Chris McGrath, an online entrepreneur from Milton Keynes, who wrote and self-published a little-known book entitled The Attempted Murder of God: Hidden Science You Really Need to Know, has launched libel proceedings against Vaughan Jones, 28.

He claims Mr Jones wrote damning reviews of is book on Amazon September and October 2010, which he had published under the pseudonym “Scrooby.” Mr Jones also revealed his true identity.

The suit is for defamation rather than invasion of privacy (i.e., revealing the author’s true identity).

*****

Awesome news, guys, Stanza is NOT dead.  Apparently, a month after Apple’s iOS update, Amazon has gotten around to releasing a Stanza update so it now works just fine on your iOS devices.

*****

Amazon has acquired YAP, a speech transcription software company. The co founder of YAP helped develop the speech engine that drives Nuance (which drives Siri) One columnist suggests that means that there will be speech enabled books in the future for Kindle users. AllThingsD points out that it can facilitate shopping by voice.

*****

A number of authors really hate the format production process at Smashwords known as the meatgrinder, particularly those authors who go to great lengths to produce a beautifully rendered ePub. In response to those complaints, Smashwords will begin to accept other ebook formats, other than DOC, in 2012.

This is good for readers because the meatgrinder doesn’t always produce well formatted ebooks.

*****

A couple of weeks ago, I saw the debacle on Courtney Milan’s blog where she suggested the language used by Barry Eisler and J A Konrath in support of their opinions regarding authors in publishing was incendiary. Shortly after this, a reader emailed me with a link to Konrath’s blog, a link to a YouTube video, and a link to Amazon.

Konrath and Eisler have  co written a book called “Be the Monkey” that is sold at Amazon. “Be the Monkey” title is based on this very graphic video of a monkey orally and anally raping a frog.  (Trigger warnings here for those who are sensitive to sexual abuse).

I objected to two white, wealthy men (based on their proclamations of earnings) encouraging people using a metaphor about power through sexual dominance and the binary choice of be the rapist v. be the rapee.  ”Be the Monkey,” I divined, was a metaphor based on the video of the monkey exerting his dominance over the frog.   Konrath took exception to this:

@jane_l We compared publishing to two animals. Two animals are NOT in any way equal to humans being violated and abused.

I pointed out it was a metaphor but Konrath came back and said it was an analogy about monkeys and frogs, nothing more:

jakonrath We linked to a monkey and a frog. The anology begins and ends with a monkey and a frog. Don’t read more into it.

How can I not?  Isn’t that the purpose of linking the video with the book and writing a blog post about it?  And how can an analogy using monkeys and frogs actually only be about monkeys and frogs?  Isn’t an analogy or a metaphor all about using literal terms to express more abstract concepts like, say, power?

Konrath claimed that I should be ashamed of drawing that conclusion from the metaphor analogy:

jakonrath Sorry, I respect women too much to compare them to frogs. Rape shouldn’t be trivialized like that.

I pointed out that he, himself, applied the frog metaphor to his own marriage:

Barry: Yes! I mean, which of the networks would have broadcast that monkey raping a helpless bullfrog?

Joe: It wasn’t rape. It was consensual.

Barry: I don’t know. I don’t think the frog was conscious. I’m not sure it was even alive.

Joe: I–

Barry: After the first five minutes, I mean.

Joe: I’m married. I see this all the time. The frog was conscious. Just not very active.

Konrath replied that I should “Read it again, and try to lighten up.”

I don’t get it, right?

But there are far too many rape oriented insults on the internet. Witness the rape language that female gamers suffer regularly and the entire Dickwolf scandal by the Penny Arcade or Laurie Penny’s piece at the Independent about how having an opinion on the internet is akin to wearing a mini skirt or the MMA fighter who tweeted that “Rape is the new missionary.”

The message regarding choice as it relates to publishing, whether one self publishes or traditionally publishes or goes with a digital publisher or does a coop or a mixture of any type of publishing, does not need to rest on rape metaphors. And publishing isn’t a binary choice of being the Frog (the rapee) or the Monkey (the rapist). I’m pointing this out because I’ve quoted Konrath here before with approval. I’ve posted blog posts by Barry Eisler here, with approval. Had I known that these metaphors were being pushed by both as early as May of 2011, I probably wouldn’t have. I’m not sure. I’m regretful today and maybe it is due to my oversensitive and humorless nature.

*****

Globe and Mail has an infographic about book sales and publisher margins. The margin of profit for publishers is declining with digital books, according to the infographic from $8 to $4.24. I’m not certain I believe this infographic. I still remember Michael Hyatt indicating that at $9.99 and under the Agency model where publishers get 70% instead of the wholesale 50%, publishers’ margins weren’t decreasing dramatically. And then there’s the statement from Hachette (read the last piece)

*****

Hachette’s sales are down 8% in the U.S.

The decline at the U.S. Hachette Book Group division was attributed to increased sales of lower-priced e-books and the impact of the Borders bankruptcy. E-books accounted for 21% of HBG’s revenue through the first nine months of the year, compared to 9% in the same period in 2010.

Lagardere said while higher e-book sales contributed to lower revenue, they provide a higher margin, although the company provided no earnings in the quarterly trading update.

Via Publisher’s Weekly.

Related posts:

1. Thursday Midday Links: Defamation Accusations Strike Again
2. Thursday Midday Links: Is Google Book Settlement Dead?
3. Thursday Midday Links: Random House hires Sue Grimshaw, former romance buyer for Borders

Perhaps you know that there was a bit of scandal involving the Amazon review system that erupted in the past couple of weeks. An author, Deborah MacGillivray, was found to have been the leader of a group of people who worked systematically to make their reviews the top rated ones and to get negative reviews actually deleted from the review page. As my friend and fellow blogger Robin says, the deletion of reviews is particularly disturbing because it represents the silencing of a reader’s voice. KatieBabs, who blogs at Ramblings on Romance, wrote about her frustration with Amazon. Katie shared with me the following:

I did a review for Lord of the Deep which happens to be a Dawn Thomson book and one for Raine the hermaphrodite one a few weeks ago. My LOTD review got 10 negative votes and soon after disappeared. I reposted 4 times after email after email to amazon customer services. They said because my review had sexual connotations in it, they wouldn’t post it. Plus, I wasn’t giving a good critical review of the story. So, I revised it yet again and a week later it was gone. Raine because I gave it one star and guess what happened less than 24 hours? It went missing because I was the only one who didn’t like it out of the majority of reviews posted for the book. So if a book has a lot of positives and you are the lone review that is a negative, 9 times out of 10 your review will be gone.

More importantly it frustrates the reader and turns them against Amazon’s system. MacGillivray is a top 50 reviewer. Her reviews are deemed to be some of the most helpful on Amazon. She is part of the “Vine” system which is a program wherein Amazon rewards reviewers with advanced copies of books. Does MacGillivray with her history of abusing the system deserve to be in this position? Is this the type of reviewer that you, Amazon, is supporting? And what about Donald Mitchell, who is an Amazon top reviewer, also member of the Vine program who received $20,000.00 for reviewing books on Amazon over a seven year period? Your POD company, Booksurge, as of last year, offered a positive review for the cost of $399.00. After being outed by Slate, you apparently discontinued the public offering of this service.

When DP Review, the premiere camera review site on the internet, was purchased by Amazon, the tech world was worried that Amazon’s new ownership would affect the value of the site’s reviews. We know that part of the value of Amazon’s site is the integrity of the reviews. That integrity is in question and has been for some time. You’ve made changes but it isn’t good enough. I’ve got some suggestions for changes to the review system:

• Get rid of rankings for reviewers. Some reviewers who have only written a few reviews are just as helpful (or more so) than the Harriet Klausner or Deborah MacGillivray’s of the world. As a friend of mine said, if there is no reward for writing quantity over quality then maybe people won’t be driven to write a mass amount of reviews.
• Another suggestion is to allow only those who have purchased the book from Amazon to be allowed to review it. Fictionwise does this.
• Have a helpful button but not a “not helpful” button.
• Make the report abuse more difficult. If your metric for removing a review is based on how many people click the “report abuse” button, it’s too easy to manipulate, as we have seen. I think that you either need to change the metric or make the reporting of abuse more difficult such as requiring more steps than merely clicking a button.

What we are asking you to do, Amazon, is to be willing to stand by your motto which is to serve the customer. We’re excited about your new initiatives like TextBuyIt (although you need to streamline the process so that we don’t have to have the follow up phone call). We like the free shipping for orders over $25.00. We like the fact that you have the recommendations that help us buy books we might not have ordered. But our confidence in your product, the community that you are trying so hard to build, is being eaten away.

Unfortunately, this incident makes consumers like me doubt the veracity of ANY Amazon review. I use Amazon as a resource center. I might not always buy something from Amazon but I look at the reviews to tell me what others think about a product I am buying. I may have doubted Amazon reviews in the past for romance books, but I didn’t doubt them for children’s books or exercise videos or electronics or toys. But now I do. I am wondering who else is gaming the system and I have to ask, what are you going to do about it?

Best

Jane

***

Readers, please let us know what changes you would recommend. I plan to send this whole post and all the comments to Jeff Bezos via regular mail and email. You can just post a comment to say that you want change even if you don’t have a suggestion.

Related posts:

1. More Evidence On the Unreliability of Amazon Reviews
2. Harper Collins New Studio to Test New Author Paying System
3. WSJ Does Round Up of Blogger Reaction Includes Dear Author

Via Galley Cat.

Related posts:

1. Nobel Writer Gives Away Book Online
2. All About Romance Reader’s Poll Results Online
3. New Report Says Author Presence Online Is Important

The fact is that the demise of print reviews is meaningless to me. The Atlanta Journal Constitution never reviewed books that interested me. Ditto for the LA Times (books are now merged with opinion section). The same for the San Francisco Chronicle (section cut from 6 to 4 pages).

When the LA Times re-purposed its book review section, it also launched a website aimed at increasing book coverage. I was heartened to hear that it planned to expand its coverage, at least online. Then I read what type of books would be reviewed: “For books there will be columns be about mysteries, science fiction, children’s literature, literary news and more reviews than in print.”

I emailed LA Times to inquire about its conspicuous exclusion of the romance genre. I’ve been holding my tongue for a while now awaiting a response from the LA Times but having read the cry for the bigger tent discussions at Critical Mass, my teeth have let go. Critical Mass, the blog of the National Book Critics Circle, noted in a blog entry that while blogs may have their place, the purpose of newspapers is that they provide a place for “bigger tent discussions”.

With book stores carved up into smaller and smaller genre fields, from chick lit to lad lit to graphic novels and so on, it’s important that there’s a place where books by writers, regardless of their genre, can be reviewed in front of a large audience by critics who have experience in the field

The problem is, NBCC, your big tent discussion clearly has no place for writers like Deborah Smith, Madeline Hunter, or Julie Kenner. If science fiction and fantasy is becoming mainstream, why no straight press reviews of the amazing dragon shifting series by Shana Abe?

The LA Times and nearly every other print book review section, other than the Chicago Tribune and the Detroit Free Press, has basically given me and every other romance reader the big old fuck off sign for decades now. Or since forever.

There are emotionally powerful books labeled romance whose contents are summarily dismissed as not worthy because of a title, a cover or even because it ends happily. Deborah Smith never was reviewed by the now unemployed Teresa Weaver. Smith has always written emotional, touching Southern novels which focused on the family dynamic but for some reason, her books never were interesting enough for Weaver, a purported champion of Southern writers.

Karen Rose writes consistently good suspense novels but perhaps because they involve sex and end with a committed couple, they somehow lack gravitas that PJ Tracy or Robert Parker enjoy. Elizabeth Hoyt‘s fall release, The Serpent Prince, is breathtaking in its emotional scope, with its heightened violence underscoring the tenderness between the main protagonists. There’s something glorious in the ability to be swept away into Meljean Brook‘s June release, Demon Moon, a complex world where vampires battle for rights amongst the supernatural. In September, Eve Kenin breathes new life into the urban fantasy world with Driven whose post apocalyptic vision of the future (or alternative dimension) balances intricate world building with character development.

If you truly are interested in literary criticism and discussion to take place under a bigger tent, why not include the genre that comprises over 50% of mass market sales? Whose umbrella includes everything from high fantasy to urban fantasy to contemporary dramas to costume dramas. Whose writers have backgrounds that vary from scientist to pilot to doctors and lawyers and professors? Whose readership is in the 60 millions and 42% of the readership has a bachelor’s degree or higher? Whose books are reflective of the changing mores of society as well as the variance within the body of readers regarding the definitions of sexuality, desire, hope, fantasy, redemption, and love?

We’ll never be included in that big tent discussion and frankly I am happy to give you all the finger right back. I won’t be signing your petitions, sitting at your rallies or blogging about your terrible quandry of declining readership and advertisers. Perhaps if you understood that women’s fiction which ends happily isn’t a disease that requires antiseptic solution if you even breathe the same space as the pulp, you wouldn’t be in dire straights.

I’m not at all sorry that your big exclusionary tent, that has no room for me and my people, is falling down around your ears. The whole point of book reviews seems to be to get people to read more books. Of course, those mainstream lit critics want the “right” books to be read. But if literacy is what is at stake here, don’t sneer at those of us who read a book a night. It might not be your choice, but it’s reading. We readers beget readers. Maybe if you made space for us, you might still have a print review section and advertisers.

Related posts:

1. The Marriage of Ebook and Print Can Ring Profit Bells
2. Print on Demand and I Mean Right in the Store Next to the Coffee and Bookmarks
3. REVIEW: No Rest for the Wicked by Kresley Cole

I asked Ms. Stacy if she wouldn’t be willing to share this information with the readers and she complied. She knew that even if she did provide the guidelines that there will always be some detractors and she encourages anyone to email her. She’ll respond. But she won’t engage in a public banter back and forth and so I hope that you can respect that. I encourage you to email her if you have an issue about RT.

We can certainly have debate, if you like, about the quality/credibility of the reviews, policy changes that you think should be implemented to make a better magazine, but any comment that is a personal attack will be deleted.

***

Dear Readers and Authors,

When Jane called to confirm that Kathryn wrote the letter, I brought up a comment she made on her site, questioning the credibility of Romantic Times’ reviews.

I explained how books are reviewed and the process we have in place, which all reviewers must adhere to. She was surprised to learn just how involved the protocols are and invited me to share this information with the visitors to her site because she felt few were aware of them.

I know there is a misconception that our reviews are connected to advertising and I can emphatically say that NO they are not for mainstream publishers.

Before I get to the small press policy I would like to address our mainstream publisher policy, which includes publishers like Harlequin, Dorchester, Kensington, Penguin/Putnam, HarperCollins/Avon, Warner Books, Random House/Ballantine, Bantam/Dell, Simon & Schuster/Pocket, St. Martin's Press, Tor/Forge and ALL of their relevant imprints.

We review (or at least try to get the galley and/or manuscript for) EVERY book that appears in a publisher's sales kit that we feel is appropriate for our audience REGARDLESS of whether it is being advertised.

Case in point is Nora Roberts. By her own admission on this web site, she severed her relationship with the Romantic Times organization more than a decade ago. No contact with her at all. No ads from her. No ads from her publisher.

In those same 10 years, we have reviewed EVERY Nora Roberts book and EVERY J.D. Robb book.

Here is how we select the mainstream women's fiction books that we review:

• We have a column in the magazine called Publishers Previews that lists books coming out two months BEFORE the issue in hand, i.e., the June issue forecasts books being published in August. To compile the Publishers Previews list, we receive either a sales catalog from the publisher (which we go through and select the relevant books for our readers) OR we receive faxes from the publisher (which contain pages from the publisher's catalog) that highlight those books they deem relevant for our readership.
• It is the Publishers Previews listing that we use to track down all of the books we want to have represented in our magazine for that month. And WE DO track them down because some publishers do not just automatically send them out.
• This is all independent of whether or not a book it being advertised. PERIOD. END OF STORY.

Jane raised the question about whether or not our reviewers know which books are being advertised and the answer is NO. I think a few years ago someone from RWA correlated the advertised books in RT with ratings and found that there is no correlation. I am sure RWA has the archives of this article and findings for those who may be interested. But if they do not, it is easy for you to check out on our web site. Go to our search page and look up the advertised book and compare it to the rating.

We are working so far in advance to get books to the reviewers for the appropriate issue that our advertising list is far from complete when the reviews are assigned.

SMALL PRESS AND E-BOOKS AD/REVIEW POLICY:
Since we receive thousands of requests a month (this includes e-mails and actual manuscripts –" piles of manuscripts) from people who want us to review their small press and/or e-books, we realized we had to come up with a policy. Since many small press/e-book authors were already advertising with us, we felt it was fair to include reviews of their books. THIS IN NO WAY GUARANTEES THEM A GOOD REVIEW. In fact many of these books receive less than favorable reviews. Again you can check this out on our web site. As more small press and e-book authors began to advertise we extended the review option to them as well. Thus began the policy that we would review all small press/e-books advertised.

I also came up with an inexpensive way for small press/e-book authors to advertise so that their books would be guaranteed a review –" group advertorials. This is where several authors (typically five or more) share an ad for half the cost of a full-page ad. This has worked very well for small press/e-book authors who, for a few hundred dollars, can get their name in front of our readers and have a review of their book in the
magazine.

This may explain why there are so many Ellora's Cave books reviewed in our magazine. It's because their authors do many group ads and in turn they get reviewed.

I want to reiterate that this small press/e-book review policy IN NO WAY AFFECTS THE RATING of a book. It only ensures a review. I also want say that we have established a policy that regardless of advertising we will not review m/m books at this time, which is why even though Laura Baumbach participates in advertorials her m/m books are not reviewed. The author agrees to be a part of the advertorials even though she understands her book will not be reviewed.

Also I want to reiterate this policy of ad/reviews DOES NOT APPLY to the mainstream publishers' books as explained earlier.

EVERY REVIEWER is given a ratings guideline, which I have included below along with a letter from me explaining what their goal should be when writing the review. Reviews are subjective and although we keep our reviewers in check, i.e. we will question too many 4s and 4 1/2s etc., we respect our reviewers' opinions since they all are readers.

I hope this information will be helpful in helping you understand more about Romantic Times BOOKreviews and our policies.

Sincerely,
Carol Stacy
Publisher

RATINGS GUIDE:

• 4 1/2 Gold — Phenomenal. In a class by itself.
• 4 1/2 — Fantastic. A Keeper.
• 4 — Compelling. Page Turner.
• 3 — Enjoyable. Pleasant Read.
• 2 — Problematic. May Struggle to Finish.
• 1 — Severely Flawed. Pass on this one.

Here is the REVIEWERS’ Guide to rating descriptions.

• 4 1/2 Gold– In a class by itself. Reserved ONLY for those books that have a WOW factor. A book that blows you away. One that you want to immediately spread the word about to all your reader friends. One you will not part with so you buy another to give to a friend because you are so excited about it. Does not have to be groundbreaking like a 5 was but has to be beyond a keeper. Please be sure to ONLY give this rating to books that are extremely special or it will diminish the impact. “In a class by itself” because that is how a Gold should be perceived by our readers.
• 4 1/2–Fantastic. A Keeper. (and please be sure it is a keeper). A book you COULD NOT put down. Perhaps it kept you up all night or you found yourself stealing time to get back to it. A book you would HIGHLY recommend without hesitation. A book that stays with you even after you have finished it. A book that is set apart from just a very good book.
• 4–Compelling. Page Turner– Not a keeper but a very enjoyable book. Completely entertaining and satisfying. One you did not want to put down. One you looked forward to getting back to. One you won’t get rid of but not one that will go up on your keeper shelf.
• 3–Enjoyable. Pleasant Read…Average. No great shakes but not bad. A so so book that can range from being average to good (note NOT very good book). Not a book you would recommend but if someone asked you about it you could say it was OK. Not compelling but one you will eventually finish.
• 2–Problematic. May Struggle to Finish. Does not engage. Boring. Hard to finish OR has serious technical problems that made it hard to finish. A 2 is a book you probably would not have finished if you did not have to review it. Problematic says it is flawed but not unredeeming even if you are not recommending it.
• 1–Severely Flawed. Pass on this one. Should never have been published without major editing. A BAD book. OR it can be a book you would never support because of offensive or objectionable content but if you use this you MUST state the reason. Absolutely would not have finished if you did not have to review it. This says lots and lots of problems. Unredeeming. Don’t waste your money.

(This is the letter I send to the reviewers)

ABOUT THE REVIEWS:

The book reviews are the heart and soul of RT BOOKreviews magazine and it is imperative that we make every effort to strengthen the reviews and make hard decisions when rating the books. If you look through any issue of RT BOOKreviews magazine as an objective reader you would raise an eyebrow as to how many books are rated 4 and 4 1/2 in each issue.

I am not saying that you should give a great book a lesser rating or a bad book a higher rating. I am only asking that you take a minute to reflect on each rating to determine what number it should receive and in MOST CASES I think you will determine it should be lower.

With the “critical–? paragraph as the lead, it is very important to convey what is good (or bad) about a book in specific terms. Phrases like “will keep you on the edge of your seat,–? or “beautiful prose,–? or “a page-turner,–? or “a book to snuggle up with on a cold winter's night,–? or even “will keep you up all night,–? does not say anything specifically about the book. What readers want to know is WHY it will keep them up all night, WHY it's a page-turner or WHY the prose is beautiful, etc.

Your critical paragraph must convey the tone of the book, i.e., suspenseful, humorous, very sensual, etc., and also substantiate why it is getting the rating you've chosen.

It's important to note that although we are asking you to consider giving more ratings on the low end of the scale, we will not accept mean-spirited descriptions that can be construed as a personal attack on an author. For instance, it is not acceptable to say something like, “this author should keep her day job because she can't put two sentences together.–? Or “about the only thing this book is good for is a doorstop.–? You get the idea.

We want to take the high road and explain to readers why the book didn't work without a personal attack or a mean-spirited opinion.

The book summary should be kept to TWO SHORT paragraphs. This is just a summary, and is not intended to give readers a blow-by-blow description of the entire book. Readers just want the gist of the story to see if it is something they would be interested in reading.

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE be sure to check the spelling of characters' names, places and also the title of the book and the author's name. We have been embarrassed on a number of occasions where the publisher and/or author have contacted us with corrections.

Thank you for all of your hard work and dedication, for your commitment to the deadlines and most of all for your loyal support. It is you, the readers, that make RT BOOKreviews so special!

Sincerely,
Carol Stacy
Publisher

***

Related posts:

1. Why Romantic Times Reviews Are Not Credible
2. Romantic Times Update: Still Waiting
3. Romantic Times Update: Kathryn Falk’s Vested Interest in Ellora’s Cave

There are many things more flammable than the subject of mammon and women, but most of them come in steel canisters stamped ‘hazardous materials.’ Among the substances that need hazmat warning labels are the liquid that bronzes Suze Orman’s hair, the paste that whitens her teeth for her publicity photographs and her latest financial advice manual, Women & Money: Owning the Power to Control Your Destiny.

I hestitate to throw the whole mysogonistic label out there having not read much (none) of ol’ Harry’s reviews before. I hope the next book review of, say, Robert Kiyosaki, is treated with the same disrespect. How about “Kiyosaki’s Asian background makes his advice relevant only to the short rice eating crowd.”

Via Galley Cat.

No related posts.

What’s the point? Authors, seriously, no one will know to whom your book is sent if you don’t tell anyone. Everyone will just assume that Mrs. Giggles bought the book. Really. No need to go around disclaiming any association with Mrs. Giggles.

The trainwreck, though, doesn’t appear until the end when authors who run the Romance Divas come out in full force to exclaim what a wonderful and unique site it has compared to Mrs. Giggles and how they don’t need to tear anyone down to feel good about themselves while at the same time suggesting that Mrs. Giggles refusal to frequent their site is a sign of she is intimidated by them or that RD isn’t for her because it is “one of the most supportive sites online. We don’t tear each other down or pick each other to pieces just for a good bit of snark. You’d be bored silly. Or shunned completely.”

The reputation of Romance Divas(est. 2004) is “sterling” and quoted in many a published book. It’s an award winning site and we all best not forget that. I hope someone can remind me why we should feel competitive about other people giving their opinions about books.

Related posts:

1. March Book Club Nominations Are Open
2. Romance Novel TV: Pretty Cool

Related posts:

1. Amazon’s Money Back Guarantee
2. More Evidence On the Unreliability of Amazon Reviews
3. Amazon Reviewers Get Paid to Review

Doesn’t Ken realize that Amazon reviewers get paid way more than that? Doesn’t he know about Donald Mitchell who has earned over $20,000.00 for his reviews. Get with the program, Ken.

Related posts:

1. Amazon Reviewers Get Paid to Review
2. REVIEW: Hard Evidence by Pamela Clare
3. Borders Breaking Up with Amazon

Related posts:

1. Give Away Your Book and Your Sales Will Increase
2. Borders Breaking Up with Amazon
3. New Faces of Romance

I think that we reviewers are the HR department (killing the fun) and authors are Michael Scott (hating us for it).

Related posts:

1. Non Sequitur of the Week
2. Non Sequitur
3. Non Sequitur, part deux