Now this is just SAD.

[conuly]

Christopher Pike has a new book out. You may remember him from such forgettable tripe of your teen years as... as... well, I forget.

Point is that the book is full of easily checked inaccuracies. For example, he placed a random desert in the heavily religious nation of Turkey, the capital of which is Istanbul. (At least it's not Constantinople, right?)

I would've put it down after Istanbul (the real capital, of course, is Ankara), but I'm strict about this.

This poor girl persevered until she was fed up enough to write a ranting review of it, prompting "one of Christopher Pike's editors" to come by and flame her. His own reviews are... effusive, to say the least.

Sadly, it turns out that Michael Brite is, in fact, Christopher Pike (omg i am so surprised)... or else a seriously pathological liar. And he admits to having multiple accounts, which explains some of the other glowing reviews out there. I was wondering who these folks were who kept popping up to claim that whichever Pike book it is is better than various classics of literature. Now we know.

It's pathetic enough for an author to do this once, under one assumed name, but repeatedly? I have no words to describe how unbelievably, unbearably sad that is.

Also, I had no idea this made it to Fandom_Wank.

Comments

[codeman38]

"Christopher Pike" is in itself a pseudonym, according to Wikipedia. (I'd wondered why he had the same name as Captain Kirk's predecessor...)

[conuly]

At least it's an open and honest pseudonym, though.

[codeman38]

This is true. At least he admits that one's a pseudonym!

[conuly]

And look at all those super glowing reviews on his books. You have to think about it - half of them are probably him.

[delphi]

Wow. I was a huge fan of Christopher Pike's books when I was in elementary school (although I was disappointed and squicked when I picked them up as an adult). I seem to remember the biographical blurb on his books used to be something like: "Christopher Pike enjoys hanging around the YA section in bookstores trying to convince people he is in fact Christopher Pike."

[conuly]

Apparently the about the author on at least one of them said that his hobby was going into bookstores and making sure his books were prominently displayed.

After this little snitfit, I can believe it.

[takaal.livejournal.com]

I noticed that Amazon finally pulled "Brite's" response. I wonder if they've pulled all is comments/banned him? (It would be nice if they did.)

[conuly]

Would it make a difference? He admits he uses "many different names" on the internet - and looking around Pike's books you can see a number of reviews in the same over-the-top style.

[inverarity.livejournal.com]

I have to wonder what goes through their heads to make them think shenanigans like that can end well.

On the rare occasions I've been flamed for my fan fiction, my response has been "Sorry you didn't like it, dude." Or if it was actual legitimate criticism: "Thank you for pointing that out, I'll keep it in mind." (Without sarcasm.)

A Fandom_Wank-worthy response is just stupid.

[conuly]

I have to wonder what goes through their heads to make them think shenanigans like that can end well.

Who the heck knows?

[marveen.livejournal.com]

I thought Turkey did have desert in the southeastern part....?

*googles*

Turns out I'm thinking of the area on the Syrian border and the (I quote) "semiarid" central plateau. "Desert" may be stretching it, but they *are* struggling with deforestation and dust storms, looks like in a decade or two it might be desert in fact.

[conuly]

Isn't everywhere struggling with deforestation? I thought the desertification of earth was continuing at a rapid pace.

[marveen.livejournal.com]

Isn't everywhere struggling with deforestation?

*peers out window* Not locally, at any rate. (Old clearcuts do indeed grow back within a few decades, though yes-it-does-change-things.)

[redbird]

The writers I know mostly say it's a bad idea even to respond to clear, factual inaccuracies in reviews (say, a reviewer complaining that the writer was so ignorant, they didn't know Anchorage is the capital of Alaska; or a review saying that the book gave a bad history of Sweden when it never mentions Sweden). Beyond that, bitch to your friends, sure, but responding to reviews seldom if ever ends well.

(And when it does, the "well" may be for odd values thereof: e.g., "Oh John Ringo No" which eventually led to Ringo encouraging the sale of T-shirts with that slogan to benefit charity.)

[conuly]

The writers I know mostly say it's a bad idea even to respond to clear, factual inaccuracies in reviews (say, a reviewer complaining that the writer was so ignorant, they didn't know Anchorage is the capital of Alaska; or a review saying that the book gave a bad history of Sweden when it never mentions Sweden). Beyond that, bitch to your friends, sure, but responding to reviews seldom if ever ends well...

The only response to that that would've been not totally full of fail would have had to have been something like "Sorry, I really didn't research this at all", and yeah - who wants to have to publicly fess up to that?