Publisher takes out ad to blast review of novel

I think taking out an ad to refute a bad review is ridiculous and immature, and making reference to Chretien's illness as a reason even more so. Review are often biassed and frankly rubbish but descending to their level hardly helps. A letter to the editor correcting errors with restraint would be a proportional and reasonable response.

It's just a way of generating controversy and discussion. If this was any old review, they wouldn't have done this; it would have just been publicity for the bad review. But because it's Newman's, this is a cheap and effective publicity tool. And if it wasn't, we wouldn't be talking about it now.

"Valuable historical document..." That makes me laugh, but, on point to the discussion, I think it's cheap and silly. Peter C. Neuman isn't some hack who has no idea about politics and reviewed the book. I think that publisher looks silly.

Storyteller, I suspect the publisher is quite willing to look silly, because stirring up any kind of controversy over a book like this is good marketing. Well, effective marketing anyway, and in that world, there is no distinction between the two.

I suppose it would easier to be indignant if I liked Peter C. better.

Although I haven't read the book, I'd probably side with the reviewer simply because I'm no fan of Chretien's and it likely painted him in a very flattering light so it would have simply made me mad. That said, I doubt the publisher has done any harm to sales. They probably went up. People invariably want to know what all the hoopla is about.
Linnea

I'm going to do this for myself!!! Give myself a poor review then place an ad to refute it. More PR than PR!
In fact, I'll skip the bad review all together (saves time). Instead of a regular newspaper advertisement, I'll simply refute!

Judg said:

Storyteller, I suspect the publisher is quite willing to look silly, because stirring up any kind of controversy over a book like this is good marketing. Well, effective marketing anyway, and in that world, there is no distinction between the two.

I suppose it would easier to be indignant if I liked Peter C. better.

Click to expand...

Oh, I agree it is totally just a marketing stunt. I just don't like the tactic.

Can't say I much blame you, but I haven't got the energy to get worked up about it. Getting cynical - or lazy - in my old age.

I knew it was going to be Canadian when I clicked on it. Canadian arts drive me batty. Everybody thinks we should all run out and buy the latest fascinating thing...like it's a Goddamned constitutional necessity. Canadiana really cranks my phlegm. That being said...NOBODY ACTUALLY GIVES A RAT'S DIMPLED ASS ABOUT CHRETIEN in the first place. I'm surprised they found somebody to actually read it to make the review. I wonder how long this one is going to be shoved down our throats? Hmmmm? This ad is a great way to push it in our faces...though like everything else it just makes me less willing to find out more about it than previously. And trust me...to begin with I had 0% interest in it.

You just DON'T do that. It's a ploy. Even if the book got a bad review...drumming up this shitstorm would cause some curiosity seekers to run out and buy it...and they know that. Although, for the life of me I don't know who in their right minds would be interested.

Sorry...didn't mean it to come out that way. I wasn't implying you were an idiot. I just can't stand the way things are shoved down our throats here. I'm surprised they're not somehow making it mandatory for Canadians to buy that book. Our taxes will probably be paying to have several thousands of copies distributed to schools though...bad review or not.

I actually had the opportunity to work with Peter C. a thousand years ago when he was putting together the Hudson's Bay series.

The Man Is A God.

The amount of research he did for that series was mindboggling. And remember, this was at a time where there wasn't the Internet as we know it today. He literally slogged through the HBC archives page by page to put together the books.

Again, all smoke and mirrors. Unprofessional, imo as well as just another way to try and boost sales of the book. I put more faith in the review than the publisher at this point.

Storyteller5 said:

"Valuable historical document..." That makes me laugh

Click to expand...

That was a typo. It should have read, "Valuable Hysterical Document."

Anyway, I too think taking out that ad was a cheap stunt and should have been beneath the dignity of such a generally well respected publishing house.

It just feels SO good to know someone did what I have wanted to do.... Now I can feel satisfaction by association. Now back to writing...

(ahem... not a novel...)

It's a publicity stunt in response to a publicity stunt, IMNSHO. There are times when a review editor will deliberately pit a reviewer against a book, in hopes of generating fireworks. Newman has been, in the past, quite outspoken in his dislike for Chretien, a fact that the review editor who assigned him the book was likely all too aware. And the expected results panned out.

It's silly to respond to reviews (buy me a drink sometime and I'll tell you my ongoing story with a Canadian literary icon who didn't appreciate my piece on their latest...), but if the charges alluded to in the response (ie, Newman complaining that things weren't covered or explained in the book, when in fact they were) seem to indicate that the book wasn't actually read, well, that's a fairly serious issue in and of itself.

More blood sport in Canadian letters, a mere week after Stephen Marche's salvo in the Star...

Chretien was a hell of a lot better than what we have now. At least he was going to decriminalize marijuana . . . until the US told him not to.

It seems the only people who get a voice these days are anti-Chretiens who can't seem to acknowledge the good he did, which far outshines anything Harper could ever come up with. The guy who wrote that review is one of those axe-grinding morons. He didn't review the book, he just bitched about how much he hates Chretien.

Buying an ad like that is only going to make it worse, too. The people who listened to the idiot in the first place aren't going to be swayed by an advertisement.

illiterwrite said:

Hmm...BG?

Click to expand...

I told you the story, did I?

Had I been drinking? That's usually a pre-requisite...

illiterwrite said:

Was that the piece about Brooklyn vs. Toronto? That was interesting...

Click to expand...

That's the one. Great response thread on it over at BookNinja.

I think Chretien is pretty interesting and I'm not even Canadian. But that book looks rubbish. I'd wants something a bit more analytical.

illiterwrite said:

You didn't tell me. I didn't care much for the book, so I did a search for reviews when I finished it, to see what others thought.

Click to expand...

In that case, we must talk. There's a hell of a story that goes along with the review...

illiterwrite said:

I'll have to check out the comments about that article, thanks.

Click to expand...

The Post is doing a follow-up piece, for which I think they're interviewing me tomorrow. We'll see if I can get through it without biting through my tongue...