B1478-AS20
Copyright © by Alex Sheremet, 5/18/15
A couple of months ago, I submitted my book, Woody Allen: Reel To
Real, to a popular pay-for-review site called BlueInk Review.
Now, I knew the risks, for I’d seen the complaints against Kirkus and other
ignoble book-review services; I smirked at BlueInk’s poor website
design which accosts you with its ‘legitimacy’ as opposed to a sampling of
good writing that can speak for itself; I saw the 300 word-limit rule for
reviews, an obvious labor-saving measure dishonestly presented as some sort of
charity to “busy readers” and “industry professionals”; the Google
searches which turned up nothing -- nothing -- except de facto
ads written by its own staff, rather than any real analysis of the service and
its benefits; as well as the reality that most of the books they’d push as
‘good’ were actually selling fewer copies than my own -- with many not
having had a sale in months -- despite Reel To Real getting
almost no press upon release. This last fact, especially, alerted me to the true
extent of BlueInk’s pull, for if I could make something out of
nothing, purely on the strength of reputation, and personal outreach, what’s
preventing BlueInk from forging their own reputations, and
minting new ‘names’ as per their stated goals? At any rate, I didn’t have
to wonder very long.
My review came back on time, but anonymously written. People, as a rule,
do not wish to attach their names to garbage, and this was no exception. Jesus,
I thought; where does one even begin? I mean, I had to proofread the
thing, myself, pointing out obvious errors in everything from pagination (they
printed out a 12-pt, Times New Roman MS Word document and counted that as
the completed work, reducing the true page count by half!), to the odd misuse of
universally-understood phrases, to the reviewer’s allusions to things that
simply never occur in the book, to the fact that I was continuously quoted out
of context to argue against ‘points’ I’d never made. Ridiculously, I was
openly accused of everything from ad hominem to refusing to
provide evidence for claims, despite that the book -- this not an opinion, now
-- gives a scene-by-scene evaluation of many films, provides hundreds of
references to 50+ years of Woody-related writing, and responds to dozens of
critics virtually line-by-line, and claim by claim. This is, by
definition, the exact opposite of ad hominem, and quite
unprecedented in Woody Allen studies, as a whole, even if one were to
take issue with the particulars of my argument. And that’s precisely the
point: an argument exists -- a footnoted, methodical one at that -- whereas BlueInk
Review, against all reason, insisted there was none. Yet if The
Telegraph refuses to amend an
error-laden hatchet job on a celebrity like Steven Pinker, despite the
outcry, then why would BlueInk give a shit about their own
demonstrable falsehoods? Here is the review -- errors of pagination, book title
(!), etc. -- in full:
Woody
Allen: Reel-to-Real
Alex Sheremet
Take 2 Publishing, 247 pages, (ebook) $7.99, 9780991588725
(Reviewed: April, 2015)
In
this critical assessment of Woody Allen’s films, Alex Sheremet combines the
obsession of a good detective—he's watched and dissected every frame of the
canon—with the fervor of an evangelist. “The world,” he writes with no
shortage of hyperbole, “is better off for Rembrandt's existence, Plato's and
Woody Allen’s, due to their wide contribution to humanity.”
Sheremet’s
passion is admirable, but he doesn’t always substantiate his opinions—or
those of the like-minded Internet movie critics he cites in his text. If
Allen’s semi-obscure Another Woman (1988) really is “one of
the greatest ‘pure’ dramas ever made,” Sheremet doesn’t make his case
for that—or for the claim that Gena Rowlands’ character in the picture is
Allen's “greatest fictive creation.” If Manhattan is
superior to Annie Hall—and it may be— do abstractions like
“deeper situations, deeper dialogue, better and more daring visuals and fuller
characters” suffice to convince us?
For
Sheremet, “even the lighter comedies” such as Bananas or Take
the Money and Run are “a few notches above the typical schlock.”
Fair enough. And Stardust Memories really may be vastly
underrated. But an Alex-against-the-world posture compromises the book’s
scholarly vigor. In a dozen instances, the author claims that Woody Allen movies
other observers disliked have simply been “misunderstood” because of “the
blinders that so many critics have willingly put on.” His primary
targets? The New Yorker’s Pauline Kael, who's said to be
“perpetually lost” and the Chicago Reader’s Jonathan
Rosenbaum, who “writes strictly for Rosenbaum.”
Filmmakers
as talented as Allen will always provoke spirited debate (in fact, a
Publisher’s Note here invites readers to participate in a continuing online
discourse about Allen). But while Sheremet’s book occupies the same niche as The
Films of Woody Allen (Charles P. Silet, editor) and A Companion
to Woody Allen (Girgus and Bailey), it isn’t their equal. Depending
more on ad hominem attack than reasoned argument, this labor of love ultimately
falls short.
Now, for those who’ve in fact read the book, and know
the definitions of phrases like ad hominen: huh??? I e-mailed
co-founder Patricia Moosbrugger about this stupidity, the outright deceits, the
willfulness, not only outlining these issues one by one, but even linking her to
textual evidence demonstrating the absurdity of the above:
Alex
Sheremet <alex.sheremet.writes@gmail.com>
To: Info <info@blueinkreview.com>
Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 8:44 PM
Hi-
This
is a joke, right? Does BlueInk have NO professional standards
for their reviews?
I
don't care about general idiocy and/or difference of opinion, but your review of Woody
Allen: Reel To Real is factually wrong, and
demonstrably so:
In
this critical assessment of Woody Allen's films, Alex Sheremet combines the
obsession of a good detective—he's watched and dissected every frame of the
canon—with the fervor of an evangelist. “The world,” he writes with no
shortage of hyperbole, “is better off for Rembrandt's existence, Plato's and
Woody Allen's, due to their wide contribution to humanity.”
Hyperbole,
how? Plato influenced thousands of years of literary, philosophical, and even
religious thinking; Rembrandt modernized visual thought and set the standard of
portraiture for centuries hence; Woody Allen is generally regarded as one of the
world's best filmmakers, meaning, as consensus, and has been for
decades. Say what you will of the contributors, themselves, but this stature
ensures the world's been moved, influenced, modernized, and even bettered, etc.
etc. etc., in and beyond their respective fields. This is mere cause and effect,
as understood by infants, chimps, and not enough adults among us. To say
otherwise is simply wrong.
If
Manhattan is superior to Annie Hall—and it may be— do abstractions like
“deeper situations, deeper dialogue, better and more daring visuals and fuller
characters” suffice to convince us?
Uh,
of course they don't suffice, which is why there are no "abstractions"
in lieu of argument. In fact, this quote comes at the end of a several-thousand
word analysis of the film, which, too, is preceded by another several-thousand
word analysis of Annie Hall. Did the reviewer REALLY ignore the
analysis, itself, the dozens of pieces of evidence, the quoted dialogue, the
careful dissection of other critics' viewpoints, the comparisons of musical and
narrative choices, etc., in favor of a 1-sentence summation that was never meant
to stand alone? How does a half-literate person NOT see the dishonesty and
misrepresentation inherent in this? How about actually tackling the arguments,
themselves, instead of engaging in ad hominem? (See below.)
But
an Alex-against-the-world posture compromises the book's scholarly vigor.
And
yet, if the book was actually read - not skimmed - I make clear that most of my
judgments are actually fairly close to the judgments of contemporary viewers, as
opposed to critics 30-40 years past - many of them now dead, irrelevant, and
hardly (if ever) read. This is the entire point of quoting, you know, the dozens
of contemporary sources within that come to similar conclusions? Or were those
not noticed, either?
In
a dozen instances, the author claims that Woody Allen movies other observers
disliked have simply been “misunderstood” because of “the blinders that so
many critics have willingly put on.” His primary targets? The New Yorker's
Pauline Kael, who's said to be “perpetually lost” and the Chicago Reader's
Jonathan Rosenbaum, who “writes strictly for Rosenbaum.” ... Depending more
on ad hominem attack than reasoned argument, this labor of love ultimately falls
short.
That's
rich - engage in ad hominem against me, then accuse me of
the same? I mean, does the reviewer know what this phrase even means? It is an
argument that 'merely' attacks the opponent's character- that is, nothing but.
This is the reviewer's FACTUAL - not subjective - deduction, yet the book has NO
instance of such. As with Manhattan and Annie Hall,
dismissing Kael as "perpetually lost" comes AFTER one of the book's
longest essays on the subject, taking apart the bulk of her Woody Allen reviews
literally paragraph by paragraph, and claim by claim, - not just
cherry-picking 1 or 2 sentences across a couple of reviews.
Here is
the full text of the Kael piece. Again, forget what you think of Woody, Kael, or
anything else, and stick with the reviewer's claims of "ad hominem."
WHERE do you see a willy-nilly attack on her character, and a refusal, on my
part, to deal with her actual claims? I defy you to find a more systematic
breakdown of the woman's career either in print or online, and especially one
that's as fair to her actual claims - as opposed to her notoriously horrific
personality, which I go quite easy on.
And here is
the full text of the Rosenbaum piece. Same question: please find the ad
hominem. Because while you see dozens of Internet trolls complaining about
his essay on Woody, no one has gotten beyond anger and emotion to formulate a
real argument against. Yet here it is, for the first time, and just as with Kael,
it goes through his words, sentence by sentence, film by film, teases out his
arguments, punches holes in them, and then - and only then -
dismisses him as a critic. The dismissal is in proportion to the argument, not
in proportion to the man. The latter is called ad hominem. The
former is called good criticism.
Finally, Reel
To Real is not 247 pages, as the review states, for this refers to PDF-style
MS Word pages, all of which you've physically printed and therefore knew about.
According to Amazon, it's 624 "real pages" (a fact I made explicit in
an earlier e-mail), possibly 500-550 or so as a standard academic hardback. To
list it as 247 is misleading and irresponsible, and does nothing but bolster the
reviewer's non-factual claim that the book has no substance, merely ad
hominemand abstraction.
So
many errors, from the pagination, to quotations maliciously taken out of
context, to downright factual mistakes about the book's content and general
thrust - yet BlueInk is a professional review service that goes
out to librarians and academics? Schools, scholars, and general readers depend
on you, and you're not ashamed of this? Jesus Christ. Isn't your stated mission
to separate the wheat from the chaff in independent publishing? You need
reviewers to actually read books, and respond to their actual content - not
merely what this content is imagined to be - for this to happen.
As
for letting the review go live on the site? I'm torn between saying no, due to
the gross lapses enumerated, above, and saying yes, so that I could dissect this
review and publicly rip BlueInk a new asshole across multiple
media platforms.
Please
advise.
Thanks,
Alex.
Now, forget what you think of Woody, Kael, or my ‘style’ of attack, and
simply look at the argument that I’ve made. I’m not asking for a
re-appraisal, nor that they state that they ‘look’ the book. I want them to
consider what they’d written, and evaluate that against the
book’s actual content. Sure, I bet it’s hard for illiterate types to see the
value of a great novel or poem, but false claims about a scholarly, non-fiction
book like this are REALLY easy to denude -- especially when the author is being
accused of things that, logically, do or do NOT happen,
with no room for any sort of in-between. But does Patricia Moosbrugger
‘condescend’ to review my points? Is there an apology for such gross,
dishonest conduct? Hell- does BlueInk even look at the evidence
provided, or respond to a customer’s (again: this was a transaction)
specific claims? Let’s see:
Patricia
Moosbrugger <pm@blueinkreview.com>
To: Alex Sheremet <alex.sheremet.writes@gmail.com>
Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 1:24 PM
Dear
Mr. Sheremet,
We
have received your complaints about our review of Reel to Real. Other
than the page numbers cited, the issues you note are well within the realm of
personal opinion, rather than fact, and reflect the reviewer’s overall
impression of the book – an impression that is necessarily condensed to our
required 300 words. (We keep the reviews short purposefully, so that busy
readers and industry professionals can read them quickly.) In that amount
of words, it is impossible to provide the detailed context you are suggesting
below for every comment. The review is intended to offer a summation, rather
than dissection of the book, which could easily end up as long as the book
itself.
We
will refrain from posting the review unless you tell us you would like it
posted. At that time, we can amend the page numbers, should you choose that
option.
Yours
sincerely,
Patricia Moosbrugger
BlueInk Review
Well, shit. To accuse a writer of attacking another human being’s
character, page after page, is “within the realm of personal opinion,”
rather than a ‘did-or-didn’t-he’ situation? A dislikable argument
is, in BlueInk’s eyes, by definition NO argument? Ripping words
out of context, and knowingly doing so, then responding to
arguments an author doesn’t even make is permissible and fair? I mean, just
look at how much weaseling occurs in a mere 2 paragraphs, from the laughable
claim re: 300 words as a ‘service’ to others (as opposed to mere laziness
and incompetence), to the irresponsibility of agreeing to review a book that, by
Moosbrugger’s own admission, BlueInk was simply ill-prepared
for, given all the stipulations of length, detail, and context she’s just
listed? It’s sort of like a carpenter accepting money to build an
ice-sculpture, then hiding behind his job description when the end-product has
NO ice and lots of broken nails. Ridiculous, but perfectly acceptable, I guess,
if you’re a hustler rather than a professional:
Alex
Sheremet <alex.sheremet.writes@gmail.com>
To: Patricia Moosbrugger <pm@blueinkreview.com>
Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 10:21 PM
Hi
Patricia-
Other
than the page numbers cited, the issues you note are well within the realm of
personal opinion, rather than fact...
Then
neither you nor your reviewers understand the meaning of basic words. Here is
the definition of ad hominem, which is a specific claim the review
makes for the book in its entirety:
An ad
hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the
person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, means responding to
arguments by attacking a person's character, rather than to the content of their
arguments.
This
is what the phrase means. I either directly attack and insult people in my book
without citing, quoting, or otherwise addressing their ACTUAL words, or I do
not. There is no gray area here, no wiggle room for opinions nor subjectivity.
This is a basic issue of logic, not some difference of interpretation. I
provided you two links to the passages in question, which reveal dozens upon
dozens of quotations, citations, the propping up of others' claims, and my
subsequent destruction of them, point by point, and claim by claim. In many of
these cases, I respond to entire essays literally line-by-line, which is not
only unprecedented in film criticism in its care and avoidance of the very
things I'm being accused of, but logically excludes ad hominem BY
DEFINITION.
This
is not a legitimate point of disagreement. To claim otherwise is like saying
that Patricia Moosbrugger, at 1:24 PM, sent me an e-mail wherein she invited me
to a round of goat-fucking at her villa in Kabul. It is simply and categorically
FALSE, for there is NOTHING in the content of your e-mail to suggest it. In
short, only a psychotic would make this sort of deduction from reading your
words- yet in the case, above, you refuse to accept or even respond to the
evidence presented to you? Why?
Again,
phrases like ad hominem have specific meanings. To say that I
go out of my way to insult others left and right without arguing my points is
definitionally psychotic, i.e., completely apart from reality. It is NOT open to
interpretation, in the same way your hypothetical overture of bestiality in the
Mid-East isn't something that could - or should - be argued by any sane person.
Perhaps
the reviewer didn't personally 'like' my arguments, or wasn't convinced by some
of them. Fair enough! But the SPECIFIC claim was that I don't argue,
at all, that I don't provide evidence, that I don't provide reasons, and that
the book is merely full of insults- NOT that the arguments were simply
unconvincing. To the reviewer, the arguments don't even EXIST. Do you understand
how this makes it a factual issue? And if BlueInk Review still
contends that is the case, I'd like to see the offending page numbers where this
occurs as described, as well as a response to the charges in my initial e-mail,
wherein I point out where and how I was maliciously quoted out of context, with
the ACTUAL content of my book ignored.
...an
impression that is necessarily condensed to our required 300 words.
And,
again, the impression is a wrong one, factually, for there is NOTHING in the
text to suggest it. Nor is there anything 'necessary' about a 300 word limit.
The limit is merely there to do the minimum work possible, since a 300 word
review of a scholarly 160,000 word book that covers 50+ years of film and
hundreds of citations is not a review. It is a glorified Tweet expunged from the
anus for a dumbed-down audience that doesn't care to know the difference.
Interesting,
too, that you comment on "busy readers" and "industry
professionals." You know what the pros ACTUALLY read? Library
Journal, The New York Times Review Of Books, Atlantic Monthly, Guardian, and
others, where book reviews often run for thousands of words. You are, to put it
mildly, not them. So drop the bullshit, and do not insult me.
In
that amount of words, it is impossible to provide the detailed context you are
suggesting below for every comment.
'Detailed
context'? How about NO context? Or malicious and intentional OUT of context
quotation, which was willfully done? How about, you know, quoting the ACTUAL
content as written, and making deductions from the text, itself, and not merely
some phantasm of such?
In
short, I am accused of things that NEVER occur in the book across its 600+
pages, and when I point out the obvious errors, and offer the evidence,
chapters, and arguments, above, you hide behind 'opinion' and there being 'not
enough space' to substantiate these completely unfounded charges?
Jesus
Christ. Do I REALLY need to point out the issue with this? And if neither you
nor the reviewer is willing to read the words, as written, can I at least speak
to someone who is literate - or, barring that, someone who could help?
I
feel like I'm trying to explain something that is in fact VERY simple: namely,
that a reviewer makes charge after charge of things that, logically AND
factually, simply NEVER occur in the book. In turn, I offered you the full
excerpts of the chapters in question, highlighted the errors, basically drip-fed
you everything, corpuscle by corpuscle, and there's not even the attempt to
engage me, or get to the bottom of right/wrong, as PROVEN by the links and the
text within them?
We
will refrain from posting the review unless you tell us you would like it
posted.
Do
NOT post it. But, I'll go a step further. I entered into an agreement with BlueInk,
and it has not been met. I was told I'd have a professional review
of my book, responding, ostensibly, to the book's ACTUAL content. Instead, I
receive errors big and small, stupid and/or malicious. Then, when I e-mail BlueInk about
said errors, provide documentation, etc., you neither engage with it nor even
look at it, and are completely unresponsive save for a silly, easily-refuted,
and canned response. I mean, I even had to PROOFREAD your own review - that
I paid for - for basic issues of pagination, and the like. The former
was not what I signed up for, and the latter is YOUR job, NOT mine. So, I'd like
my money back, in full, and we could cut off ties from here.
Please
let me know what you need from me in order to issue the refund.
Thanks,
Alex.
To be sure, I’m not fucking around here, nor engaging in whiny
bullshit. I’ve made specific claims that I wish to be addressed, because,
well, I’d paid for a level of professionalism that BlueInk refused
to deliver. And, hell, if you can’t get a straight answer via e-mail, by a
competent staff member that knows the definitions of words (or can be bothered
to look them up), what’s the chance of a review with self-imposed word limits
being ‘professional’ and ‘objective’?
Yet if you thought BlueInk Review was anything but a
mere business -- one writer familiar with Patricia Moosbrugger had even
described her as “a failed literary agent who’s now turned to this scam”
-- just take a look at her response to the message, above. 90% of my e-mail is
an in-depth response to her own claims, yet the ONLY thing that gets addressed,
now, is my request for a refund! Unbelievable:
Patricia
Moosbrugger <pm@blueinkreview.com>
To: Alex Sheremet <alex.sheremet.writes@gmail.com>
Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 1:24 PM
Dear
Mr. Sheremet,
The
contract which you agreed to in purchasing the review states:
1.
Non-Refundable: Subject to Paragraph 2 below, all amounts paid to BlueInk by the
Author shall be non-refundable under any circumstances once received by BlueInk.
2.
No Guarantee of Outcome: By entering into this Agreement, you specifically and
fully acknowledge that you are aware of the fact that your review will be
objective and may consider such facts and style as the reviewer deems
appropriate. The outcome may not be positive or to your liking in any other way.
BlueInk hereby disclaims all warranties, express or implied, or guarantees or
assurances relating to its reviews regarding any specific outcome (whether
positive, neutral, or negative) whatsoever. Your sole remedy is to give notice
to BlueInk of your choice not to have your review published on its website. You
have no other legal recourse. BlueInk will consider revising a review only if it
contains factual errors, and then only at our discretion.
I’m
sorry that you are unhappy with your review. We will not post the review
on our website.
Yours
sincerely,
Patricia Moosbrugger
BlueInk Review
Ok, but I’d read the contract, as well, and if she’s unwilling to
argue the relevant points, first, or address ANY of the claims I’d made, I’m
still willing to beat her at her new tangent:
Alex
Sheremet <alex.sheremet.writes@gmail.com>
To: Patricia Moosbrugger <pm@blueinkreview.com>
Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 9:33 PM
Hi
Patricia:
Your
contract gives room for a refund. To quote what you've written to me:
1.
Non-Refundable: Subject to Paragraph 2 below, all amounts paid to BlueInk by the
Author shall be non-refundable under any circumstances once received by BlueInk.
12.
No Guarantee of Outcome: By entering into this Agreement, you specifically and
fully acknowledge that you are aware of the fact that your review will
be objective and may consider such facts and style as the reviewer
deems appropriate...
I've
bolded the relevant parts. On the one hand, I've agreed to give up refunds. On
the other, YOU state that, in turn, my review will be
"objective" -- meaning, factually accurate, which is, according to
your own contract, a guarantee of the review process. Given that the payment was
made for the review as described ("objective"), #12
logically supersedes #1, and #1 is contingent upon #12, NOT the other way
around. This is non-debatable, and obvious in the very words you've quoted to
me.
Yet
I've written TWO detailed e-mails, showing precisely where, why, and how the
review was NOT objective, and factually inaccurate. I've quoted the reviewer's
words, and given you the relevant excerpts from the book to show the
contradictions within. You've not addressed this, at all.
Again,
I'm not quibbling re: style, or someone's opinion of this or that judgment of
mine. I'm saying, specifically, that I was accused of things that are not in the
documentary record, which you have full access to, which I've quoted from, which
I've taken apart, piece by piece, and to which there was NO response from you or
anyone else on the BlueInk Review staff.
Why
not? Are you THAT uninterested in looking over the material? Do you refuse to
vet your own reviews for accuracy, and the reviewers, themselves, for
professional standards? I've shown you glaring and irrefutable errors in a
review that you fully intended to run on your website, and you've not even
acknowledged them, nor said what you might do to avoid such problems in the
future. Again: librarians and TRUE professionals look at your service, for what?
In
sum, you've not looked at nor responded to the documentary record, nor care, at
all, that a review is riddled with verifiable errors.
The
review was factually inaccurate, as I've shown in minute detail.
You
did not fulfill #12 of our contract.
In
other words, I expect a refund. Please tell me what additional information you
need to issue it.
Thanks,
Alex.
Did you catch all that? BlueInk’s contract is SO badly
written that any literate person can comb through it, and make the very
deductions I’ve made. But I don’t care about contracts, nor any other
bullshit, and decide -- rather charitably -- to bring the attention back to
the main point, and thus give Patricia another opportunity to review my claims
and respond to them in appropriate detail. Yet just as Moosbrugger fails to
justify the review’s falsehoods, or respond to my original points, she then (surprise,
surprise!) refuses to address the contractual issues I’ve brought up *in
response* to her failed power-play. To reiterate: she brings up
the contract, gets duly corrected, arrogantly ignores the substance of my
correction, then merely re-quotes the very thing I’d already addressed without
adding to it. Just watch:
Patricia
Moosbrugger <pm@blueinkreview.com>
To: Alex Sheremet <alex.sheremet.writes@gmail.com>
Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 1:49 PM
Dear
Mr. Sheremet:
The
positions you are arguing in your emails to us are all judgement calls, not
facts. Despite your lengthy support of your position, whether or not something
is an "ad hominum" attack is debatable and can vary according to an
individual's viewpoint. But even if you deem it fact, which we would take issue
with, our contract does not require a refund. See below.
12.
No Guarantee of Outcome: By entering into this Agreement, you specifically and
fully acknowledge that you are aware of the fact that your review will be
objective and may consider such facts and style as the reviewer deems
appropriate. The outcome may not be positive or to your liking in any other way.
BlueInk hereby disclaims all warranties, express or implied, or guarantees or
assurances relating to its reviews regarding any specific outcome (whether
positive, neutral, or negative) whatsoever. Your sole remedy is to give notice
to BlueInk of your choice not to have your review published on its website. You
have no other legal recourse. BlueInk will consider revising a review
only if it contains factual errors, and then only at our discretion.
Yours
sincerely,
Patricia Moosbrugger
BlueInk Review
I swear, it’s like K. trying to get through a meaningless bureaucracy
of double-speak and penumbra. I mean, I keep asking to speak to someone else,
someone literate, but with no other e-mail on file, and likely no
real staff save 2-3 core members that just sit on their asses all day, popping
pustules, BlueInk just keeps moving its mouth without the
expected words a-comin’. I try to reason once more; just once:
Alex
Sheremet <alex.sheremet.writes@gmail.com>
To: Patricia Moosbrugger <pm@blueinkreview.com>
Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 5:53 PM
Patricia.
A "judgment call" is a preference for pizza over calamari, or that
Keats is a better poet than Shelley.
By
contrast, to say that a book is full of insults, page after page, is a CLAIM-
and, in the case of Reel To Real, a fallacious claim. At any rate,
it is a claim that can be verified or rejected on a purely numerical basis.
Simply crack open the book, and find all the insults cp. to citations,
quotations, and the like. It's simple, really, and downright absurd- especially since
the vast majority of the book is an analysis of movies, rather than movie
critics. It cannot logically be that the book "depends more on
ad hominem attack" when the situations that might give rise to ad
hominem attack don't even occur in the first place! How you do not see
this is beyond me.
I'm
trying to be as simple as possible here. You've responded with sheer ignorance,
and yet more claims that I've debunked. I asked if I could speak to an actual,
literate adult, that might look at BlueInk's errors as I've
documented them. Instead, you sent me BlueInk's contractual details
that debunk the very interpretation you've supplied.
Again,
is there a COMPETENT staff member that's actually willing to do the hard
professional work of fact-checking, and responding to the questions I've posed?
Because, right now, there's lots of back-and-forth wherein I demonstrate factual
errors, and you, for whatever reason, are unable to admit to them.
THIS
IS WHAT YOUR CONTRACT SAYS:
12.
No Guarantee of Outcome: By entering into this Agreement, you specifically and
fully acknowledge that you are aware of the fact that your review will be objective...
So,
let me get this straight. On the one hand, you guarantee objectivity. On the
other, you deem objectivity is impossible because we're dealing with a
"judgment call"? Well- which one is it? Do you provide 100% objective
reviews, as stated above, or did you renege on your contractual obligations by
littering your reviews with incontestable judgment calls?
Luckily
for you, I've provided a happy medium. There is room for opinion, and there is
also fact. I offered the facts, and I've even shown how those "judgment
calls" are LOGICALLY irreconcilable. It is you that refuses to follow up on
this.
Please
respond to my claims, then send over a time-table for the refund.
Thanks,
Alex.
Of course, there was no response. So, I reiterated my intention to turn
this exchange into an essay, although I suspect that the gal finally wizened up
to the fact that her own words were slowly looping ‘round and ‘round into a
noose that’d leave BlueInk without a foot-stool:
Alex
Sheremet <alex.sheremet.writes@gmail.com>
To: Patricia Moosbrugger <pm@blueinkreview.com>
Fri, May 8, 2015 at 11:54 AM
So,
no follow-up?
I
am giving BlueInk the opportunity to defend its unprofessional
practices before these articles go live.
You
may opt out, in which case our email exchanges, as well as your exchanges with
other disappointed authors, and my analysis of such, will be up by Sunday night,
unabridged, for the public to judge.
Thanks,
Alex.
And that’s that, I guess. It is interesting, to me, how Patricia’s
refusal to truly engage my claims, or even think about what
I’m saying, nicely mirrors BlueInk’s review of my book. The
ridiculous word limit, the pretense to being an ‘arbiter’ of independent
literary taste -- but where’s the REAL follow-through, either in the reviews
themselves or the piss-poor customer service? No, the mainstream review rags -- Guardian, New
York Times Review Of Books, etc. -- aren’t much better, at all, but
there’s length, there’s excerpts, there’s a true readership, no matter how
asinine. By contrast, BlueInk has a Twitter page with a
Follower/Following ratio of 1.07, and virtually no engagement from REAL readers.
This is the ‘visibility’ that they promise, and the ‘professionalism’
you can expect.
Given
that I knew much of this already, a few readers are probably wondering why the
hell I’d even go with a company that veers uncomfortably close to being a
scam. It’s simple, really: to cast a wide net. The fact is, Woody
Allen: Reel To Real is a unique book in the sense that it covers every
single film of one director at great depth, and deals with pretty much every
aspect of film-art one can imagine. In short, it fulfills a niche that’s been
WAITING to be filled, and is, therefore, actively welcomed. No, readers and
critics don’t usually know the difference between good and bad writing, but
they ARE able to understand gross numbers. That Reel To Real is
just so detailed and comprehensive pretty much guarantees uniformly good reviews
(which it has received), whether from Amazon, a legit review website, blog, or a
wannabe rag like BlueInk. This puts me in a unique position, and
opens me up to gambles I am fully willing to take. For this reason, I’d never recommend
an author to get a paid review for most books -- ESPECIALLY for a work of
fiction, and those that are particularly good, daring, or original. I mean, just
peruse the ill-formed, cliche-ridden excerpts from the novels BlueInk champions
and recommends, then think of their pretentious desire to be ‘arbiters’ of
things they refuse to even have an honest conversation about.
Now, BlueInk Review might be pissed at all this, sure,
but one must ask the logical question: WHY? After all, look at how much
they’ve called mere ‘opinion, not fact’ -- a simple difference of
‘interpretation,’ if you will. So, if Patricia Moosbrugger feels humiliated,
please don’t fret! This is only one guy’s point of view. I have no argument.
I’ve made no real claims. I’ve not provided you with evidence of BlueInk’s
abuse, nor have there been any communication between us whatsoever. I am not
Alex Sheremet, and Alex Sheremet is not the author of Woody Allen: Reel
To Real. The only thing that I know for certain is that Patricia (which
one?) is still somewhere in Kabul, reclining on a divan. She is waiting, I
am sure, but all I can do is look at my invitation and laugh.
[A
version of this article first appeared on AlexSheremet.com.]
[UPDATE 11/11/2015: I have just received a phone call from Patti Thorn, owner of BlueInk, indicating that she has refunded my money. She also apologized for the original review and admitted it should have been handed over to another staff member and re-written. So- I am thankful for her honesty and willingness to admit error. That said, I do wonder whether I’d have gotten such courtesy if I were some no-name hack with zero readership and zero pull. I accept the apology, and to BlueInk’s credit, they did not ask me to alter this article in any way, nor guilt, manipulate, or entice me with any promises.]
Return to Bylines