News Feeds-
Entries
Commments
- Search
News Feeds
Entries
CommmentsHarriet Klausner reviewed Quicksilver and gave it 5 stars. I know, how improbable is that. She never likes any book. Oh wait, that's John and Scott recommended books. Sorry.
Anyhow, I'll be picking this up in anticipation of the Austin trip and booksigning! Woo hoo!
Share:
| Posted by JP on Monday September 29, 2003 - 4:22 PM
| Category: Books
| © 2003 SF Signal
OK. You got me started.
Lets' call this installment "Do the Math".
I humbly consider myself to be a solid average page turner, which is to say that I can turn the page of a book in a reasonable amount of time. At best, I can turn the page twice per second (4 pages viewable). That of course does not include eye focus time, moving my hand to hold the book before turning the next page, etc. So, for a 360-page book, It takes me 3 minutes just to touch the pages. Actually reading the pages would take a bit longer. Let's say it takes 5 seconds to read and understand a page (which is, by the way, only available to me through a pact with Satan). Then that adds 30 minutes for that 360-page book. You know what, I've had a jolt of caffeine this morning, let's drop the handling charge and just say it takes half an hour to read a book.
Judging by the number of reviews posted to Amazon, HK can read upwards of 14 books per day! Let's say she gives 3 minutes to writing each review. That's 8 hours a day (7 hours reading, about an hour for reviews). 8 hours. Devoted to nothing but reading. Is this realistic? I think not. (Therefore, I am not. Ba-dum crash!)
I boldly propose, ladies and gentlemen, that Harriet Klausner does not exist!
(Jonathan Winters portrait notwithstanding)
The math clearly indicates that she is a house-shill for Amazon, a front for dozens of would-be reviewers!
But wait! There's more! More evidence to follow...
Posted by John on Tuesday September 30, 2003 at 8:57 AM
And another thing?
Every single book read by Harriet Klausner is rated at either five or four stars (very few are rated at four stars). Which, loosely translated means that every single word ever published is golden. There is no crap. There is only fine literature. It?s all good, baby.
Here?s how a typical conversation with HK (if she existed) would go:
Interviewer: Good Morning Mis Klausner. What?s the worst book you?ve ever read?
HK: War and Peace. I gave it four stars.
Gimme a break. Maybe Scott can break her streak by recommending a book for her to read.
Posted by John on Tuesday September 30, 2003 at 9:16 AM
More evidence, ladies and gentlemen:
To wit: Exhibit C...
Klausner?s reviews are posted to Amazon.com on the very day the book is released. Every single time.
When I was submitting reviews on Amazon, it sometimes took up to a week before the editors checked through my review and posted it. [OK, so I?m still a little sore from those editor clowns removing the best piece of review I ever typed. In reference to Saberhagen?s The Dracula Tape, I noted ??the plot was so full of holes you could pass a Robert Jordan Book through it?. Amazon cut it. ]
But HK gets her 4- or 5-star reviews posted on the day of release. Oooh. A 5-star book. Well doesn?t that just make we wanna click Buy Now.
Manipulation. Plain and simple.
Posted by John on Tuesday September 30, 2003 at 9:30 AM
Klausner update:
On November 6, HK had 45 reviews posted on Amazon (all of them rated 4 or 5 stars)
On Novemner 7, HK had 92(!) reviews posted on Amazon (all of them rated 4 or 5 stars)
I rest my case.
Posted by John on Monday November 10, 2003 at 1:12 PM
You mean posted that day? Otherwise, I think your thesis falls apart if she only has 95 reviews total.
BTW, do you troll the Amazon site for the express purpose of feeding your Klausner obsession?
Posted by JP on Monday November 10, 2003 at 1:29 PM
Yes, I mean posted each day. That's 137 reviews posted in two days. To be fair though, The Klausner Collective did not post anything on the three days prior to 11/6. So she had 3 days to read the ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY SEVEN (!) novels
And, yes.
Posted by John on Monday November 10, 2003 at 2:08 PM
Say what you will about me, but I will not tolerate bookery in any form.
Harriet
Posted by Harriet Klausner on Tuesday August 24, 2004 at 8:27 PM
Well, Harriet even seems to have time to read the web!
Ms. Klausner, I am begging you - PLEASE STOP IT!!! When I'm looking for new books to read, I often try to glean the quality of a book by seeing the reviews that it gets. Usually this start by my checking the ratings on Amazon.
You skew the book reviews to the point where if you have a reviewed a book, I no longer even consider it for purchase, unless it happens to be a book I was planning to buy despite any reviews.
Your reviews have gotten so far out of hand that you are hurting the authors now. A review scale that has only two possible ratings in it (4 or 5 stars) is pretty much worthless.
Again I implore you - PLEASE STOP IT! You are hurting the book industry and you are imparing the value of honest reader's input.
Most sincerely,
= Ed Rotberg =
Posted by Ed Rotberg on Sunday June 05, 2005 at 1:36 AM
Amen. Harriet Klausner reviews are more annoying than pop-up ads. Here are some things I would say to Ms. (Mrs.?) Klausner if I could:
1) Harriet, you have no life.
2) Harriet, you rate every single book at four or five stars.
3) Harriet, please get a life and leave us poor Amazon customers alone. No one finds your reviews helpful anyway.
Thank you.
Posted by Eric on Thursday June 09, 2005 at 5:53 PM
Just ran into Klausner, the #1 ranked reviewer on Amazon, and decided to look for a biography and ran into this.
I fully agree, she is fake. I liken her to the 10,000 people who were each given one day to watch Jesus' life through a time portal, in the Arthur Clarke book, "Light of Other Days". There are apparently full-timers working at Amazon book reviewers who spend their days culling other reviews. I wonder if one were to print all "Klausner"'s reviews and put all the words to a Google agent, would plagiarism be revealed?
Posted by Matt S on Tuesday November 29, 2005 at 12:55 AM
In John Birmingham's newest Alternate History novel, Designated Targets, he inserted a character named Harriet Klausner into the story. I can only hope he did this as a test to see if Harriet would catch it. Well, surprisingly, in her 5-star review posted on the day of the book's release, there was no mention at all of her character. Now, if I saw myself characterized in a book I was reviewing, I believe I might make some mention of it in acknowledgement. Obviously, she does not read the books she is reviewing.
Posted by Charles on Friday December 02, 2005 at 2:25 PM
Hah! Although, I would think that authors would love to see puff reviews with inflated ratings, this is the best news I heard all year! 
Posted by John on Friday December 02, 2005 at 3:52 PM
Heh. My newsfeeds picked up this Klausner review of Peter F. Hamilton's HUGE space opera, Judas Unchained, the sequel to Pandora's Star, which I recently spent two weeks reading (it was also huge).
Two funny things about the review:
1. It's three short paragraphs instead of her normal two.
2. The closing comment: "...the audience should obtain the first tale and set aside a couple of weeks to a month to read both as these are well worth your time". Yeah, OK. Or, if you can read upwards of 100 books a day, maybe squeeze it in with your morning coffee.
Posted by John on Tuesday January 10, 2006 at 8:44 AM
HK drives me crazy as well. Anyone can write reveiws by reading the pre-publication blurbs. Get a life lady, and leave our books alone.
Posted by alyson on Saturday February 04, 2006 at 5:34 PM
I can't abide Harriet Klausner. What a joke she is. 
Posted by Gretchen on Tuesday February 21, 2006 at 8:16 AM
I decided years ago, while a member of the Dorothy L mystery listserv, that H the K is a syndicate of some sort. She would review 5-6 books a day and then I found that she was doing the same on a romance list as well as SF. Even if she was actually skimming then and not just reading the first and last chapters and the blurb, she was NOT reading them thoroughly enough to call it reviewing. My personal favorite was when she was describing the characters in one novel and mentioned the fact that one of them had an identical twin. Which happened to be the big plot twist at the end of the book. That was one ticked off author!
Barbara
Posted by Barbara on Monday March 13, 2006 at 8:07 PM
Harriet Klausner is a WONDERFUL reviewer - she see beyond the grammar boo boos to the true gritt of the story and the true talent of the writer. She fearlessly encourages a new writer to keep going until she/he has accomplished a more polished work. I send her a 5 start /5 heart rating and think critizism directed torward her is not only unfair but unnecassary. I love her and hope she is around at least another 100 years to review into the future. As for you - doubting Thomas - Go - attempt to write War and Peace much less read then review it. BAh you probably can't write your mother a decent letter.
Posted by Sheila N. Eskew on Saturday April 01, 2006 at 10:41 PM
I may not be able to write my mother a decent letter. But I know how to use a spell check or dictionary.
Posted by FredKiesche on Sunday April 02, 2006 at 8:57 AM
I think you were suckered there Fred - look at the date...
At least, I hope it was a joke!
Posted by Scott on Sunday April 02, 2006 at 8:08 PM
This is the most entertaining Blog commentary ever!
John you are being exceptionally well behaved my friend... RELEASE THE HOUNDS!! 
Posted by Trent on Tuesday April 04, 2006 at 11:16 AM
I've really enjoyed reading the "Debunking Harriet Klausner" posts.
I was unaware of the alleged existence of HK until just a day or two ago. I looked at her record on Amazon, did the math, and thought, "Who's kidding whom?"
Thanks again for your HK skepticism.
Now ... how about the Loch Ness monster?
Posted by Danusha Goska on Monday May 01, 2006 at 10:32 AM
Oh, one more thing ...
How can I get Harriet Klausner to review my book?
Posted by Danusha Goska on Monday May 01, 2006 at 10:34 AM
Fellas,
I took the liberty of emailing HK and got this response...
Of course I can give you a review! I'll do it right here, right now. Oh sure, I can do it in the format for SFSignal. I love those guys; they try so hard! Don't worry, I don't need to actually read the book; only dumb reviewers would need to spend the time to do that!
MY RATING: 5/5 stars!
REVIEW SUMMARY: Bravo! Excellent work, it was real page turner!
PROS: Just right number of pages! Very satisfying! The pages were cut really evenly so it was very easy to turn them. They didn't even stick together which is always a plus!
CONS: Just not enough pages! I was very disappointed that the story ended so soon. I wish there were more pages left; did I mention it was a real page turner?
BOTTOMLINE:Magnificent book! Definitely run out and buy it on Amazon.com! If you point to this review, they might even give you a 25% discount! Heck, they might just give it to you for free!
SUMMARY: Isn't it good enough that I said it's a good book! Go read it! I'm not going to tell you everything about it! Reading is a personal thing! Go read! You should read! Reading is FUNdamental! But you should only read books that I recommend and only if you buy them on Amazon.com!!
Posted by Peter on Monday May 01, 2006 at 5:59 PM
Interesting to note the stats for the top Amazon reviewers...
Name then total reviews and average helpful votes per review
1. Harriet Klausner 11298 , 6.27
2. Lawrance M. Bernabo 12616 , 5.86
3. Donald Mitchell 2808 , 17.45
4. Gail Cooke 3365 , 7.47
5. Rebecca Johnson 2551 , 11.73
6. Joanna Daneman 1898 , 14.72
7. E. A Solinas 2892 , 10.39
8. Marc Ruby 1565 , 14.21
9. John Matlock 2573 , 6.25
10. Barron Laycock 1140 , 29.92
11. Grady Harp 2487 , 10.09
12. Robert Morris 1326 , 12.39
13. FrKurt Messick 2194 , 7.85
14. Darth Kommissar 2022 , 10.10
15. Daniel Jolley 2178 , 7.56
16. P D Harris 2479 , 5.04
17. Kurt A. Johnson 1887 , 6.19
18. Alejandra Vernon 1350 , 11.08
19. W Boudville 2466 , 5.90
20. Lawyeraau 1956 , 10.36
50. R. Hardy 704 , 16.54
100. B. King 1175 , 6.13
592434. M. Smith 3 , 1.3
This doesn't tell us much, but the top two definitely look suspect.
Posted by M.Smith on Wednesday May 03, 2006 at 7:48 AM
I feel bad for Donald Mitchell. That poor SOB is actually READING the darn books and will always be a bridesmaid and never a bride.
Posted by Neen on Saturday May 20, 2006 at 4:14 PM
OH MY GOSH. So... bored tonite and looking for a potential book to buy and then I was like, "what is the deal with Harriet Klausner she reviews nearly every book I look at" so I finally googled her and got to this really weird website of hers and then this stream of chat... made me smile. because I had no idea anyone else was questioning the existence or need for Harriet Klausner's reviews... I assumed she worked for some publishing house but she writes for a variety of authors... weird. Thanks for the info!
Posted by ebuffy on Tuesday May 30, 2006 at 1:44 AM
I just emailed Harriet Klausner (or is it Krausner)? She has also reviewed on Netflix just as she does on Amazon. I have asked her to stop thinking she knows how to review. She consistently offers blow by blow descriptions of plots in a sophomoric attempt at being a reviewer. I think she is delusional and probably votes for herself. I asked her to take a few courses on reviewing because her life experience obviously does not qualify her to review anything. There are others like her about which I have complained to Netflix about...there are some misguided (unsophisticated/educated?) souls who have self-appointed themselves as experts in the review of books and film...God help us! I was extremely disappointed when she ruined a season of Carnivale for me on Netflix and also revealed plot spoilers on Amazon on The Poisoned Rose....how ignorant!
Posted by a mc on Friday August 11, 2006 at 7:11 PM
So...the general consensus is that Quicksilver is a crap book, and I should persuade Harriet to reconsider her appraisal of it? 
Posted by Brian Turner on Sunday August 13, 2006 at 12:15 PM
"So...the general consensus is that Quicksilver is a crap book..."
Not my consensus. The Baroque Cycle was one of the best works I read, the year I read all three.
HK seems to automatically give five stars to anything. Any length. Any subject. I'd like to see her tackle "Godel, Escher, Bach" and see what her rating would be. But I'm afraid her brain would melt.
Posted by Fred Kiesche on Sunday August 13, 2006 at 7:04 PM
I'd like to say that for a fact, as a reviewer, I have noticed that many of her reviews are WRONG. she gets facts wrong, names wrong.. she even changed the outcome of a story. I have heard from authors who are livid and are not happy when she reviews their books.
Her problem? She has a need to be #1 - and while I do believe she's reading the books, she is at a point where she can't keep up, so she's skimming them. sometimes I wonder if she's even doing that. I don't blame her for wanting to be #1 - but I personally take pride when I review a book, and I try to get facts right. I don't make them up like Harriet does sometimes...
Posted by Marie on Monday August 14, 2006 at 6:39 PM
I have sent her corrections and suggestions when she makes mistakes and she just ignores me, a fellow New Yorker. There is no intellectual exercise in reading for speed. Yet Alfred A. Knopf sends her all their new titles free. This disturbs me profoundly.
Posted by Lisa Catherine Graf on Monday August 14, 2006 at 9:17 PM
My firm opinion is that things are not as they appear to be when it comes to HK. Either she is a single individual who operates as a shill for book publishers, or a complete made-up person purely for the purpose of online reviews, or the product of a collective. Perhaps there is an element of all of these.
As for Quicksilver...Fred, did you get a plot in your copy? I seemed to be missing one in mine. I've always had a very high opinion of Stephenson and went so far as to get a signed copy of this one - much to my chagrin. This is my frequent example of a book I'm unhappy about paying a hefty price for ($30!!) and as such that colors my opinion of it. I disliked it so much, I'm going to be very reticent to purchase another of Stephenson's works without finding out first that it marks a return to something approaching the story-driven style that made him famous.
Posted by Scott on Monday August 21, 2006 at 12:55 AM
"As for Quicksilver...Fred, did you get a plot in your copy?"
Yes. Several dozen plots. That was one reason I enjoyed it so much, the wide number of story threads.
I will admit that third time was the charm for me with the first book. I tried it, couldn't get hooked, put it down. Tried it a second time and was still not hooked. But then I brought it with me on a weekend where I was doing two double shifts and forced myself to read x-hundred pages. Oddly enough, well before that goal, I started "getting it", following the threads, etc., and before long I was hooked. The next year I read all three back-to-back.
It isn't for everyone, to be sure. I never liked his stuff until Cryptnomicon (I've yet to get past the first chapter of Snow Crash, but I've got friends who swear that it is the greatest thing since sliced bread.).
If we all liked what everybody else liked, what the heck would we comment about on these SF Signal comment boards?
Posted by Fred Kiesche on Monday August 21, 2006 at 1:01 PM
I just recently discovered the reviews on Amazon. Along with the reviews I discovered Harriet Klausner. I also discovered that I have a profound dislike for her. She seems to have reviewed every book I want to read. So I thought I'd Google her and found this lovely discussion. You guys have made my night.
Posted by Raiyne on Friday August 25, 2006 at 12:31 AM
I wonder how she has time to do anything else, if she even does. She's not only on Amazon, but pops up on Barnes and Noble.com, too.
Posted by on Monday September 04, 2006 at 6:06 PM
I've had a severe loathing of Harriet Klausner for years. She is a deceptive, illiterate nutjob with delusions of grandeur. Never googled her until now. It's great to see that I am not alone.
Posted by Rob Davies on Wednesday September 27, 2006 at 3:19 PM
Wow, still going strong 3 YEARS later. Unfortunately, we are the 5th result if you Google for 'Harriet Klausner'. We must fix this. Upward!
Posted by jp on Wednesday September 27, 2006 at 3:42 PM
I love that this post keeps coming up every so often. It's like a recurring reason to smile.
Posted by John on Wednesday September 27, 2006 at 4:05 PM
If you go to the web site thebestreviews.com and look under the profiles of reviewers you can see a picture of Ms. Klausner and you will get an eyeful. I can't stand this woman. I think that she really exists and is just out to get free books and drive the ratings up for the books she reviews so that people will buy them.
Posted by Leslee on Thursday September 28, 2006 at 2:04 PM
I've seen pictures of and interviews with "Harriet Klausner" in various places on the internet and they're all of the same woman, so obviously she is a real person. But the name may be invented and I doubt she reads all the books which she "reviews". In that sense I believe she's probably a fraud and I agree with previous posters. She just doesn't make sense as an actual person claiming to do what she does and she's either getting some kind of kickbacks or she's doing it for internet fame. If it's the latter I must say it's a novel way (no pun intended) of becoming famous. A google search of her name returns more than a million and a half results. Her "reviews" are all fluff and no substance, usually just basic synopses of plots that show no real insight and could very well be written by someone who hasn't even touched the books she writes about. (By the way, I propose that someone create a Wikipedia page about her and her "controversy".) For your consideration, here is a link to one of her online interviews: http://www.opinionjournal.com/la/?id=110006483 .
Posted by Lee on Thursday October 05, 2006 at 10:28 PM
I have had two novels reviewed by Harriet Klausner. Although I cannot speak for any other author, judging from the content of the reviews, she or someone she relies upon read the books.
Joe Moore
http://www.thelastsecret.net
Posted by JoeM on Friday October 06, 2006 at 8:48 AM
Joe,
I read her Amazon review of your The Last Secret, and it is different from her normal review, IMO. It does appear to be a bit more than her usual re-hash of the back cover synopsis and she actually referes to herself in the review. Nice job.
And I'll be picking up the first book in your series to see what its like. I did this based on your website, not Klausner's review...
Posted by jp on Friday October 06, 2006 at 9:05 AM
Thanks, and enjoy!
Joe Moore
http://www.thelastsecret.net
Posted by JoeM on Friday October 06, 2006 at 9:47 AM
Hi Joe,
I read the posted comments here with great interest.I am a slow reader, and so it took more than an hour to read all the comments. I have reviewed so far 19 novels and posted them at the Amazon website. I do not know how Harriet Klausner reviews dozens of books a week. (I do not mean to criticize her). It took me two weeks to read The Kite Runner, for example, and two and a half weeks to read Life of Pi. I read books slowly because I derive great joy from reading well written novels. I see no point in reading a good book fast. Don't rush through a book; relax, read slowly, and experience the joy of reading. Authors spend years in writing a book. It took me more than two years to write my novel,"The Beech Tree". I would be distressed if I hear that somebody read it in eighteen minutes.
Yesh Prabhu, author of "The Beech Tree".
Posted by Yesh Prabhu on Sunday October 22, 2006 at 11:48 PM
From the Guardian: How one woman reviewed 12,000 books: "I don't doubt Klausner's integrity..." Oh please!
Posted by John on Friday November 17, 2006 at 1:16 AM
She's not even reviewing. She merely outlines the plot.
Posted by Sarah on Saturday December 09, 2006 at 8:18 AM
Interesting article and picture of HK and even a quote from a comment here.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1570726,00.html
Posted by AJ on Thursday December 28, 2006 at 1:32 AM
Heh-heh. I didn't even catch that when I posted about the Time article this recently. Thanks, AJ!
Posted by John on Thursday December 28, 2006 at 1:49 AM
Evil Eyebrow joins the fun and does some math on more recent reviews.
Posted by John on Thursday December 28, 2006 at 10:57 AM
how did i get here...
On amazon, reading reviews for a new camera lens,
happened to see that reviewers had rankings.
Immediately curious as to who was number one.
The outrageous number of reviews by this Harriet Klausner person made me google her, and ended up here... this thread has made my night. Funny stuff
cheers
Posted by simon on Saturday December 30, 2006 at 5:37 AM
I think the only way to put an end to HK is to do what she does --- post an insane number of reviews on Amazon that does nothing but outlines and gives kudos to books (or even better, trashes the book as an Anti-HK). Then maybe people will see the inaneness of her reviews! We can call him, "Klaus Harrier."
Posted by Peter on Saturday December 30, 2006 at 8:23 AM
Why is Klausner ranked #1 even though the #2 reviewer received more "helpful" votes, both in total and in proportion to the number of reviews written? Amazon.com says (in its "Reviewers FAQ") that reviewers are ranked according to the number of helpful votes they receive from other users, NOT based on the total number of reviews written. Any thoughts? Just curious.
Posted by Ted on Tuesday January 02, 2007 at 9:34 AM
There is definitely something fishy between Amazon and Klausner. Her reviews ALWAYS appear on the day of the book's release. I know she gets pre-release review copies of books - that's fine - but back when I submitted reviews to Amazon, it took days to get posted and the lag time fluctuated. So how could her reviews be perfectly so perfectly timed? I suspect she has special channels through which to submit her content...channels that are unavailable to the rest of us.
But don't get me started...
Posted by John on Tuesday January 02, 2007 at 10:09 AM
I can understand why Amazon might want to give special posting privileges to its top reviewer. But I still don't understand why the #2 reviewer has more "helpful" votes than the #1 reviewer. Amazon purports to rank reviewers based on the number of helpful votes.
Posted by Ted on Tuesday January 02, 2007 at 1:24 PM
love the comments on this board. I actually know Harriet -- went to school with her in the Bronx. I agree with Rob Davies' comment on this board. All I can say is that she is indeed a real person. Maybe she's in it for the free books.
Posted by Julie on Thursday January 04, 2007 at 11:39 AM
I can totally confirm Julie's account simply because I was friends Ivan, who went to school with David, who was roommate with Greg, who dated Wanda, who used to clean the house of Jack, whose nanny was Gaudalupe, who was the next door neighbor of the man whom Julie buys her daily coffee from...
Posted by Fälschung on Thursday January 04, 2007 at 3:35 PM
I thought it was odd that she seemed to have reviewed every book I've looked into.
I looked up her website, and saw she offered all of her reviews. Oh, wow, amazing, I thought.
Wait a minute, I thought. Does she have any bad reviews? I tried searching through them randomly. No, she doesn't.
That can't be possible, as others have stated.
I read a news article about her, and again, thought she was legit.
Then I realized, all her reviews, the last paragraph that states how good the book is, are all similar.
And then I came upon this site, and am glad to see I'm not the only one suspicious of her and her reviews.
Posted by Nozomi on Friday January 05, 2007 at 2:14 AM
She claims she doesn't review any book she doesn't like - so I assume that means she's read more books than she has reviewed, and simply just doesn't create one of those in-depth, hard-hitting reviews for them.
Posted by Scott on Friday January 05, 2007 at 7:14 AM
Descriptive bad reviews are a lot more helpful than sugar-coated good ones.
Posted by Nozomi on Friday January 05, 2007 at 4:07 PM
fake fake fake fake fake fake fake fake fake fake fake fake fake fake fake fake fake fake fake fake fake fake fake fake fake fake fake fake fake fake fake fake
shes a fake no more discussion
Posted by abes on Monday January 15, 2007 at 1:05 PM
the only way i will beliueve of hers existance is that i get to f*** her while she tells me 1000 of her reviews or so
Posted by abe on Monday January 15, 2007 at 1:07 PM
I had to edit your comment for language abes - this is a family blog.
And did you see her picture? She looks like Jonathan Winters!!! Eww.
Posted by Scott on Monday January 15, 2007 at 2:10 PM
Harriet Klausner and her Amazon.com reviews have annoyed me for several years now. I was pleased to note that one of her recent reviews on Amazon.com was pulled when her posted review received a comment pointing out that she had not read the book because her review was totally inaccurate.
Posted by Debbie on Sunday January 21, 2007 at 12:01 AM
Yeah, "she" really irritates me as well. I'm convinced she's definitely got some deal with amazon. Not only does she often post her review of a book the day it is released, but I am convinced that she frequently submits her reviews to amazon BEFORE the book is published. And that's despite the fact that Amazon does not allow the average person to write a review before its release date- there simply isn't a 'write a review' option.
For example, the most recent book I've noticed is FOR A FEW DEMONS MORE by Kim Harrison. If you go to Amazon and search for Kim Harrison, the book in question will be listed along with all the others. It is also, however, listed with a five star rating. When you click on the link, and look at the book, there is no review on the book page and no option to review because it doesn't get released until MARCH 20, 2007! (If you simply search using the title it doesn't show a rating so make sure you click on the author's link to look at all her books. I don't know why it's like that.) THEN, if you go to barnes and noble and look for the same book, you'll notice that HK has already written a five star review (shocker) on that site. Coincidence? I think not.
Posted by loonigrrl on Saturday February 03, 2007 at 3:02 AM
I have read this whole entire blog and agree. I knew she posted alot of reviews but my gosh I never realized it was so many. I only read the reviews at Barnes and Noble and her reviews don't really say much. I could get basically the same info off the covers. It basically makes her reviews worthless if she never reviews anything below a 4 star rating. Heck I want on the mailing lists she on to get all those free books! 
Posted by Kathy on Monday February 05, 2007 at 3:57 PM
It's hard to imagine she really exits. Has anyone gone to her website? it's sort of spooky, what with the fuzzy, poor quality of the photograph and the lack of real specifics in the biographical bit; i.e. moving to Georgia and working for "the library." Yet, if you do the math (which is about 13,157 current reviews written since 2000, which is the time she began reviewing according to a Wall Street Journal article) it comes to about 5 books a day read and reviewed (7 years = 2,548 days divided by 13,157 reviews). This is the amount that she has always claimed to read in a day, according to various sources.
Posted by Mykal on Tuesday February 06, 2007 at 12:21 PM
I noticed Klausner years ago and thought her reviews were completely inept. She not only likes everything, but it's clear she never actually reads the books. If I see a book in the bookstore with a review from her I refuse to buy it on principle.
Posted by SQT on Tuesday February 20, 2007 at 1:20 PM
Mescaline is the most intellectual of all drugs of choice, MDMA a runs a close second.
Posted by Carl on Monday February 26, 2007 at 12:14 AM
I've been irritated by the fraudulent Ms.K for a long time. Just recently I've added some comments to her farcial amazon reviews. Originally she claimed to be a speed reader who read two books a day. When her reviewing pace had far outstripped her supposed reading rate she changed her speed claims to "five or six books a day". Of course that still doesn't explain the memorable day she posted ninety-one reviews.
Anyone who has read her reviews will see that they are full of grammatical errors, at least her own sentences, not the ones she lifts from other sources. She also misuses words, is a demon for the run on sentence, and frequently gets the names of characters wrong.
I don't mind so much when the book in question is some crappy bodice ripper, or a Nascar romance,(yes-sadly there is such a category), but it really pisses me off when she reviews a book by an author I respect. She reviewed the last novel by Paul Auster, and had the audacity to use the word existential in her review. I would love to know what Harriet thinks the word means.
Posted by Barbara Delaney on Tuesday February 27, 2007 at 4:26 PM
Two points:
1.) Does anyone really care about the reader reviews on Amazon? Personally, I've never been swayed by one of them. If I'm interested in a book I'm going to buy it regardless of what anyone - let alone HK - might have to say on the matter. Ignore her...ignore all the reader reviews.
2.) If HK pisses you off that much click on the 'NO' button where it says, 'Was this review helpful to you?' It's the only way to driver her ranking/relevance down.
Posted by Derek on Thursday March 01, 2007 at 8:36 PM
Wow, glad to see I'm not alone. For years I've been suspicious of the farce that is Harriet Klausner, with her silly, always-positive, gazillion reviews a day.
Posted by The Anti HK on Saturday March 03, 2007 at 1:29 AM
But this [Whoa hey! Let's take it easy with the curse words. -- Ed.] lady is not alone, I'm not sure why you guys aren't seeing John Matlock "Gunny", W. Boudville, and the rest. Just peruse the amazon "Top Reviewers" page, a lot of them (most? all?) are frauds of the same kind as Henriette Kalumner. Of course she (if she is a real person) has [See above! -- Ed.] compared to the others, 13000 reviews in what, like five years maybe since Amazon started this review racket? that's a bold statement.
Posted by Passerby on Wednesday March 07, 2007 at 3:48 PM
Unfortunately, negative votes do nothing to the ranking. I asked. it only looks at the yes votes...
Posted by marie on Monday March 12, 2007 at 8:59 PM
It really should be the ratio of helpful votes to total responses.
HK would sink like a stone.
Posted by Valerie on Tuesday March 13, 2007 at 8:57 AM
Has anyone seen a recent picture of Harry? She looks like a leprechaun. I really have to apologize to all of the leprechauns out there for the comparison.
Posted by Boo Radley on Tuesday March 13, 2007 at 4:25 PM
The Harriet Klausner phenomenon is little more than a poor literary joke.
This person, real or imagined, has allegedly read 12,000 or 20,000 or 50,000 books or whatever, none of which, remarkably, were bad! No fewer than 4 stars for anything ever written!
It would be stunning and wonderful if there really was as much good literature out there as the Harriet Klausner Experience would have you believe.
The reality is that, whoever or whatever Harriet Klausner may be, she is no a reviewer. The entity known as Harriet Klausner is merely a regurgitation device that spews positive thumb-nail sketches across the land in aid of publishers and book-sellers.
One cannot completely blame Harriet Klausner as he/she/it/they are only in it for the limited fame allotted to the purported world leader in book reviewing. And the free books, of course.
The real culprit in this sham is Amazon, who recklessly employ the hack rave reviews of a fly-leaf copying toady to flog their books, good or bad.
Last night I finished a James Patterson novel. Today I looked at the reviews, and the majority confirmed my opinion that it was something less than stellar. Harriet Klausner, of course, gave it a glowing, 5-star "review". Only 4 of 18 readers felt her review was helpful, which seems pretty anaemic for someone of such lofty pseudo-credentials.
It seems entirely possible that Harriet Klausner was never in the same room with the book I'd read . . .
A few years ago it came to light that Sony created a movie reviewer from whole-cloth to plant raves about the studio's films.
Harriet Klausner is to literary review what "David Manning" of The Ridgefield Press is to film review. Fake, phoney, planted, shilled.
Take any and all comments printed under the name Harriet Klausner with a pillar of salt.
Posted by eelpie on Wednesday March 14, 2007 at 9:36 AM
The "Harriet Klausner Experience" sounds like a great band name. I can see it now:
Tonight only, The Harriet Klausner Experience Featuring The Literary Stylings Of John Denardo!
Posted by jp on Wednesday March 14, 2007 at 1:49 PM
All,
First, I want to send a fond "hello" to my brethren from www.amazon.com. I have been posting about HK's ridiculous reviews on that site for three weeks or so and was surprised to realize, two weeks ago, that people have been doing the same thing for nearly four years! Ridiculing HK seems to have become a social behavior, passed from poster to poster, in the best traditions of the epic.
However, the gods of all those epics have been revealed to be simple wisps of air, and a powerful gust of wind has been brewing to scatter all the remnants of Harriet Klausner to oblivion. On www.amazon.com recently, a perceptive poster stated that, far from our comments being ineffectual, eventually a "critical mass" will develop. This critical mass will be formed of our collective rage over the idiocy and corrupt business practices construed by HK upon trusting readers of Amazon and Barnes book reviews.
In the "real" world, many things which people feel they "cannot do anything about" are eventually noticed by the journalistic world, and then, wow, things get DONE!
I propose that any with journalistic connections who visit this site get involved. Failing that, we should compile our points, allusions, inferences, facts, and outside knowledge into one succinct letter that will then be sent along to all of the major news networks. Of course, our story will not be an "Anna Nicole Smith" or a "Britney's Psychosis Manifests Itself" level story, and the sarcasm is intended.
I believe that, as its idealistic, altruistic core, journalism's true purpose is to disseminate information about corrupt practices, be they corporate, personal, or national. The "outrage of the mob" is a tool easily manipulated (and seldom correctly)--but is also always effective in altering the corrupt (or unwanted) behavior.
Am I comparing this to Watergate, WMD-nonexistence, or MLK-jr's sacrifice? Surely you jest. But at it's center, this farce known as HK (and by several other names, for corruption is Legion) represents some of the worst aspects of the human condition: greed, misdirection, manipulation, and hubris. Surely, if we are lucky and persistent enough, some journalistic entity will feel that this fraud is worth a story. Those who state that we "should engender ourselves to Amazon's and Barnes's complaint hierarchy" are deluding themselves. Problems do not get noticed, much less solved, by following "suggested channels".
Let's face it, these complaint channels are there mostly for corporations to point at should lawsuits be filed against them.
"See, we have the proper channels to fix those sorts of problems, and we therefore are not liable for lies and misdeeds committed on our website!"
Meanwhile, after their collective butts are covered, these corporations are free to blissfully ignore any fraudulent activity conducted under their noses. It's a simple fact, and unfortunate truth of the human condition that without "checks and balances", many people drift towards giving themselves unfair advantage at another's expense.
Step 1: collect some examples of Harriet's and other, suspicious "reviewers" works and store them. (I was tempted to write "collect underpants" for step 1, but was trying to maintain the seriousness here.)
Step 2: prepare a succinct summary, referencing key examples of "non-review" reviews or outright plagiarism.
Step 3: detail our reasons for pursuing the correction of these fraudulent activities.
Step 4: simultaneously create a specific website or forum dedicated to "watch-dogging" all known, and suspected, fraudulent reviewers.
Step 5: post several "sticky" posts on the future website or forum, detailing what we already "know" about these reviewers, so that a concrete knowledge base will be established.
And please, no "why should we", "it won't accomplish anything", or "get a life" posts as reply. All accomplish nothing and reveal subservience to the status quo. Things change because certain people get angry enough to do something, while the rest jeer and throw tomatoes. But eventually, things always change.
Cheers,
MK
Posted by M. Krysztofiak on Sunday March 18, 2007 at 10:05 AM
HK is not the only "reviewer" doing that thing on Amazon. For example, check out poster "John Matlock Gunny" (http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A1M8PP7MLHNBQB/ ).
This guy wants you to believe he reads half a dosen scientific/technical/historical books a day, every day, going back years.
Posted by John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt on Monday March 19, 2007 at 12:36 PM
I thought this was Harriet Klausner...
http://www.thomasquinnbooks.com/images/link_icons/klausner.jpg
Posted by Dan Geiser on Monday March 19, 2007 at 5:04 PM
I think the above link must have been Harriet in her *cough* younger years.
Posted by Boo Radley on Tuesday March 20, 2007 at 12:22 PM
Very interesting to read so many comments about this woman. I was directed to this website by another Amazoner and I have to admit...I'm delighted that I am not the only one to find this woman's voracious reading a little suspect...thanks for buttressing my confidence in HK's fraud-ness.
Posted by Matt K on Tuesday March 20, 2007 at 7:48 PM
Sigh.
While HK's current reviews are downright scary to read, I began worrying about her startling ability to read and review so many books back in early 2004.
I'm a published romance author (save the boos and hisses, folks) and while her review did touch on secondary characters that appeared...well, she added that it was a certain subgenre of historical, which it clearly was not.
In fact, by naming that sub-genre, she'd negated all the research I had done to place the plot at that exact moment in history. Now, this might seem minor to some, but to me it was a huge blow. Even my publisher said, "Ouch".
But, of course I got a 4, which I now understand means nothing.
The thing is, a reader came in and pointed out HK's screw up (rather saucily). At that moment I wanted to crawl under a table. "No, no, no! Don't piss off HK!"
Truth be told, her reviews are everywhere. And like it or not, she does hold some power. As an author, I have to bow to that power. I mean, never burn your bridges, ya know?
C (who still really believes she skimmed less on my book than she does now)
Posted by c on Thursday March 22, 2007 at 1:50 PM
Shame on you, C. You coulda drove a truck for a living and be independent of Harriet Klausner and the like. Why is it that you enslave yourself to these frauds?
Posted by Postman on Friday March 23, 2007 at 1:53 PM
Harriet Klausner does not read all the books. She rewrites other reviews, in particular Kirkus because it comes out first. Read closely, you'll see. She uses the same language.
Posted by Tom on Saturday March 24, 2007 at 5:00 PM
Shame on YOU, postman. C isn't dependent on HK; she's a writer trying to make an honest living. HOW DARE YOU insult a writer who is terrified she might lose her living because of a bad review. Quite frankly, most of us writers would rather have a bullet in the head than do anything else, even if YOU don't approve of it, and that includes truck driving, which doesn't seem very honest to me.
Stick it up your privileged little ass, postman.
Posted by Charlene on Monday March 26, 2007 at 2:28 AM
Ah, but even as a trucker, Postman, there would be somebody to bow to. Someone or some corporate entity that could make life unpleasant.
If I was an independent trucker it could be:
1) The bank that holds the loan on my truck.
2) With or without my truck being free of a loan, the companies I woo to haul for. On mostly their terms, of course. I mean, I can't fill the truck with empty space and just run all over the country expecting to be paid. LOL
And heaven forbid I don't fulfill on that contract. Then I'm worrying about food, home, perhaps truck loan, deisel, yada yada. (A whole subset of things needed to be bowed to.)
If I was a trucker without a truck of my own in just an everyday hookup:
1) I count on my company to get loads for me to haul, hence my continuing income.
2) I may have to take the cross country trips or risk being fired. (But even local UPS drivers have tremendously long hours and physical mandates to keep their jobs.)
3) Back to most of the things at the end of the above. I still have food, home, taxes, and other things to deal with. Cuz I'm pretty sure this company will not want me making a permanent residence in one of their trucks.
My point is, we all bow to something or someone. What and who is based on your particular profession.
Plus, there are those we consider "frauds" in every profession. Ask any one of your friends, "Who at work drives you crazy? Who at work is getting kudos you don't think they deserve?". And you know, based on who you ask within the same company (from top to bottom), you'll get many different answers.
So no, I don't feel any shame at understanding my business and knowing that while I don't have to like my reviews, I do have to take into consideration the "power" of them.
What I am asking for every author though, is, "Please Please do not take your dislike for HK's reviews out on the book." We get reviewed by many entities and we deal with it. It adds a new dimension to have someone hate the reviewer, and hence come in and bash.
We can't control who reviews us. Please take that into consideration.
C
Posted by C on Monday March 26, 2007 at 11:40 AM
The point is not that you "bow down" to someone, but that you bow down to a useless fraud such as HK. And what is it that you're writing that HK's entitled to pronounce on it? Must be same kind of crap as what she reviews... "hilarious romp blah blah"...
I'd rather drive a truck. But to each his own, of course.
Posted by Postman on Monday March 26, 2007 at 4:11 PM
Ah...
I "get" you now, Postman.
Your response was extremely venemous without provocation from me.
You have a torch to wield, so have at it. Yours is an undignified game I choose not to play.
Best to you in all your endeavours.
C
Posted by C on Tuesday March 27, 2007 at 10:18 AM
