknowledging the fact that consumer reviews are to benefit consumers, regardless of any impact that might have on the person selling the book.
So, while I certainly agree she's a arrogant jerk, I don't think it's wise to dismiss her. She's a voice in this anti-consumer movement by *some* authors, and she's certainly influencing and supporting this attitude in some.
There already are a significant number of people who will not, or choose to no longer, post a book review that is less than 4 stars. This agenda has had an impact, a negative impact for consumers and readers. So yeah, I think it's much more insidious than simply "silly".
The wall of text alone makes this thing pretty much unreadable to me. At any rate, it takes away all incentive for me to read this (AR's fault, obviously, not yours, Alexandra). She is a sad, sad person -- even though she does have an agenda. It's also very sad that there are still people out there who don't see through her.
You are so totally correct. I have no interest in Anne Rice or her books. For the record, I have no interest in Stephen King's books either, but a great deal of interest in him as a writer and as a person.
You're right. There are also a few lesser known authors who have had the courage to speak out against this nonsense, and in support of consumer reviewers.
Anne R. Allen also gives herself away in the Comments section of her blog post.
"The problem is that Amazon considers a 3-star review to be “critical” i.e. negative, so it does downgrade a book. The place to put lower star rankings is Goodreads. Most of the review averages there are at least one point lower than on Amazon.
You can still write a review that points out the problems in a book on Amazon, but unless you really want to hurt the author’s sales and take money out of their pockets, you don’t give 3 stars or lower. It’s not about feelings. It’s about economics."
So, according to her, you can comment on "problems" in a review on Amazon, but should not rate less than 4 stars, because that hurts the author.
She is flat out saying *not* to rate less than 4 stars on Amazon. And completely ignores the entire harm/benefit to the *consumer* aspect. Not simply ignoring the fact that that is the entire purpose - to benefit the consumer - and to give *consumers* a voice, for her it's not even part of the equation!
Well, that thing about using some of you middle names as an alias got old at some point in the years between WWI and WWII when British authors (and their creations -- cf. one Peter Death Bredon Wimsey) took to doing it en masse.
(Reminder: Rice's legal name is Howard Allen Frances O'Brien).
Interesting Themis-Athena, that is a connection I had not made. ;) The articles by Allen don't sound like AR's voice to me, however that doesn't mean there isn't a connection closer than I had thought. And, I certainly may be wrong, and it may be the same voice.
Conceivably it could be her son (who's also a writer IIRC) ... or she's imagining it's really Lestat writing and that way just about manages a different voice. Or whaever. Anyway, that "Anne R[ice?] Allen" thing just had me do a double take.
It's definitely something to keep in mind. Thanks for pointing it out.
7 years ago
Howard Allen Frances O'Brien can kiss my ass.
I love how nothing is mentioned about reviewers that were labeled as bullies and had their character disparaged for having the audacity to write negative reviews or having the nerve to ask independent authors not to spam the discussion fora.
I've been tempted now and again to buy or request an ARC of one of her books. I'm glad that I haven't given in.
Yup, it's always very selective "reporting" from this source.
If it's any consolation from what I've seen it sounds like her more recent books aren't really up to par with her earlier ones. Opinions will vary there, of course.
7 years ago
It's true! I just now saw a one star review of her Wolf book. But of course, that's not because the quality of her work has declined, it's the vicious, bullying reviewers out to get her.
LOL Exactly! That's one of the messages she's clearly trying to get across - ignore negative reviews! Even if they are not *all* dishonest, they're all *suspect*.
My personal opinion, and this is simply supposition on my part since I haven't read an AR book in ages, is that it has a lot to do with the fact that she no longer allows her books to be edited. Once she got big enough to get away with that.
She's stated she refuses to allow any editing of her books.
I think King's later books have also suffered due to less editing now, although to a much less degree because (IMO) he's both a much better writer to start with but also less an arrogant asshole. With him it seems more just an issue of chucks that could be cut out to tighten up the story. I suspect, and this is just a guess, that he doesn't refuse ALL editing, as AR does.
With AR, again IMO, I suspect the editing of her earlier books did more to improve the story than simply cutting back on dragging wordiness.
Thanks. She flat out claimed here that the "bullies" try to attack her books, but just have less success doing them damage. Interestingly enough I haven't seen any evidence of any "troll attack" on her books at all.
So yeah, clearly she's trying to convince people that any negative review on her recent books should be dismissed as from the "gangster thug reviewers" out to get her.
Oh, by the way. Is Ms. Rice/O'Brien aware that Count Tolstoy isn't writing anything new these days, and isn't likely to write anything in the foreseeable future?
It is quite interesting to me with all her blatant encouragement to not only leave positive reviews but also upvote positive reviews, downvote negative reviews, and report "abuse" that she herself makes it clear she doesn't bother to even look. " I shop a lot on Amazon, but mostly for nonfiction or Tolstoy. So I don't run into these thugs all that much when I'm buying."
So yeah, she's certainly not going to be bothered to do it herself. But I guess that's what you get when you consider yourself Queen with minions to deploy to carry out your wishes.
Rule no. 1 of all obnoxious behavior: Verbally distance yourself from exactly the type of behavior you're engaging in. "Of course I *personally* couldn't care less, BUT ..."
Yeah, she's always so, "It doesn't matter to *me* since I'm so BIG and everything, but I have to say something because it hurts all you young and new authors!" All while clearly not giving a flying fig about helping new authors.
Anne Rice tires me. She's one of the people who make me regret growing up and realizing that authors aren't mythical creatures weaving stories in their magical writing caves but are, in fact, human beings, some of whom are assholes.
The couple dozen (at most) small indie authors who became the targets of reviewer scorn and who then lashed out at reviewers in vicious retaliation were bad writers. Many of them had paid for those gushing 5-star reviews that cluttered up the Amazon pages. They were the ones who down-voted honest, negative reviews. They were the ones who engaged in revenge reviews. There is no honesty in Anne Rice; there is only petty spite and a silliness worthy of a folktale.
https://www.worldoftales.com/European_folktales/English_folktale_96.html
She is teaching people that reviews that are negative harm authors, and harming authors is what "gangster-thug reviewers" do, and that their "job" is to help authors - and if they cannot then remain silent.
She says it over and over. How *she* won't post a less than 4 or 5 star review. And demonizing those who do, consistently claiming they have nefarious intent. As well as never, ever acknowledging the fact that consumer reviews are to benefit consumers, regardless of any impact that might have on the person selling the book.
So, while I certainly agree she's a arrogant jerk, I don't think it's wise to dismiss her. She's a voice in this anti-consumer movement by *some* authors, and she's certainly influencing and supporting this attitude in some.
There already are a significant number of people who will not, or choose to no longer, post a book review that is less than 4 stars. This agenda has had an impact, a negative impact for consumers and readers. So yeah, I think it's much more insidious than simply "silly".
"The problem is that Amazon considers a 3-star review to be “critical” i.e. negative, so it does downgrade a book. The place to put lower star rankings is Goodreads. Most of the review averages there are at least one point lower than on Amazon.
You can still write a review that points out the problems in a book on Amazon, but unless you really want to hurt the author’s sales and take money out of their pockets, you don’t give 3 stars or lower. It’s not about feelings. It’s about economics."
So, according to her, you can comment on "problems" in a review on Amazon, but should not rate less than 4 stars, because that hurts the author.
She is flat out saying *not* to rate less than 4 stars on Amazon. And completely ignores the entire harm/benefit to the *consumer* aspect. Not simply ignoring the fact that that is the entire purpose - to benefit the consumer - and to give *consumers* a voice, for her it's not even part of the equation!
http://annerallen.com/2017/10/amazon-crackdowns-
amazon-review-trolls/#comment-23500
(Reminder: Rice's legal name is Howard Allen Frances O'Brien).
I love how nothing is mentioned about reviewers that were labeled as bullies and had their character disparaged for having the audacity to write negative reviews or having the nerve to ask independent authors not to spam the discussion fora.
I've been tempted now and again to buy or request an ARC of one of her books. I'm glad that I haven't given in.
If it's any consolation from what I've seen it sounds like her more recent books aren't really up to par with her earlier ones. Opinions will vary there, of course.
My personal opinion, and this is simply supposition on my part since I haven't read an AR book in ages, is that it has a lot to do with the fact that she no longer allows her books to be edited. Once she got big enough to get away with that.
She's stated she refuses to allow any editing of her books.
I think King's later books have also suffered due to less editing now, although to a much less degree because (IMO) he's both a much better writer to start with but also less an arrogant asshole. With him it seems more just an issue of chucks that could be cut out to tighten up the story. I suspect, and this is just a guess, that he doesn't refuse ALL editing, as AR does.
With AR, again IMO, I suspect the editing of her earlier books did more to improve the story than simply cutting back on dragging wordiness.
So yeah, clearly she's trying to convince people that any negative review on her recent books should be dismissed as from the "gangster thug reviewers" out to get her.
So yeah, she's certainly not going to be bothered to do it herself. But I guess that's what you get when you consider yourself Queen with minions to deploy to carry out your wishes.