Dec 10

In Harriet Klausner We Trust?

Posted by A Writer

If you're a writer, or someone with a vague interest in books who spends any time online at all, you've probably heard of Harriet Klausner,'s #1 Reviewer.  For those of you who don't know, Ms. Klausner is famous for her, er, review rate; she hit the fifteen thousand reviewed books mark this year (I wrote the number out so the more skeptical of you wouldn't believe I accidentally hit an extra zero.  Suspicious bunch, you people.), and shows no signs of slowing down.  Yesterday she posted reviews for another ten books, and on her top days has reviewed far more than that.  And she reads widely as well: mysteries, romances, horror books, science fiction, young adult, she's got them all covered.  According to TIME, Harriet is "part of a quiet revolution in the way American taste gets made. The influence of newspaper and magazine critics is on the wane. People don't care to be lectured by professionals on what they should read or listen to or see…Online critics have a kind of just-plain-folks authenticity that the professionals just can't match. They're not fancy. They don't have an agenda. They just read for fun, the way you do."  Harriet Klausner Goes To Random House: the heart-warming story of a "citizen reviewer" whose folksy style has won over the jaded regulars of the publishing world. 


But take another look at the prolific HK and you'll find a couple of clouds to this silver lining.  A quick perusal of her reviews indicates that all of her reviews–all of them–are either four or five star affairs.  Apparently every book is good or great, which is a pretty good track record for an industry which has the reputation of producing some schlock on occasion (just scurrilous rumors, no doubt).  Still, you would imagine that one or two authors wouldn't have gotten the "only great books accepted" memo and might, possibly, have written something a little below par.  (I in no way wish to disparage My Beautiful Disaster, of course, which is obviously one of the greater books we've produced as a species.  Jordin Sparks liked it, and it got five stars, for God's sake!)  But it's conceivable that Harriet just has a great eye for otherwise misunderstood talent.  What isn't as easy to explain is how every review reads like something taken directly off the back cover of the book itself, with a couple of vague generalizations thrown in for good measure.  Read the book description and HK's review of the aforementioned MBD and you'll note some stunning similarities.

But wait, wait, wait.  What happened to folksy charm?  She doesn't even get paid for doing this!  And she's a speed reader!  Didn't you read the TIME article?  Are you against quiet revolutions, you industry shill?  All good points.  I love folksy charm, and sign me up for the next peaceful revolt.  But when you learn that she's actually sent advance copies of books "by the truckload" from publishers who are desperate for any kind of exposure for their books, and that she's become widely derided as a "joke" by industry execs, you may start wondering what worth her reviews actually have.  It's certainly not the deathless prose: "Readers along with the two DS will wonder whether Alan has gone over the edge or found a real connection; which premise makes this a deep read."  Now there's a five star sentence.  In fact, there seems to have been a not-so-quiet revolution against poor folksy Harriet, from conspiracy theories that she's actually a fake created by the publishing industry to pump up their books to full-scale attacks on her intelligence and (already shaky) credibility.  There's even a Harriet Klausner Appreciation Society, which is a society but is not appreciative.

But many of my more savvy readers will probably know that the word has been out on Harriet for a while now.  I bring it up again here because over the past few months I've begun to see a disturbing trend, which I call the Harriet Klausner Effect (HKE, patent pending), manifesting itself in more and more places.  The HKE refers to the practice of seeking out, by any means necessary, outside testimonials, reviews, and gestures of approval to validate one's work for an increasingly skeptical public (I told you that you were a suspicious bunch).  The latest example of this phenomenon is the paid blog review craze, where people are, apparently, paid to review other people's blogs.  In fact, there are actually whole sites dedicated to encouraging this phenomenon.  The process is pretty simple: submit your blog to the site, and for a fee (which can run to $300 and more, by the way) one of the site's paid reviewers will post a review of it, either on that site or in some cases on his/her own blog.  The reviewer gets paid, the blog gets exposure, and everyone's happy.


I'm sure I'm late to the party on this, but I think even the most credulous person out there will raise an eyebrow at this model.  Even Google has recognized the problem and started to adjust its search engine criteria to take account of (and more easily reject) sites which rely on this "pay-per-review" model.  Yet rather than either applauding this response or sheepishly admitting we just screwed it all up, a lot of bloggers have instead decided to attack Google and the objectivity argument:  "A blogger's job sometimes goes unappreciated and for granted. Pay Per Post and ReviewME offers models where, at least, they can review products and services they find interesting and give a fair assessment of those products, while being appreciated ($$$) for it."

For the second time: what!?!

In the past, this kind of Conflict of Interest 101 situation would have been justifiably demolished for its utter lack of objectivity.  This is why the famous "industry-funded studies," like those which found no link between smoking and cancer in the 70s, don't get that kind of unquestioned authority from the public anymore.  But thanks to the HKE, "lack of objectivity" has now been removed and replaced with "appreciated."  We're objective, the bloggers say, we are, we swear to God!  The money has absolutely nothing to do with our review.  We would review these sites anyway; now we're just getting "appreciated" for our work.  Uh huh.  Which is why, no doubt, these sites were willing to drop three or four bills just to get you to pay attention to something you would have paid attention to anyway.  I love quiet revolutions, don't you?

Sarcasm aside, the point here is that standards matter, and taking money from a site to review it seriously reduces the credibility of that review, no matter how much you stamp your foot and say it ain't so.  I do theater reviews, and while I'm sure the press people are nice to me when I come to their performances (just as you would be nice to anyone on whom you're trying to make a good impression), that's the extent of their "payment" to me.  My editor and his/her review medium is the one to whom I'm responsible, and thus conflict of interest doesn't enter into it.  It's often impossible to avoid all connections to something you're reviewing, of course; if I say I like WordPress (and I do), I can't avoid the fact that I'm using a WordPress-created site to say it.  But there was no quid pro quo there; I started using WordPress because it was great, and then decided to talk about it.  WordPress didn't send me a check, or a review book copy, or anything else to do the review.  I just liked it and said so.

Such arguments seem to me to be obvious ones, but so pernicious is the HKE that they seem to be getting muddled in people's minds, and I can't for the life of me figure out why.  I want public acceptance as much as anyone, and you better believe that I want my books and music to do well.  I'll even check out Rate My Professors once in a while to see what my students think about how cool I am (and whether I got a hot pepper, and I did, thanks for asking).  But even divines recognize the importance of free will and prayer freely given; forced or solicited reverence doesn't cut it, no matter how pious you claim to be.  Get your name out there, market and promote yourself, talk your work up at every opportunity.  But don't pay for the privilege.  You're better than that.  Even Harriet Klausner says so, and she only gave you four stars.

11 Responses to “In Harriet Klausner We Trust?”

  1. Barbara Delaney Says:

    As an active member of the Harriet Klausner Appreciation Society I would agree with your premise entirely. The effect Harriet Klausner and other so-called “top” reviewers has had on is pernicious and dismaying to those of us who have watched it. Amazon’s complicity with these false reviewers is yet another factor to be considered. I used to comment frequently on Harriet Klausner’s reviews, pointing out the multiple instances of misnamed characters, mistakes in plot points, even her not infrequent posting of a book review submitted under the wrong title. For my efforts I was savaged by the defenders of Klausner, even to the point of harrassing emails and even phone calls. I received emails from authors who were less than pleased with Klausner’s reviews of their books, books she clearly had not read, despite the five stars she had awarded them. Amazon is evidently very pleased with the false Ms. Klausner and her clearly faked reviews. They could put a stop to this travesty but clearly they are satisfied with the status quo.

  2. A Writer Says:

    I tend to agree with you, Barbara…Amazon has allowed the Klausners of the world to take over, and they could stop it if they wanted. But they won’t, of course; everyone loves lots of stars! I was reading a list of review sources which my publisher sends advance reading copies to, and there it was on the last page: Harriet Klausner, Independent Reviewer. Sigh. Maybe I’ll get lucky and she won’t get to mine… :)

    Anyway, welcome to Rewritten Reality, and please spread the word about the site to your fellow HKAS members!


  3. Lonnie E. Holder Says:

    I am dismayed when I see comments painting all “top” reviewers with the same paint brush. Are there reviewers that do various things that are either unethical or may be considered unethical? Yes! Are all “top” reviewers unethical? I do not think so. I cite Lawrance M. Bernabo, the #2 reviewer, as an example of someone who I think does a wonderful job of reviewing. Rebecca Johnson’s reviews are sincere and informated. E. A. Solinas writes good reviews. I think painting “all top reviewers” as a group of unethical people is inappropriate stereotyping.

  4. A Writer Says:

    Certainly painting any group of people with one brush is a dangerous exercise, but there are occasions where it makes sense, and Amazon’s reviewers seem good candidates for the procedure. Bernabo is a far better reviewer than HK, certainly, but that’s not much of a bar to clear–and I’m still troubled by the numbers (6666 reviews? Really???). Johnson and Solinas are fine, as far as I can tell, though still a bit vague in their reviews. But the point is not to attack reviewers as such: I review theater shows myself, and think that reviewers play a valuable role in vetting the enormous body of work that’s out there. My problem with many of the top reviewers in Amazon’s system is that they’re far too prolific to take seriously (HK is the worst offender, as usual), and many of them far too easy to be credible. Barbara may be more anti-reviewer than I am, but I’m with her on the idea that Amazon’s “superstar reviewer” system is broken and desperately needs major reforms before it can be considered legitimate again.

    That said, thanks for your comments, and I hope you’ll stick around and continue to contribute to the conversation!


  5. Lonnie E. Holder Says:


    Lawrance decided to freeze his reviews at 6,666 to protest Amazon’s decision to permit comments. He thought that the kind of fighting that goes on in Harriet and Grady Harp’s reviews would happen. For now, he plans on keeping his total at 6,666 by deleting older reviews that had no votes.

    I respectfully disagree with Lawrance’s position. I am dismayed by some comments, but most of the comments I have received on my reviews have been positive and have pointed out errors that I have corrected. I love getting any comment that is helpful.

    In general, while I am not in agreement with some of the things that have been said, had I not encountered the folks at the Harriet Klausner Appreciation Society I would not have known about the hanky panky going on in the top 100 reviewers. I was blissfully ignorant, doing my best to write helpful reviews, unaware of the bizarre antics of a small handful of reviewers.

    I have a handful of reviewers that I read and trust. I am almost absolutely certain that their reviews are reliable, regardless of their motivations for writing them. I will always reat their reviews first when buying an item. While the Amazon system may need some repairs, I hope they keep it in some form because I find amateur reviews far more helpful than the “professional reviews” when deciding to buy a product.

  6. A Writer Says:

    But the point remains that no one should have time to do 6,666 reviews, or 5,555 or 4,444. In the relatively brief period of time in which Amazon has permitted reviews, six thousand plus reviews is a staggering number. You, for example, have reviewed 1,489 items by my last count–impressive but not ridiculous, since as you say you enjoy doing reviews. I believe that someone can do that number of reviews while still giving each of them the attention it deserves. 6,666? Sorry, not buying it. As for whether amateur reviews are more helpful than professional ones, that depends: if I see hundreds of generally positive or negative amateur reviews on a given book, film or product, that’s helpful. But if those numbers aren’t forthcoming, I’ll generally prefer someone I know understands what he/she is talking about–a professional in his/her field–than someone random whose only skill, like HK’s, is in the numbers of reviews written.

    I doubt that the Amazon review system is going anywhere–both Amazon and its reviewers have too much invested in it–but I stand by my belief that it needs a serious overhaul to be taken seriously by people outside the system.

    As always, thanks for the comments!


  7. David Ross Says:

    There is a reviewers collective called Midwest Book Review which at least doesn’t claim to be a single person.

    They seem to write similar, positive book synopis reviews showing minimal insight with the reviews themselves of low quality like Harriet’s. There may well be conflict of interest issues in this case as well.

  8. A Writer Says:

    Yep, I’ve heard of these folks…they also get contacted by legitimate publishers for reviews, which is just as puzzling as the infatuation with HK. I’m not sure they’re quite as bad as her, but it wouldn’t surprise me in the least.

    Thanks for the comment, and please stick around!


  9. Self Esteem — A La Internet | Renegade Mind Says:

    […] Rewritten Reality […]

  10. Bobsly Says:

    Midwest Book Reviews is every bit as bad as Harriet: they even demand publisher’s info kit with every book they “accept” for reviewing (because, as they put it, there’s “no need to reinvent the wheel” you see). Check out their site, it’s all there, quite in th eopen… but they admit of being a group and therefore they’re not ranked on Amazon. Not that it matters, considering the ever-positive, one-paragraph fake crap they post. Amazon is full of shills, it’s just that Harriet is the most amazing of them all.

  11. A Writer Says:

    True enough, Bobsly…the Amazon review system leaves a whole lot to be desired!

    Thanks for the comment!


Leave a Reply