Stop the Goodreads Bullies: The drama continues

If you're reading this, I'm going to guess that you're familiar with the whole STGRB situation. Not familiar? Here's a brief recap:

Basically put, there's a group of authors on Goodreads that took exception to the way some of the users were reviewing and responding to comments. They said that some of the reviews were overly abusive and inappropriate and that when authors tried to respond to the reviews, they were harassed by users. (Most of the reviews highlighted were rather tame, all things considered, and/or were written by people who weren't interested in reviewing for blogs or even for anyone other than themselves.) In an attempt to showcase this behavior, they started a site where they posted the screen names, real names, locations, and whatever information they could find about the reviewers. Needless to say, the blogging and professional writing world did not take kindly to this, with many authors and blogs writing articles that condemned the site. 


Now that brings us to current events. I found a blog by AnimeJune on Gossamer Expressions (click here to see it) that has screen caps of the various things that STGRB had been posting about the various reviewers that they considered bullies. I'm stealing one of the pictures to post here because quite frankly, it's one of the most damning. 

STGRB is currently trying to pretend like they'd never posted any personal information about the people on their site, but as you can see in the above image, that's not true. They not only give her real name and location, but they also mention where she likes to go to eat or just to walk. I'd heard that they'd had this posted, but this is the first confirmation I've seen of this.

If that sounds freaky, then you should know that they actually posted more information about another reviewer named Lucy, who recently reported that she'd received a harassing phone call from a random person. There's also pictures to where the STGRB site was hunting down information about "bullies" that they lacked names and locations for. (If you want to see the pictures for this, go check out AnimeJune's blog!)

Put bluntly, the STGRB people are nothing more than a pack of bullies themselves. They've claimed that they've never harassed anyone and that they never intended for anyone else to harass the reviewers, but given that they've already lied about posting personal information, I'm not so sure that I believe that. Heck, even if they're telling the truth, you can't post so much personal information about someone and not expect someone to try to do something. The one thing I've learned about the internet is that if you post someone's personal information, someone is going to use it. I've read enough ED articles to know that much.

Shoot, even if all of the information posted on the site was public knowledge, there's no reason to post that much info. What point does it serve? What really do you hope to accomplish by letting everyone know that Reviewer Rhonda is actually Sam Spade, who lives in NYC and works in a Denny's? It accomplishes nothing because there's no reason for anyone to really know any of that. Lucy could've been Donald Trump for all I care. If the only thing about her that bothers you is the way she reviews and how she comments, then that's all you need to report on. If it is necessary for them to post this information, then why aren't they posting their own information? Why is it that so many of the people on the site feel the need to hide the same information they're trying to reveal?

My point is, even if the reviewers are every bit as bad as you claim they are, you're going about it the wrong way. If the point of STGRB was to highlight specific authors as victims and to point out bad behavior, they've failed miserably. All they've done is to make the very people they claim are "bullies" into victims and making the authors they're trying to defend look like crackpots by association.

Further reading:
*AWWC thread on STGRB

Authors Behaving Badly: Carroll Bryant update/overview

Hi all!

I'm writing because I want to update everyone on the whole Carroll Bryant thing. When I first came across the Goodreads/Bryant affair, I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt. After all, sometimes people can be a little trigger happy to jump on the "author drama" bandwagon.

Then a friend of mine (a few of them, actually) started filling me in on everything that went on. Now I'm not sure how much of all of this is true, but this is what's currently floating around in the rumor-sphere and I'm going to compile most of it here for clarity's sake.

Note: this is not an encouragement for anyone to go and harass Bryant. The argument on Goodreads is done and it should remain done. This is here for clarity, posterity, and just to show people how not to respond to a  bad situation that gets worse and worse.

Before Bryant was removed from Goodreads, the arguments between him and a select group of reviewers were starting to get heated. I didn't read all of the comments on the blogs posted on Goodreads, but I do know that at some point it was brought up that one of the reviewers that Bryant was complaining about was someone that he'd been in a relationship. The girl (who lives in Mexico) was supposedly 17, with her turning 18 before the relationship ended. (Before you start saying "illegal", know that the legal age of consent in Mexico starts at 12 and much of the United States' AoC is at 17. It's squicky to me, but technically legal.) There was also talk about different things that went on in their relationship, but I have no way of knowing what exactly is the truth of this and to be honest, some of it is pretty damn sensitive. Some of it ranges from Bryant flying down to see her, other talk has Bryant giving the girl fake photos of himself, only for her to discover that he'd been lying to her about his age and appearance. Some of it, as I said above, states stuff that neither party would really like to be repeated on the internet, whether it's true or not. After the breakup, the reviewer didn't post a review.

Now here's where I have to say that Bryant should have cut his losses and moved on. Regardless of how bitter the breakup was or wasn't (and supposedly it was bitter), there's no sense in trying to get a review out of an ex. Putting her name on the list is just sort of well... petty.

At the same time some of the other blogs were supposedly telling Bryant that they weren't going to review his book. Some accounts have the bloggers being friends of the ex, others saying that the bloggers didn't know the girl in question and that they decided to not review the books for reasons that were entirely their own.
This is about the time that Bryant posted the blog complaining about unprofessional reviewers and not getting what he was promised. For my initial feelings on that, you can read my blog post here. What pretty much happened from there is common knowledge. Bryant's blog angered a lot of people and Bryant stoked the fires. Bryant was accused of preying on minors and of being a pedophile, the back and forth of which has been recorded on some blog sites. (See the bottom "further reading" section for this.) Because I didn't read all of the posts and due to my personal feelings about relationships with such a large age gap, I'm not going to comment on this.

Bryant eventually got reported to the point that he was removed from Goodreads. He eventually posted his list on his own blog. As you can expect, the typical reaction ensued and the argument that was initially on Goodreads merely shifted to Carroll's own blog. I did manage to read the interaction between Bryant and the people posting on his blog and all I can say is that Bryant responded very poorly. Calling people names and getting hostile is not going to make anyone see your viewpoint or go away. All it does is stoke up the fires.

What's interesting is that after the list was posted, one of the blogs stated that they had never approached Bryant for a review. This is pretty interesting, considering the vitrol that Bryant had been posting up to this point. Shortly after the blog containing the list was posted, it was quickly removed. The aftermath of this is that at least one of the blogs (I think the same one that stated they never contacted Bryant) changed their review policy to where they will no longer review self-published books unless they are familiar with the author or the pitch was very exceptional.

Now my reason for posting this is not to bring up drama, get views, or to cause trouble. With how freaky everything was getting, I wanted to post a rough outline of the events for those who are just as boggled as I am by how utterly pear-shaped everything got in such a short period of time. That Bryant's story is now being picked up by STGRB doesn't help make anything less messed up.

I hate to say it, but Bryant pretty much hit every single thing on the "How to be seen as a crazy author" checklist. I'm trying really hard to make this blog as neutral as possible, but my reaction to this is about the same as my reaction to the whole Candace Sams affair. While Bryant never threatened to call in the FBI (that I'm aware of), his actions and reactions were just as poorly done and I'm left with this WTF feeling over everything.

All I can say is that Bryant's best course of action would be to quietly walk away from this fight. He can't win and associating himself with a group that's pretty much widely despised and criticized by most of the literary world will do little or nothing to help his now tarnished reputation.

With the recent increase in reported drama between authors and reviewers, (some of it deserved, some of it not) I can't help but wonder what this is doing for the image of the self-published author. Whatever it's doing, it's not doing the indie world any favors.

As far as all the indie/self-published hopefuls go, I just want to recommend that if the above situation happens to you, don't respond.  It doesn't matter if you think you're in the right. It doesn't matter if you think you are being bullied. It doesn't matter if the other person is airing your personal life and calling you names. Don't respond. No, it's not fair that reviewers seem to be able to post whatever they want or back out of promised reviews, but they're just average schmoes. They don't stand to lose reputation and readers if the general public perceives your actions as hostile or bad. If you really feel that certain bloggers and reviewers are jerks/unprofessional/bullies, then vent in private and just tell a few trusted friends online who they shouldn't do business with.

Update 2.0:


Just wanted to add that I've put a few more links down below and that one of them has a much more detailed synopsis of everything. It looks like the young lady in question did live in Mexico and that Bryant flew down to see her, but was refused. After all of this she was harassed and stalked by Bryant to the point where she made everything private. I try to be neutral on stuff like this (as there's always two viewpoints) but it's pretty much impossible to defend Bryant's actions here.

Also, it looks as if Bryant has re-posted his list. I've linked it below, so if you want to see it you can click it. Now the reason why I'm mentioning this is because one of the blogs on the list (A Cupcake and A Latte) has closed all of her review stuff very suddenly and inexplicably. What is worrisome about this is that from what I've heard, none of her friends have heard anything from her. Considering that STGRB has made Bryant their poster child and one of the focuses of STGRB's attention has reported that she's received a threatening phone call, it's entirely possible that this blogger was getting harassed all this time and just decided it would be easier to leave the internet than to stay on. If this is the case then it really doesn't bode well because by all accounts the blogger for ACaAL didn't do anything wrong and wasn't even in contact with Bryant at all until he started fingering her as one of the people who supposedly requested a book and didn't review for him.

If anyone knows anything else, please feel free to chime in!




Further reading:

*Goodreads Follies: Indie Authors Meltdown on Goodreads
*Goodreads Follies: Carroll Bryant vs Autumn Rosen - Round 2
* Important Change in Review Policy - The Strange Case of Carroll Bryant
* The Rex Files: The Legend of Carroll Bryant
*Carroll Bryant: The List

Stop the GR Bullies: Get Over Yourselves

I stole this title from Ray Garton's HuffPost article about this group. I will not link to the group and other than the title of the blog, I'll refer to them only as STGRB. I don't want them getting any more traffic than they have already. (Click here for his article.)  I just recently found out about this, and I have to say that I'm horrified. (I picked a wrong time to take a siesta from the internet and finish my books for review, apparently. I walk away and come back to find two WTF scenarios.)

The site is essentially a place for people to post the private information of reviewers they believe are "bullies" at Goodreads. According to author Jessica Scott, they were also posting photos of these reviewers and of their families. So you have a website that not only told you the real names and contact info of various people, but also showing you what they look like.

Seriously, what the freaking heck? What about that sounds like it's "striking back" at the "bad" reviewers? What about that is in any way constructive? Easy answer: it isn't. There is nothing about publishing private information that would even potentially be helpful in any way. No matter what the argument is, there's no excuse for posting personal information about anyone on a site that's essentially a site for people to lump together and bitch about people that they say have written nasty reviews. All that does is encourage people to harass, stalk, and prank the people you have listed, whether they have any beef against that person or not. Don't believe that there are people out there who would do this? Go google "Encyclopedia Dramatica". There is a whole section of the internet that will harass people just because they can, and trust me- these people make a simple negative review seem like it's nothing. When you see people try to justify multiple years of harassment of an autistic man by saying that "he's a jerk", it's hard to see the justification of people saying that their feelings were hurt by groups of people on Goodreads.
One of the people that the site complains about reviewer Wendy Darling, someone I've conversed with on Goodreads. She can be a tough reviewer, but she's also a fair one. WD doesn't post negative reviews just for the hell of it and she doesn't write them with the idea that she's going to harass authors just to gain publicity. (She doesn't need it! She has enough followers!) STGRB in particular focuses on the fiasco surrounding Kiera Cass, her agent, and Wendy's review for The Selection (which I blogged about). STGRB is quick to make it seem like Wendy is some nasty reviewer who was gunning for Cass. Thing is, Wendy was more upset with Cass's AGENT than anyone else, as the agent repeatedly posted nasty comments about Wendy's review and anyone who defended her. What also bothered Wendy and many other reviewers/readers was that people were saying that Wendy had no right to post a review because she didn't finish the book.
The point of me going on about this is that Wendy didn't do anything wrong by posting a review that stated that she didn't like the book. That she didn't finish the book doesn't mean that she's not allowed to post a review because hey- if you couldn't finish the book because you disliked the book then that that's still an opinion that you could share with others. Also, Wendy isn't required to respond to people apologizing, especially when that apology only comes after several people began to state that the poor reactions by the agent (and the author's lack of reaction to her agent's abhorrent reactions) would keep them from being able to read the book.


Hell, it doesn't matter what Wendy wrote or what any reviewer writes in a valid negative review. Very few negative reviews are an active attack against the author and people have the right to post what they feel about the books they read. Authors do have the right to get angry, but they need to do it in the privacy of their own homes and keep their anger off the internet. Responding to any negative review runs the risk of them saying something stupid that will come back to haunt them. That might not sound fair to some, but the thing is... when you put your work out for public consumption you're going to get negative comments. You're even going to get some pretty nasty stuff said about you. Just look at Twilight and the vitrol it's received over time. Do you see Meyer going on and posting the personal information about the people that post stuff like "Edward is a stalker, your books romanticize abusive relationships" or "Jacob imprints on a baby, you're romanticizing pedophilia and child grooming"? Nope. She hasn't and she won't, at least I'd like to think so. She also doesn't encourage others to take these actions and from all I've seen, does not condone such actions.

Now to be fair, I went over the website to see some of the "awful, harassing" reviews that people claim are bullying authors. Of all the reviews posted, I couldn't really see where any of them were so awful and life shattering that they needed to be posted on the internet as an example of unexcusable reviewer behavior and have their personal information posted for all to see. From what I can see of the site it looks like they've removed any of this stuff but what's disturbing is that at one point they had it posted and didn't initially see where the posting of this info would be a bad idea.

Do I think that sometimes people overreact to authors responding to negative reviews? Yep. Do I think that some of the negative reviews out there are a little irrelevant? Yep. However, I also think this of many positive reviews as well, especially when I see some insanely blatant attempts by authors to bombard their books with multiple positive reviews that they've either posted themselves, gotten their friends/family to post, or received by trading positive reviews with other authors. It's frustrating when you see someone give a book they've never read 5 stars or giving a positive rating for a book that they clearly didn't like, all because they felt bad for the author or out of some misguided fandom guilt. It's funny how so many of the people on STGRB are so quick to highlight the so-called negative reviewers as the cancer that's killing Goodreads when they ignore that there's a large section of authors that try to game and manipulate the system by flooding the system with fake ratings and reviews. (This isn't limited to Goodreads either- you see this on Amazon as well!)

One of the people from the site tried to justify their site and their behavior on the HuffPost (click here), but the fact remains that no matter how you try to justify it, STGRB goes about trying to combat "bullying" by encouraging the bullying of the reviewers, whether this encouragement was intentional or not.

The bottom line is that not every reviewer is going to post a review that is positive or that meets what the author, you, or even I think is a rational negative review. They don't have to. The beauty of the review system of any given public ratings site is that you get the candid and uncensored opinion of the random reader. Not every reviewer is Roger Ebert, giving elegant and detailed reviews where they state their opinion and that's not the point of these review sites. The point is to get the opinion of the average person in their words. That means that occasionally you'll get reviews that are rough or that focus more on the reviewer's personal dislike of the author than on the book in question. This is inevitable.

Try as much as you like, there will always be a portion of the reviewing world that writes reviews along the lines of "my dog could barf up a better book" or "this author must have never gotten laid because the sex in this is blah blah blah". Like it or not, this is how many people talk about things, whether it's a book, a movie, or a TV show. I've worked in enough retail stores to know that people say all of these things about your books, sometimes saying things even worse than this. The only difference from the people in the retail stores and Goodreads is that now it's on the internet. It's not going to go away and trying to stop it via plastering names and reviews on a website and labeling them as bullies won't stop a thing. If anything, it's the worst thing any author can do because you've shown the professional publishing world that you are incapable of getting a negative review and that you are a potential PR risk, a loose cannon that might not be worth the money you could bring in.

The author's job is to learn how to deal with this in a way that won't ruin their image. This pretty much directly translates to "ignore the comments, don't respond" because it's near impossible to respond to a negative review and not come off as defensive. Even if you are incredibly eloquent, it's just better to ignore the negative reviews, because you're always going to get them. ALWAYS. If you're an author then you're going to get negative reviews as long as your books are in the public sphere, even long after you're dead. Just look at Jane Austen, who still gets people saying some pretty nasty things about her books. You just have to learn to grow a thicker skin and deal with them. There is absolutely nothing to be gained by railing against the reviewers.

Further reading


*Stop the GRB: A response
*A perspective by one of the "bullies" labeled by STGRB and how she's been harassed

Authors Behaving Badly? Carroll Bryant

I was recently directed to a rant by indie author Carroll Bryant on Goodreads. (Click here to go to said post.)

Basically what Bryant posted was that a number of blogs had approached him for copies of one of his books (I think it was Children of the Flower Power) and then never delivered the reviews or interviews they'd promised. To a degree I can certainly understand his frustration, even though I'm not an author. It's got to be really upsetting when you send a physical book out to someone, spending your own money to send out copies of a book that you only have in limited supply. I've had to spend my own money to mail out books from various contests I've held, so I know how expensive it can get when you're sending out 3-4 books at a time to various places on the globe.

Yet what makes Bryant's rant a little off is that he's threatening to post names of various bloggers.

This is both good and bad in a way. Why is it good? Because quite obviously, there are a few bloggers out there that are exactly what Bryant's rant complained about. You're going to get people like that everywhere, not just in the literary world. How many of the bloggers on his list actually are freeloaders or scammers though... that's where the list turns bad.

Reason number 1: Not every blogger has loads of free time to review books non-stop like a machine. This past year I myself have gone through months where I'm only able to read for 2-3 minutes at a time and review books have piled up like snowflakes in a blizzard. I've got novels that I've purchased years ago that have piled up because I feel that I should read the review books first. This isn't something I recommend, though, because when you start reading only to review, you begin to lose joy in the very thing that you love: reading. This means that you do less of it because it feels like work, even if it's a book you know you like. (Although in my case my lack of reading tends to be more because I'm coming into my final years of college and have to take all of those great 300 and 400 level classes that I've been putting off.) That some of his reviewers were teenagers just sort of takes this to a new level because life is pretty busy when you're a teenager, or at least that's what it felt like when I was still in my teens. (Now I miss the free time I had back then, but when I was about 16-17 it felt like I didn't even have enough time to take a breath!)

Reason number 2: Sometimes the blogger doesn't give a review or holds off on giving a review or interview because they just didn't like your book and are afraid of hurting your feelings. I've done this in the past. I've put off giving a definitive answer because I didn't want to hurt the author's feelings, especially if they were indie. Being told that your baby smells bad hurts even if it isn't being said maliciously. I don't like telling people that I didn't like their books because I know that even the nicest criticism still cuts. I know it's necessary for the author to grow, but that doesn't make it any easier for you (the author) to hear or for me (the reviewer) to say. Sometimes I'll write negative reviews if I think I can write them well enough, but a lot of times I'll pass on them. Why? Because many times I'm pretty sure that I'm just not the right reader for a book and I don't want someone to pass on a read because they read a review where the reader was just the wrong person. Of course the fear of angry author rage doesn't help this out any either.

Reason number 3: Just because a blogger reneged on your deal doesn't mean that they're bad sauce. It'd be nice if they were to just say "no, I'm not going to review your book or interview you because of ________", but it's not always like that and sometimes there are good reasons behind it that have nothing to do with a blogger being flighty. Just because you had a bad experience with a blogger once during a certain point in time doesn't mean that this is standard for the blogger.

Reason number 4: Because it makes you look like a nutter. Sorry, but this is the truth. Threatening to post names of bloggers, whether they deserve it or not, looks very bad. Indie authors have to fight for publicity and to get their novels out, which isn't helped by the growing group of readers/reviewers/bloggers that are looking for bad behavior to feed on. This isn't the same as trying to neutrally report on it, mind you. No, there are people out there who are looking to crucify any author who makes a move that is even slightly dubious. I'm not going to name names, but I've seen people holler over author behavior that isn't all that bad, to be honest. This type of trend makes a lot of readers and reviewers leery of reading new authors, which makes it harder for many indie people to be taken seriously. It also makes it a lot harder for the author behaving badly to be taken seriously.

Reason number 5: Because you'll get blacklisted in return. Even if every single blogger on Bryant's list deserved to be black listed, creating a list of bloggers that shouldn't be used or visited makes the other reviewers and bloggers leery. What exactly do you have to do to be put on a list? Would any behavior do? What if the qualifications for being on the list changes over time and you get put on it simply because you're slow in responding to emails and other stuff? It makes you look as if you're a powder keg waiting to go off. As a result the blogger/reviewer crowd in general will simply stop doing business with you because they don't know how you'll react. This doesn't mean that everyone will ignore you, but it will make it harder for you to get that serious review or interview with Dear Author or any of the other big name blogs out there.

I guess the bottom line here is that authors just have to be careful about posting stuff like this. I understand Bryant's frustration, but he's got to understand that this is actually pretty standard. Even the big names in the literary business have people who get review copies and then never actually follow through on their promise to review. Some of the publishers get responses back saying that they won't get a review from Publisher's Weekly, some of them never even get as much as a one sentence email saying that Klausner can't make the time to post a review on Amazon. And these publishers send out far more copies of their books than the indies do. (Granted they have more money to be sending out copies en masse, but it still happens.)

So this brings us to the big question of what can you do if you have something like this happen?

First off, complain privately and only to a group of people that you know won't blab to outsiders. I know that you might mean well, but public rants can and will be taken badly. It doesn't matter if you have the world's best argument, it won't go over well when the subject is creating a list of bloggers that you think have bad practices.

Secondly, if you must make up a list, keep that private as well. Only give it to those trusted friends. NEVER discuss them publicly unless you absolutely can talk about it neutrally. Even then, make sure to say that this is only your personal experience and that it might differ from person to person. I've had some pretty bad experiences with authors, but I don't go around making big public lists of authors that you shouldn't read. Not only does that make me look bad, but come on... the author might have been having a bad day or something along those lines. If I have that happen I tell a few of my closest and most trustworthy friends to beware of those authors and then move on.

Thirdly, invest in ebook copies of your book. It is exciting to send out and receive paper copies of books, but go for ebooks. Not only is it more environmentally friendly to send out ebooks to reviewers, but this way you lose out on less if the reviewer doesn't follow through with their promise to review you. This is why I usually prefer ebook copies. I know that if I were to go through a slow period of reading, I won't feel bad that an author sent me a paper copy that could've gone to a more prolific reviewer. (Or that if I have a paper book I don't like, that the book could've gone to someone that would've liked it more.)

Finally and most importantly, the best advice is to just move on. No matter whether or not the reviewer deserves your scorn or not, there's nothing good that will come out of posting public lists or rants about them. If they are a bad blogger or reviewer, they'll do a good job of shooting themselves in the foot and most times reviewers like that will end up quitting their blog after a set period of time anyway. Blogs in general tend to only have a life span of 4-5 years, with the blogger either retiring, forgetting about the blog, or passing the torch onto others for whatever reasons. There's nothing to gain from publicly roasting bloggers for what is ultimately small potatoes. It stinks that you're out the cost of postage and a book, but just tell a few trusted author buddies not to use that blogger and move on. The short-lived publicity you get when others report on your actions is not worth the grief you'll get from it later on down the road when someone continues to associate you with something you wrote in a heated moment you'll later come to regret.

Follow up:

Well, it looks like the original thread on GR has been deleted and Bryant has been banned/blocked from the site. Despite this, he still posted the list on his personal blog, which seems to have also been removed. I am not going to repost the list, for obvious reasons. The only comment that I'll make is that it's a good thing that Bryant removed it, and not because he posted names of blogs that he wants to warn others about.

What this might mean for Bryant in the long run has yet to be shown. I'm trying to remain somewhat neutral about this in public, but this is really just another good example of what not to do when faced with something that upsets you.

Comic Review: Aron Warner's Pariah, Volume 1

Title: Aron Warner's Pariah
Authors:  Philip Gelatt, Aron Warner
Illustrator: Brett Weldele
Publisher: Sea Lion Books
Release Date: 07/24/2012
ISBN: 098361315X





I have to say, if the goal of Sea Lion Books sending me review copies is partially to make me want to own the physical books myself, they're achieving it with a rate that's probably scaring my checkbook. (Not that I don't scare it myself every time I walk into my local comic book store or Barnes & Nobles.) I need this book, just like I needed a copy of the first volume of Storm Born.

Brent Marks, a known Vitro, is desperately trying to live a normal high school life while suffering the slings and arrows of being known as an uber-geek. But, things go from bad to worse when the Vitro community, en-masse, is blamed for a fatal explosion in a military weapons lab and the subsequent release of a deadly toxin. Caught up in a global panic, the Vitros become subject to a groundswell of persecution, as they are declared terrorists and hunted down!


The first issue of the comic was rather slow in revealing its data, and despite the fast pace of the first volume, I'm still left with a lot of questions that haven't been answered. This is to be expected, as you don't give it all up in the first go, but I'm dying to know more about these characters. What exactly are the Vitros? They're smart, but why are they so different? How were they made? Were they really accidental? One of the characters in the series makes an off-hand remark about Vitros being an accident, but somehow I'm not so sure of that.

There's a lot of character introductions here, so you really only get enough to get a basic feel for the more important people. One of my two favorites has to be the super-smart yet somewhat out of touch Franklin, a Vitro that was raised in an unloving and completely isolated environment. As such he has the book smarts yet perhaps not the street smarts to deal with the others. The other favorite has to be the uber-creepy Maudsley, who thinks nothing of manipulating people with nothing but his words... to deadly effect. There's some pretty intriguing characters here and the first issue deals with the brainy Brent, but these two are the ones who truly stole the spotlight and odds are that they'd be the two best characters to watch. If they were real, I'd love to see what an interview with either of them would be like. (Although I'll admit that I'm grateful that Maudsley doesn't exist IRL. That I know of.)

Volume one of this series ends with quite a bang, so I'm glad that I had issue five bundled into my review copy. I'm going to write a mini-review for that, but I'll leave that on the final part of my blog. If you don't want spoilers, you'll want to stop here. If you want to know, read on. Just know that this is well worth the price of admission, and with all of the comics being adapted into movies or TV shows, this would be something that would look good on either screen. Absolutely worth checking out.

(Thar be spoilers, arr!)

Now for the evaluation of issue 5. The first volume ended with our intrepid teens waking to find themselves on an ancient space station. A space station that they soon discover is rapidly deteriorating to the point that they're going to die within five hours if they don't find a way to (if I could quote Tim Gunn) "make it work". This issue has them focusing their superhuman intellects on the task at hand, which is pretty interesting to watch. So far we've seen glimpses of what they can do, but never really any of the actual work in depth. This issue shows us how they might work as a team in the future. The issue is pretty well paced and as a result, is nice and exciting. There's also some great foreshadowing in the artwork by way of a well placed image in the helmet of a space suit (no spoilers on what it resembles!) and Weldele is to be congratulated on this. I'm rather happy that SLB has the same artist doing the artwork, as it allows for more collaboration between the teams and a better understanding of the story than if they'd brought someone else in partway through. (Plus I really dig his style.) Definitely a good followup to the cliffhanger of the first volume.


I know this sounds fangirlish, but this is one of those great indie series that will probably never get the attention it so very much deserves. 




Five out of five stars


(Reader copy provided by Sea Lion Books)

PR: PARKER “SCORES” THIS JULY

Richard Stark’s celebrated antihero returns for another job with Darwyn Cooke!

San Diego, CA (July 9, 2012) – Rickard Stark’s Parker series, already revered as novels and graphic novels, raises the stakes with Darwyn Cooke’s new adaptation of The Score—a high-octane heist story that has Parker taking aim on his most audacious task yet—robbing an entire town. In Cooke’s previous graphic novels, the menacing, steely Parker has faced all manner of deadly pitfalls while navigating a career through America’s seedy criminal underworld, but this might be his biggest challenge yet—and arguably Cooke’s best entry yet. “Honestly, it’s hard for me to be objective here,” saidCooke, “but people tell me this one came together pretty well.” “As usual, Darwyn is being modest,” said series editor,Scott Dunbier, “each book has just gotten better and better... I have no idea how he’ll top this one!” The third of five planned adaptations, THE SCORE seesCooke adapting the original 1964 novel, a beloved crime classic and one of the most highly regarded books in the series. A stylish feast for the eyes and a breakneck, sweat-inducing journey that follows one of the boldest capers ever conceived—from the initial pitch to its final, inevitable conclusion, THE SCORE is a book fans everywhere will be clamoring to get their mitts on! Richard Stark’s Parker: The Score will be arriving in comic shops July 11th and being released digitally via Comixology the same day! Cooke has won numerous awards during his relatively brief career, including six of the prestigious Eisner Awards (Two of which have been for previous Parker books). He is nominated for three Eisner Awards at the forthcoming 2012 ceremony for his work on the Parker: The Martini Edition. RICHARD STARK’S PARKER: THE SCORE is a 144 page, full-color, hardcover graphic novel that will be available July 11th, 2012.  Diamond order code: FEB120313. Visit IDWPublishing.com to learn more about the company and its top-selling books. IDW can also be found at http://www.facebook.com/#!/idwpublishing and http://tumblr.idwpublishing.com/ and on Twitter at @idwpublishing.

About IDW Publishing IDW is an award-winning publisher of comic books, graphic novels and trade paperbacks, based in San Diego, California. Renowned for its diverse catalog of licensed and independent titles, IDW publishes some of the most successful and popular titles in the industry, including: Hasbro’s The TRANSFORMERS and G.I. JOE, Paramount’s Star Trek; HBO’s True Blood; the BBC’s DOCTOR WHO; Nickelodeon’s Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles; Toho’s Godzilla; Wizards of the Coasts Magic: The Gathering and Dungeons & Dragons; and the Eisner-Award winning Locke & Key series, created by best-selling author Joe Hill and artist Gabriel Rodriguez. IDW is also home to the Library of American Comics imprint, which publishes classic comic reprints, and Yoe! Books, a partnership with Yoe! Studio. IDW’s critically- and fan-acclaimed series are continually moving into new mediums. Currently, Jerry Bruckheimer Films and Disney are creating a feature film based on World War Robot, while Michael Bay‘s Platinum Dunes and Sony are bringing Zombies vs. Robots to film.

The ponies are coming! Ponified book characters

If you've ever been on the internet for a minute, you've heard of them. The My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic show and its fandom. If you've been on there for a few minutes longer, you've probably seen some of the inevitable ponification of various book characters. Maybe you've even seen custom figures that have been altered. Either way, it's usually a blast to look at.

For fun, I'm linking to some of the stuff I've found through my travels:

(Note: I did not create any of these images or figures. When possible, I'm linking to the accounts for the artists via their names so you can shower them with praise and/or money. I've heard that artists like money and praise.)

Anita Blake: Vampire Hunter

These images comes to you from the Deviant Art account of Eris Chaos Goddess.  If you've ever wondered what Jean Claude and Nathaniel (bottom image) look like as ponies, here you are! I have to say, part of me wishes that she'd included Nathaniel's pearl necklace in this one...

This custom figure of Asher comes from marienoire, who did a pretty awesome job. (It looks like she does a lot of custom figures.)


The Last Unicorn

This one I found via a Google image search, but the image name has the artist as "shockowaffel". I know that this seems to have been more taken from the movie version of the book and that Amalthea is already in pony shape, but this is a gorgeous picture.


Harry Potter

All  of these ponified characters come to you courtesy of asdflove on Deviant Art, who has a load of other great pony images!




TinTin

Here we have an image from the Tin Tin books, brought to you by sutakaibagirl!


The Hunger Games

Now we have an image from The Hunger Games, drawn for your viewing pleasure by ToxicKittyCat!



Twilight

Finally we have the Twilight ponies. Here's one brought to you by maikoforev5674 of Bella.

This is a custom of Edward Cullen by trillions. I have to say, it's pretty awesome!

I can't help but link to more of the custom Twilight ponies because well... they're gorgeous! This one is by jupiternwndrlnd. Please someone- throw money at her!! This is incredibly well done on the cutie mark artwork!

For my last image I have a quartet of custom ponies by eponyart, with each pony representing one of the books of the series.




Again, I want to emphasize that I own none of the above images and had no factor in their creation. I just saw them and couldn't help but want to post them on my blog because they were so cool and so the above artists could get some more well-deserved recognition!