It's just been brought to my attention (via a Google alert on my name) that Amazon.com is showing a "review" of a book over my signature. That review is for a book I never read. I've tracked down where the words came from, and it turns out they are the publisher's press release, which arrived with the book. We receive far more books for consideration for review than we can possibly read and review (although if you're interested in reviewing for us, please contact me), but we do our best to list everything we receive on our Books Received pages, just to let you know what's out there. Just giving the title and maybe the cover image won't tell you much about the book, so we try to transcribe the press release that accompanies the book (or, in the cases where there is no press release, the cover copy). But we never thought anyone would consider that listing a review, in any possible meaning of the word. Our Book Reviews are clearly marked as such, and almost always run only one book to the article.
I'm worried to think that someone might read the words Amazon posted over my name as an endorsement of the book, and buy it on my say-so. I've emailed them, asking them to remove the "review". And I responded to the blog post which alerted me to the "review"'s existence. But now I'm wondering how many other places around the web may have my name endorsing their press release.
A little more digging shows me that this book was most probably self published (because I can't find any other books issued by the "publisher"), which I guess isn't too surprising. Unfortunately, it also means I can't find any way to contact the "publisher".
So, if you are, or know, Lupine Press, the author Jim Martin, or the book Clementa, do please let them know I'm not happy with their misuse of my name, and of SFScope's name.
[Edited 13 December 2009: After several e-mails to Amazon over the intervening weeks, a check on Amazon.com just now reveals that they have indeed removed the offending "review".]
[Edited 5 February 2010: Jim Martin and Clementa are back, and still misusing my name. Apparently I was the only one foolish enough to comment on the receipt of the book. His web site, dated 2010, is still quoting me as saying whatever it was he'd written in his press release. I am now officially unrecommending his book, and his publicity, for that matter.]
|
