Here’s a shocker… (The Klausner Post)
By JP |
Monday, September 29th, 2003 at
4:22 pm
Harriet 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!
Filed under: Books
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
I just read her review on Barnes&Noble.com, for my latest Victorian Romance, released two days ago, and she has the plot all wrong. No way could she have read the book. I appreciate the five stars, but…
There is now a Wikipedia entry on Harriet.
Harriet Klausner has fascinated me for a while now, and not because she miraculously “reads” all these books she reviews. I don’t know if any of you have noticed (and I haven’t read all of the comments here), but she tends to write reviews of Harlequin novels, and the language she uses is quite funny… for a woman in her fifties. I do believe tat Harriet is real, but that se has multiple people posting under her name. A sweat shop, if you will…
I get the feeling that she writes blurbs for book covers on the side.
This has to be the most fascinating thing I have ever stubled across on the Web. As far as I am concerned Harriet is a marvel. She hasn’t reviewed my book yet, but from what I have read here, she perhaps has no need to, except perhaps the sections that highlight the power of unpredictability.
I am so intrigued, that I’m going to send her a copy of ‘Secret Habits of Successful Bastards - the Self-Help Book for People who are Too Nice’ and we’ll see what she comes up with. Maybe she will break her four- or five-star habit and make me even more infamous?
I’ll be looking for direct references to what I wrote on the front and back cover and on http://www.successful-bastards.com of course
A bit of math of my own:
While she only claims she can read 2, Harriet can apparently read 5.56 books per day (that’s her daily average number of reviews on amazon). I will assume she gets 8 hours of sleep every night. Further, we assume she is cosntantly reading and does nothing else whatsoever during her waking life. She doesn’t eat, drink, visit the bathroom, work, move to pick up the next book, go to the shop to buy the damn things, nothing.
Doing nothing other than reading, it would take Harriet exactly 2.88 hours to read a book. If we assume that each book is 360 pages long. In that case she can read at a constant rate of 1 page every 29 seconds.
What an amazing woman! She either doesn’t sleep, or she can consistently speed read at a rate even faster than this in order to fit in the time needed to eat, write reviews, go to amazon and post them. And she does this every day. Wow.
It’s hardly a surprise that she has a few errors in her reviews. I mean, at that rate you’re bound to miss something.
Now we just gotta remove her…
Is Harriet a computer program.
This would explain errors, grammatical style, being ‘born’ with speed-reading abilities and an algorithm which allows only 4 or 5 stars
Jack Blurb
The Computer Program Hypothesis would also explain some other riddles
If Harriet is able to read two books idea why does she publish much more than this in a day?
If reading means text to speech then she can only a read a few books (aloud) a day. If reading means processing and reviewing thats a different matter.
How does Harriet review books before they’re published?
They’re in electronic format. That’s the only means she has at the moment to process them. Why bother with the hardware needed to physically read a book when it can be e-mailed or downloaded in a second and processed within minutes? hours?
Why is there no interview with Harriet?
She’s too busy? But not too busy to read this website! Where’s the person behind the scenes, the scandal, the book deals, the author deals, the press conferences
Would Harriet pass the Turing Test?
Which programs have won the Turing Test. Could Harriet be one of them.
How can we tell if Harriet is a computer without speaking to her or seeing her in person?
Very easily – you have to analyse the syntax. Look at the reviews and identify any peculiarities of the speech. Look at any peculiarities of the errors. Make predictions. Make sure any algorithms aren’t changed in reponse to the analysis.
If this were true it would have significant implications
Fortunately this isn’t true; it’s nothing as romantic and spectacular. Harriet Klausner is nothing more than an old fraud who made a profession out of deceiving potential readers, that’s all. She should be arrested and launched to the moon, along with Jeff Bezos who allows this to go on because of greed and fear that if he does honest business he’ll make less money. He’s worse than Klausner.
Are you from Amazon?
Initial Analysis: 2 examined reviews contain a series of factual statements. The statements are separated either with a full stop or a semicolon. The majority of the review consists of these statements. A computer program that read through the book, could summarise it into a long list of statements, some of which would be incorrect. The ‘author’ of the final review could then select the best statements that go in the final review.
The last section of the review has an entirely different flavour – here are some excerpts from consecutive reviews
‘the story line is fast paced’ ‘and never slows down’
‘is a great mysery writer’
‘…is a winner’
‘has written a powerful tale’
‘provides a wonderful refreshing tale’
‘entertaining contemporary romance’
‘fans of the ….will enjoy their latest escapades’
‘the story line as always is well written’
‘young adult readers will enjoy her efforts’
‘is at her best’
‘engaging drama’
‘a great …romantic thriller’
‘readers will toast with thirty year old cognac this tremendous historical …saga’
‘superb gothic victorian romantic suspense’
All are positive, but this part of the review is more flowing than the first part – with a more ‘human touch’.
YOU fie on ME and yet YOU do not keep employed seventy-five illegal immigrant boys who WORK in my BASEMENT for precious WATER and FOOD writing the reviews for me. If I stop THEY DIE. Shame on you.
Thank you for responding to my post Harriet Klausner.
The response was short at three sentences. A book reviewer composes more articles than humanly possible. Critics on the internet begin to suspect; the author is challenged online; Krausner responds revealing her secret slave labour force working in abominable circumstances.
Klausner’s response was a twisting searing drama that thoroughly engages the reader. Fans of Klausner will celebrate the response with a bottle of 30 year old cognac
I don’t think she is a program; most of her reviews, however crap, are far too specific to the book. The two paragraphs plot summary that accompanies her reviews couldn’t be generated automatically. And she has been contacted by the media in the past, at least according to this link:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/la/?id=110006483
What’s more likely is that she simply reviews books based on their blurbs (that takes something in the order of 30 seconds per book) and maybe other reviews and summaries around. That would explain the high number of reviews and how books are reviewed prior to publishing.
And I wouldn’t be surprised if there are multiple people involved. The book industry likes putting Harriet-style reviews on the back of covers. It’s been said that HK exists as a means of self promotion for publishers. Whether or not that’s true, I would not at all be described if there’s about 5 or 6 people out there collecting info on a book and writing crappy reviews, with one of them in charge of sticking them up there. Either that or it’s some little prankster with nothing better to do with his life.
What we can be sure about is that she sure as hell aint reading ‘em.
And, for anyone who’s interested, you can find every single HK review to date here:
http://harrietklausner.wwwi.com/
This site is also great as it shows just how many errors there are in her reviews. I popped over to about five or six reviews of books I’d read and I could see mistakes popping up all over the place. My favourite was a reference to a murder in which “six died”- the actual figure is actually 960.
I think now I should mention that this thread has now lasted just about 5 years. I am glad.
But aren’t any laws against this sort of thing?
@Jimbob:
No, not really. I mean, it might be considered to be fraud, but she’s not making money off it, she’s not hurting any one, so even if HK was illegal, I seriously doubt anyone’s going to be bothered to shut her down.
How can you know she’s not making money off of it? I’m sure she’s getting paid, I can’t imagine anyone would do so much work otherwise. Now of course I can’t establish whether she does or doesn’t get paid. But an investigator can… And I’m sure she’s not the only person involved in fake reviewing, and since it’s rather widespread, there must be some money in it, so it would be worthwhile to bother to shut her down, or maybe not that much shut her down as find out what actually goes on and shut them ALL down.
Admittedly, I can’t be sure that she doesn’t get paid for it. I don’t think Amazon pays for people to review their products. If she is getting paid for this, it would be from some other site. She is on a couple of others as well, so maybe there… I would think by now, however, that anyone who actually paid people to review stuff for them or sent out free books would probably put two and two together before too long (or two, two and google, as I call it). I am not a detective, but I would suspect that if you checked around, you would not find that many sites that pay you to review would have HK material on them.
The other thing is we have to consider how many people involved in fake reviewing are simply acne-ridden teenagers with no social life who think it’s funny to whack fake material up there to annoy people. You will find plenty of those, I’m sorry to say. (I often wonder if HK is one of those…)
Technically speaking, Amazon should be able to close her account, as I’m pretty damn sure she’s violating some kind of site policy. I live in hope…
I make it a point of never buying books HK reviews. For me, seeing her name next to a book is the kiss of death, no matter how much I wanted to read it beforehand. I really wish Amazon, Barnes & Noble, et al would just dump her. It doesn’t even matter to me whether she’s an actual person, a paid shill for the publishers, a group of reviewers, et cetera. Harriet Klausner needs to be relegated to the dustbin of history.
woo hooooooooooooooooooooo
on the new revised Amazon rating scale Harriet is #442
I am HK’s brother. Although we have been out of touch for several years, I can attest to the fact that she is the fastest reader I have ever known. I have seen her polish off 4 to 5 books a day and have no reason to doubt that her abilities have merit. To all you bloggers out there you have to know and live with the person to really know what she is capable of.
Larry
C’mon Larry, most likely the only thing Harriet can polish is large amount of food in one sitting. No one can read several books a day, and btw, just look at what she writes, doesn’t it confirm that she has no idea what the books are about and that she has no opinion on them?
My thoughts on Klausner’s tumble from the top…
I can personally attest that Harriet Klausner is real, although I have no way of knowing whether or not she has assistants. I e-mailed her and asked if she would like to review my novel (which is self-published, although I have had other novels published by major publishers). She replied that she would, so I sent it to her. It is not a widely known book — at the time she reviewed it, few copies existed, and no plot details were posted anywhere. She mentioned things in the review that she could have had no way of knowing if she had not read at least half of it (and to have said anything about later parts of it would have been a spoiler). She certainly wasn’t paid to read it!
As for all her reviews being positive, I’ve read that she’s said she does not review a book, or even finish it, unless she enjoys it. Many sites (though not Amazon) have a policy of not reviewing books unless they like them — there is now such a backlog of books that they must be selective, so why waste time and space on books not worth reading? One may or may not approve of that policy, but Klauser shouldn’t be singled out for choosing to follow it.
Sylvia, don’t be an idiot. This woman reviews five to seven books a day on average (this means that sometimes it’s much more than that). No one can read that many books in such a short time, and now you say she reads even more than that, but doesn’t like, and therefore review, the rest. So how many is it now? 20 books a day, 100 books a day? You know, the public isn’t all that stupid as you must be thinking it is…
So, OK, she reviewed your book, so don’t feel so obligated to praise her all around now. She’s an annoying, brazen fraud. A career fraud.
Not that hard for her to actually review 1 book…whilst Klaunsers 2 and 3 are out there hurling more junk onto Amazon.
If there were no Harriet Klausner, man would have to invent her.
I think therefore I am.
I’ve worked with Harriet before through Affaire de Coeur back in 1998/1999. She is real.
I will tell you flat out as a past reviewer, it’s not uncommon to receive a box of galleys or advance review copies of books that are months due to the printing house. If you have the time and the ability (with resources to support your life while you do this full time) it is possible to read many books during the day. If you are genuinely interested in the content of a book it makes time go by so much quicker. Personally, if I get sucked in, I can read a 400-page book in 4 hours, maybe less.
This is such a hoot. I found this thread through a link at Barnes&Noble, where Harriet posts her reviews ad nauseum. What is really irritating is that now that B&N has a new system, with avatars next to reviews, somehow ol’ Harriet’s review (and avatar) is now at the TOP of every page of reviews, no matter how long ago she posted the thing. I complained, and the admins on the boards are looking into it. It had never occurred to me until I read your posts that she might be a “front” for a large group of publisher-friendly reviewers. Sort of like Betty Crocker’s persona is attached to millions of cake mix boxes. LOL
This is hilarious. I found this by googling “Harriet Klausner” after noticing her 15,000+ book reviews. I’ve made it my personal mission to screw up her Helpful Vote percentage. I’m going to click “No” on all of her posts on Amazon.com in hopes that I can maybe discourage her from reviewing anything, or just ruin her credibility.
Join me?
I will gladly join in ANYTHING that gets HK evicted from Amazon. I HATE her fake 4 and 5 star reviews of everything. This post is too funny!
Nothing really to add… just though I should point out that this post has now lasted 6 YEARS.
Listen to me be-otches!
I’m as real as your mamas’ pimps.
Stop talkin’ smack about me, or I might have to get busy with a tire-iron up in here.
I got 147 books to read and review today, so stop wating my time.
-Love
Harriet
When I ran my own review site Rebeccasreads.com (1999-2006), a really good month was when I posted 10-15 thoughtful reviews (slightly altered from the ones on my site) a month to Amazon. I focused on POD lesser or entirely unknown authors & really did read their books. I, too, decided not to trash a work & if I couldn’t write a 3-5 star review, then I wouldn’t. If I had contact with the author I’d write to ‘em why: usually because they weren’t ready for prime time, as in unedited.
Used to wonder how HK could read & review so many bestsellers so frequently. During Amazon’s early years, I was chuffed to be one of the top reviewers until, one day, all my reviews vanished. After an avalanche corresponce w/Amazon’s staff, I discovered another reviewer with the same name was working there & had started her own site. Coincidence?
Bland like unflavored tofu, is how I’ve thought of HK’s reviews: generic. & she doesn’t answer her emails on her site. As far as I’m concerned HK’s been a publicity device all these years, perhaps because Internet bookstores were worried they wouldn’t get any reviews.
Now I write my own books, & edit & publish other authors. I still read a lot & post reviews when the stories move me.
Harriet Klausner gives three stars to Stephanie Laurens: The Taste of Innocence on Amazon.com. I’m in shock.
This is awesome. I’ve been irritated with Klausner for years but never thought to google her before.
One of the reasons I loathe Klausner is that she’s giving a bad name to fast readers. I’m a reasonably fast reader myself; on weekends, when I don’t have to be doing anything else, I typically read between three and five books a day, depending on length and subject matter. I’m not actually trying to read quickly; that’s just the speed at which I read. I don’t skim, unless I’m completely losing interest in the book. Klausner gives people the impression that fast readers aren’t really reading, and plenty of us are.
I believe her when she says she can read quickly, but I still think she’s a fraud.
Stumbled upon this so long after I first noticed the anti-HK “war”. The person / group posting under the HK name all over the place goes on – and of course amazon doesn’t do anything.
Looking at books I’m interested in and reading reviews of them, I noticed that some of the more “to the point” reviews are posted by people with a “verified amazon purchase”.
Does HK ever “verify” a purchase? Does she only review ARCs or free copies?! I didn’t see any verified purchase from her, for any of the reviewed books. If she’s been doing this for years, all those books must amount to a giant library. That’s a fortune in books… Is amazon really that oblivious to something so visibly a scam?…
I don’t much care if they decide to do something about the HK persona or allow it to go on, but her so-called “reviews” made me only read the 1-starred ones, just to see what made people unhappy with the book, and skip all the enthusiastic ones. I don’t like this as a solution, but…
A few years back, HK was listed by Time Magazine as one of the top 15 “web generation’s movers and shakers”. Sad, isn’t it…