Harriet Klausner's reviews

[Mithfânion]

Should you ever encounter this woman's rewiews on Amazon (and you will, because she reviews about half of all the books coming out in the various genres and is Amazon's top reviewer by a considerable margin), always keep in mind that she is a shill who is yet to publish a 3 out of 5 star review (and she has reviewed thousands already). She is extremely prolific and during my first Amazon dwellings I too was mislead by her. Why do I post this? Because with new books, she is often the only one to have reviewed the book (this is because publisher's send her advanced reading copies) and this may lead you to believe that the book is actually good based on her review, since this person appraised it so. This is not to say that books she reviews are autmatically crap, just that she has never read a book that she doesn't like and that the reviews are very misleading to anyone actually looking for info on that new book. With more famous names you might think that it's very possible that the woman actually thinks it's excellent, but I picked this obscure little May release to show exactly how extreme a shill she is

" FAERIE TALES contains twelve delightful stories from a virtual fantasist who's who. Each contribution entertains the audience with its enjoyable link between humanity and faerie lands that make the latter seem genuine. Many of the stories actually provide deep messages, which normally are surprising for shorts yet with authors like De Lint, Rusch, Hoyt, Huff, and Spencer, etc. it is to be expected. The other contributors are also top rate (Waggoner, Helfers, Fiscus, Lindskold, Stemple, Scarborough, and West) furbishing winners as Greenberg and Davis obviously got the top guns to provide a tale. Some inputs are amusing while others contain serious tones, but all are fun. Fans of fantasies will appreciate this strong compilation in which each contribution holds the bar of excellence at the highest levels. An aside to Mr. Greenberg the guru of anthologies: looking forward to seeing how you can top this treasure."

Yes Harriet, truly the top names of the genre

[DrBloodmoney1]

Well I only know four of them and I'm pretty well-versed in the fantasy genre.

De Lint, Tanya Huff, Jane Lindskold, and Michelle West.

Top of the genre they are not, except De Lint who is more the top of a particular niche in fantasy.

After having seen so many reviews by Ms. Klausner, I completely disregard them now. Actually I generally disregard all of the Amazon reviews and trust solely the info I gather from the various fantasy forums I visit.

[JohnH]

***********************

[Julian]

keep in mind that she is a shill who is yet to publish a 3 out of 5 star review

Sorry, Mith, too stupid to understand this. What is a shill & why is this relevant to publishing a "3 out of 5 star review"?? Does that mean she's an idiot who never gave less than three stars to anything she did (or perhaps did not) read?

[Shehzad]

I would say: someone who has never published anything less than a 4/5 star interview.

I just skip right over her reviews. Not even worth dignifying them.

[scooter13]

Yeah, I got suckered in by her, too. I understand that someone can have the opposite opinion as me, or other reviewers, but there can't be that many good books out there that they all get a 4 or better. I just ignore her reviews as well.

[Radone]

I don't believe that this is a real person, or at least that she alone is responsible for the Amazon reviews. There was one day in April where while feeling masochistic, I counted up the reviews that she had done on one particular day. The total was 41 or 51. And all the days stacked around this particular day had no less than 5 or 6.
Her reviews are useless as they are all of the cheerleader variety and contain no real criticism of any books.

[Keyoke]

I actually had found a website that was her's, so, I am pretty sure she is a legit person.

As to her reviews, yes, I have yet to find a book she did not think was top notch. It drives me mad. It seems that she writes reviews by reading the back of the book. They are so general. "Fabulous Charaterization, Well thought out world" are some of the generic terms I see.

I can't stand seeing her reviews now since they are plastered on websites. Probably makes a commision of some sort on the amount of reviews she does.

Keyoke

[JohnH]

************************

[Eventine]

That's assuming she gets the ARCs and just doesn't read the blurb from the site...

[Julian]

You know, on reflection, it is not so much her reviews that bother me. It is the idea of what her library looks like. All free. Most before they hit the shelf. I think I have to hate her. Something I pretty much kept to Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot.

Now wouldn't dear Harriet be thrilled to be included in this illustrious (if infamous) company?

It seems to me you guys are slightly exaggerating here - Klausner's reviews may be a little, well, optimistic, but on the whole I rather like 'em. At least they're there. That is: she speaks her mind, openly. And if she babbles a bit, why worry?

That's assuming she gets the ARCs and just doesn't read the blurb from the site...

An assumption I'm willing to make. Why shouldn't I?

[Warewolf]

I can't even consider her stuff to be actual reviews. A review talks about what one thought of the book and it's characters along with thoughts on the author's style. A review is NOT a plot summary. If you look at her reviews, most of them are three paragraphs with the first two being plot summaries as if they were copied from the book jacket. The last paragraph is a couple of sentences giving some generic review-like comments. These are pretty much worthless since she says the same thing about every book she reviews. I've taken to voting "No, this review was not helpful." every time I come across one of her plot summaries.

[JohnH]

***********************

[Mithfânion]

It seems to me you guys are slightly exaggerating here - Klausner's reviews may be a little, well, optimistic, but on the whole I rather like 'em. At least they're there. That is: she speaks her mind, openly. And if she babbles a bit, why worry?

Actually I don't think that the fact that " at least they're there " is any kind of positive when there is no other review for the book, which is often the case since she reviews them so early. This is partly why I posted this thread. I also don't see the fact that she speaks openly is necessarily a positive (aside from the fact that I disagree, I think she's a shill). And the babbling is not a problem at all, the falsity and sheer ridiculousness of her misleading reviews is. Aside from all that, it's simply impossible to take any value from a review from someone who likes everything they read, no matter how dire it is.

If we're guilty of exaggeration then surely you're guilty of some downplaying

[Ouroboros]

I've got nothing against happy simpletons- I kind of envy them their blissful ignorance, in many ways.

...But clearly we can put our choice of books for purchase in better hands.

Harriet may be a charming woman, but she was seemingly born with a massive hole where her critical faculties should be. Not a good characteristic in a reviewer ... except from a publishing house's point of view.