Plagiarism
is defined as: “to steal and pass off
(the ideas or words of another) as one's own; use (another's production)
without crediting the source; to commit literary theft; to present as new and
original an idea or product derived from an existing source.”
Here are
comparisons of a number Harriet’s reviews with the dust jackets and/or
editorial materials provided on Amazon’s book page. Decide for yourself.
Editorial
Comments
|
The
Mad Hattie’s Language
|
|
New
Year's Eve 2008
|
=
|
on New
Year's eve 2008
|
a man
now seventy-eight
|
=
|
septuagenarian
|
readying
his Hamptons house
|
=
|
in the
Hamptons
|
Alice
Verplanck
|
=
|
Alice Verplanck
|
widow
of his former law partner
|
=
|
his
late partner's wife
|
from
Paris
|
=
|
from Paris
|
Schmidt
hasn't seen Alice since the summer of 1995
|
=
|
he
thinks back to 1995
|
when
he behaved like a brute upon discovering a betrayal of sorts and pronounced
her unworthy of his unstinting love and commitment
|
=
|
he
destroyed with his accusations of betrayal
|
she
still doubts
|
=
|
Alice
has doubts
|
She
demands that he think long and hard about their past
|
=
|
she
agreed to see him if he steps back to evaluate his life.
|
Meanwhile
|
=
|
meanwhile
|
his
only confirmed child, Charlotte
|
=
|
his
daughter Charlotte
|
had
proposed a truce
|
=
|
offers
her dad a reconciliation
|
in their
perennially strained relations
|
=
|
dysfunctional
relationship
|
which
Schmidt accepted
|
=
|
which
he accepts
|
despite
its obliging him to resume dealings
|
=
|
though
that means dealing
|
with
her repulsive husband
|
=
|
a weak
son-in-law
|
her
mother-in-law-cum-psychiatrist
|
=
|
mother-in-law,
a modern day Machiavelli shrink. the psychiatrist
|
turning
Charlotte decisively against Schmidt
|
=
|
trying
to widen the Schmidt chasm
|
expecting
a second child
|
=
|
pregnant
and with one child already
|
only
two real friends left
|
=
|
two friends
are still upright
|
darkly
funny
|
=
|
dry
humorous comedy; droll and witty
|
| ||
Editorial
Comments
|
The
Mad Hattie’s Language
|
|
1944
|
=
|
in
1944
|
An
American, beautiful aviatrix Velva Jean Hart
|
=
|
American
pilot Velva Jean Hart
|
volunteers
to copilot a plane
|
=
|
agrees
to fly copilot a plane
|
carrying
special agents
|
=
|
taking
undercover agents
|
to
their drop spot over Normandy
|
=
|
to Normandy
|
their
plane is shot down
|
=
|
Nazis
shoot down her plane
|
she
and five agents survive
|
=
|
her
and five operatives to survive
|
now
they are on the run for their lives
|
=
|
with
the Nazis in pursuit
|
As
they head to Paris
|
=
|
she
travels to Paris
|
Velva
Jean Hart becomes Clementine Roux
|
=
|
Velva Jean
becomes Clementine Roux
|
to
capture an operative known only as "Swan"
|
=
|
with
plans to find and rescue agent Swan
|
falling
in love with her fellow agent Emile
|
=
|
falls
in love with Emile
|
Clementine
works as a spy
|
=
|
in her
secret identity,
|
she
discovers
|
=
|
Clementine
will learn
|
the
depths of human cruelty
|
=
|
how
evil mankind can be
|
Editorial
Comments
|
The
Mad Hattie’s Language
|
|
sex
and games
|
=
|
sexual
encounters of many kinds and with strange flesh
|
A
Harvard dropout
|
=
|
Harvard
dropout
|
employed
by Manhattan-based RedRook Security,
|
=
|
works
for Redrook Security
|
James
|
=
|
James Pryce
|
the
elite hacker
|
=
|
a
hacker of note
|
finding
people who don't want to be found
|
=
|
locating
those who have seemingly vanished off the grid
|
pursuing
their digital tracks
|
=
|
finding
their electronic fingerprints
|
exacting
creative high-tech revenge on behalf of his clients
|
=
|
using
high tech vengeance against those who harmed a client
|
twins
Blythe and Blake
|
=
|
twins Blake
and Blythe Randall
|
Ten
years ago,
|
=
|
a
decade ago,
|
Blythe
Randall broke James Pryce's heart.
|
=
|
Blythe
blithely broke James' heart
|
Her
enigmatic appeal lures him
|
=
|
he
cannot say no to her.
|
multimedia
artist Billy Randall
|
=
|
multimedia
artist sibling Billy
|
sends
a video of his own suicide
|
=
|
sent
them a video of his "bleed" performance in which he simultaneously
commits suicide
|
reanimating
onscreen as an avatar
|
=
|
reanimates
as an avatar
|
in a
decadent online world called NOD
|
=
|
in a
decadent online world NOD
|
Blythe
uses her influence to install James
|
=
|
Blythe
gets James masquerading as a documentarian
|
at
GAME
|
=
|
the GAME
|
media collective
|
=
|
media
collective
|
one of
Billy's recent haunts
|
=
|
where Billy
recently played.
|
In
order to find him
|
=
|
to
find Billy
|
James
must play along
|
=
|
James
realizes he needs to enter NOD.
|
"the
Bleed"
|
=
|
Bleeding
|
when
real and virtual selves intersect
|
=
|
of
reality and virtual reality
|
| ||
Editorial
Comments
|
The
Mad Hattie’s Language
|
|
the
woman sitting across from her
|
=
|
Merline
Teague
|
She
needed this job, but didn't want to appear as desperate as she actually was
|
=
|
interviews
Brooke Vincent for the position of a cook.
|
Your
resume is a little thin."
|
=
|
that
the applicant's résumé is thin
|
Merline
Teague said
|
=
|
Mrs. Teague
remarks
|
"I'll
give you a tryout. . . . [Y]ou can cook for the family
|
=
|
but
will give her a trial of cooking for the family.
|
"If
it goes well"
|
=
|
if
that works out
|
"[W]e're
set up here to feed up to forty people,"
|
=
|
the
guests who can number upwards of forty.
|
as if
Brooke Alder had never existed.
|
=
|
that Brooke
Alder no longer exists.
|
Before
his traumatic tour in Iraq
|
=
|
before
he served in the Iraq war
|
Ryan
Teague was always a bit of a loner
|
=
|
Ryan
was a loner
|
keeping
to himself was a choice now
|
=
|
now he
is all but a hermit
|
It was
enough to make something in his chest perform an unexpected flip-flop
|
=
|
however,
he feels more than just attracted to the new cook
|
He
recognizes
|
=
|
Ryan
senses
|
Brooke
is hiding some scars of her own.
|
=
|
a
fellow wounded warrior.
|
Brooke's
past threatens to ruin it all
|
=
|
at the
cost of her job, haven and him.
|
Brooke
and Ryan help each other begin to heal
|
=
|
love/healing
the protagonists
|
| ||
Editorial
Comments
|
The
Mad Hattie’s Language
|
|
as
well as 9/11
|
=
|
for
what the country's terrorists did on 9/11
|
a
slow-acting virus that feeds on petroleum, turning it solid
|
=
|
a
bacterium that solidifies Saudi Arabian oil
|
A scientist has developed a cure for America's
addiction-But he didn't
consider that ...
|
=
|
Eddie's
plan deploys perfectly except for one minor nuisance.
|
contagion
of an Iraqi oil field could spread to infect the fuel supply of the entire
world
|
=
|
the
bacteria goes internationally viral.
|
In Los
Angeles
|
=
|
In
Southern California,
|
screenwriter
Dave Marshall
|
=
|
screenwriter
Dave Marshall
|
heard
this scenario from a retired US marine and government insider
|
=
|
learns
from a government insider friend
|
It
sounded as implausible as many of his scripts, but the reality is much more
frightening
|
=
|
that
his script on oil actually is happening.
|
that
the coming
|
=
|
that
is coming
|
apocalypse
that will alter the future of Earth-and humanity
|
=
|
the
world collapses into deadly local chaos; pandemic impact of the vanished oil
implosion on the unaware and less fortunate lacking.
|
Editorial
Comments
|
The
Mad Hattie’s Language
|
|
is
forced to make desperate choices to save her son and herself
|
=
|
has
the complication of her tweener son
|
When
Hector Lewis
|
=
|
her
abusive father
|
told
his daughter
|
=
|
informs
young Heloise Lewis
|
that
she had a nothing face
|
=
|
"You
have a nothing face."
|
it was
just another bit of tossed-off cruelty from a man
|
=
|
that
was her cruel dad
|
who
specialized in harsh words and harsher deeds
|
=
|
being
his usual nastiness
|
But
twenty years later,
|
=
|
Though
now
|
Heloise
considers it a blessing to be a person who knows how to avoid attention
|
=
|
she
thrives on that non visage
|
In the
comfortable suburb where she lives
|
=
|
as a
suburban Maryland
|
she's
just a mom
|
=
|
Heloise
has been a doting mom
|
who
somehow never misses a soccer game
|
=
|
who
always attends her middle school son Scott's games
|
lobbyist
with a good cause and a mediocre track record.
|
=
|
a
failure lobbyist
|
she's
the woman of your dreams—if you can afford her hourly fee
|
=
|
a
successful madam
|
For
more than a decade
|
=
|
For a
decade
|
a life
she was forced to build
|
=
|
her
construct
|
is
under siege.
|
=
|
collapses
|
another
so-called suburban madam has been found dead in her car
|
=
|
a
recently caught suburban madam died
|
a
suicide. Or is it?
|
=
|
mysteriously.
|
she
learns that her son's father
|
=
|
she
learns that Scott's biological dad Val Deluca
|
might
be released from prison
|
=
|
may
get out of prison
|
he
doesn't know he has a son
|
=
|
Val
knows nothing about an offspring
|
former
pimp
|
=
|
who
was her pimp
|
a life
sentence
|
=
|
on a
homicide life sentence
|
Heloise
betrayed him
|
=
|
who
betrayed him
|
he's
clearly beginning to suspect
|
=
|
as he
would suspect
|
Heloise
has to remake her life
|
=
|
Heloise
knows it is time to reinvent herself
|
Disappearing
will be the easy part.
|
=
|
she
leans towards flight over fight.
|
She's
done it before and she can do it again
|
=
|
she
has reinvented herself in the past
|
11 comments:
Wow, Embee. And that's only part 1?
I think that would be proof enough to get you kicked outta college... wow.
Ooooo-oh, yeah. There are so many of them that people would have fallen asleep or just passed the article by if I had tried to do them all in one. I will be adding one or two more comparisons to this entry and then doing Parts II and III, along with cross-referencing and cross-linking the three blogs, in November. You know, I'm just compiling the proof with the documentation . . . I'm just sayin'.
And, oh, welcome, Thomas! Nice to see you here.
I've been expecting someone else to join up. Do you, by chance, go by another handle on Amazon?
You're doing a great job. As an Amazon reviewer, I've found the whole Harriet topic fascinating. The fact that Amazon has barred some reviewers for far lesser crimes, yet she seems to have a cloak of invincibility.
The recent revelations about pay-per-reviews that some authors did (and that others made a tidy business of) has started to shed light on this fraud. I've always figured that "Harriet" is a group of writers, but the recent posts about her various sites and the selling of all the books starts to paint an ugly picture. After reading this post, I started to think that I could probably crank out 50 reviews a day using her rewording methodology. Heck, as a programmer, I could probably build an application that would do it for me. :)
And, no... I go by Thomas Duff on Amazon... https://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/A3R19YKNL641X3. I've had a few "discussions" with various people in the past who have said that it's not possible for someone to read as many books as I tend to go through in a year. This year has been much slower than normal, in that I'm learning a new technology at work, and I got a bit burned out on writing. So I think I will have "only" read around 80 to 90 books by the end of the year.
Keep up the great investigative work. I would like to think that at some point, the facade will crack and HK, Inc. will be exposed as the fraud she is.
Thomas,
Over here, on HKAS we're a little freer to talk about things. It's odd how the migration happened, but everyone here is committed to the effort. Everyone brings a lot to the table.
I know that we get a lot of criticism about going after a little old lady when there so many other important things. However,in the mind, Harriet is just like the Lance Armstrongs, Barry Bondses, Mark McGuires, and Robert Clemenses of the world. She is a well known figure whose endorsements are very meaningful, whose accomplishments have been achieved through fraud, and who has duped millions of people. Maybe she doesn't rise to the level of the sports figures, but it's still the same principle.
I hope you see the pattern of the last few months' blogs. We're committed to proof that supports what everyone has said for years. Everything. We're doing the investigative work (which has been lacking for the last 7 to 8 years) and documenting it. Even we are surprised at the amounts and kinds of things that are being uncovered.
What the above sports figures have respectively done to the sports world in general is exactly the same as what Harriet is doing. Her reviews and fakery have hurt all the honest and credible reviewers out there. I could go on forever.
Reviewing is hard work and good reviews should be rewarded. I have a great deal of respect for reviewers. I really think that if something is done about Harriet and Amazon's protecting her, it will have a strong positive effect on the reading and reviewing communities.
One time I read two books in a day; so, I know it can be done. But I was wiped out, exhausted, and honestly brain-fried for a couple of days after that. So, I could see someone reviewing 700-800 books per year, but not 2,500. Medical studies say it's physically impossible to do more than that, anyway.
Oh, well, I'm preaching to the choir.
I could probably read more books than I do per year (70-80), but I only have about 40-50 authors that I love. I'm trying to find more; it's tedious though. It's like having relationships. You have to go through a ton of bad ones, to find that gem.
Anyway, welcome aboard again. I look forward to a lot more discussions.
I'm so bummed. No editorial references to "lower head" or "blue blooded penis". Looks like H Poo's only original thoughts are the naughty ones. Nice work Embee. Maybe one day folks at Amazon will get their heads out of their collective arses and ban H from reviewing. Uh huh...and maybe some day I'll be 25 again with the body of a supermodel. Seriously, however, thanks for continuing to expose the lies.
Chick,
My pleasure!
I didn't get to say hi to you before. I'm glad you're back!
Pop in more often!
Thanks, Embee... I've actually been following this blog from day 1. I've been a lurker instead of a participant due to an exchange in the past.
Malleus (I think that was the one I interacted with... the memory goes so quickly...) and I got into either an email or comment exchange once about the number of books I read and reviewed each month. He claimed that it was physically impossible to read more than 10 books a month, and hence I was a fraud for reviewing and posting more. It quickly became obvious that there was nothing I could do to convince him otherwise, so I just declined to engage any further.
I read because I enjoy it, and I review because I enjoy writing. Outside of that, it really doesn't matter any more what ranking I have, what others think, etc. I used to be far more interested in climbing up the ranks (sorta like getting badges in FourSquare, I guess), but I just don't have the energy to get worked up about it any longer. If my number climbs, great. If people or companies offer me things to review and I think it might be interesting, sure. I turn down far more than I accept. But it's easier to avoid the "are you real" arguments by ignoring them than trying to engage. :)
Again, great job on the research, and here's to exposing the fraud that is Harriet.
(P.S. - Your analogy to sporting figures like Lance Armstrong is interesting. I hadn't thought of it in that way, but it fits.)
Waves hello to Chick and Thomas – welcome aboard!
I think the real issue most of us have with Harriet is the staggering enormity of her fraud. She has a lot in common with Lance Armstrong; who might have flown under the radar had he not considered himself coated in Teflon. He pushed the envelope too far; convinced that he was untouchable. Lance went for too many wins, became addicted to fame, wanted too much attention, and then put out way too many in your face denials that practically dared anyone to take him down. He stuck his middle finger in the air, waved it at the world and engineered his own downfall. He took the reputation of the USPS, The International Cycling Union, his entire sport and fellow athletes (guilty or not) down with him and may have damaged his self titled charity in the bargain.
The lesson for us here is that proof is what counts. Real, documented, in your face proof that can’t be ignored or dismissed. We have it in spades.
Plagiarized reviews, check:
http://harriet-rules.blogspot.com/2012/10/how-harriet-fudges-her-reviews-part-i.html
Fake identities, check and check:
http://harriet-rules.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-lies-that-bind-klausner.html
http://harriet-rules.blogspot.com/2012/09/a-tale-of-two-harrietsdueling-dual.html
Financial links to the publishing industry, check:
http://harriet-rules.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-ties-that-bind-klausner-financial.html
Turning a tidy profit on her ARC’s and other free books, check:
http://harriet-rules.blogspot.com/2012/10/she-works-hard-for-money.html
Eleven years, 28,140 reviews and Amazon’s turn a blind eye and pretend ignorance policy make Harriet and the world’s largest bookseller a Lance Armstrong sized target.
It’s taken some time and a lot of work but I’m starting to think our little band of rebels might just prevail despite the odds. We do, after all, have the truth and the proof on our side.
Post a Comment